Embracing the Dance of Hermeneutic Phenomenological Inquiry: The Story of an Evolving Dialogue between Research and Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This autobiographical account examines the methodological complexities of conducting hermeneutic phenomenological research with integrity. Drawing on five years of doctoral research exploring how Singaporean millennials navigate voice within collective society, the article traces the challenges of maintaining methodological rigor while remaining open to emergent understanding. The narrative addresses a central tension in hermeneutic phenomenology: how clarity and direction emerge not through predetermined frameworks but through sustained attention to lived experience, dialogue, and embodied knowing. The article illustrates how hermeneutic phenomenological as a research method requires researchers to dwell in uncertainty and follow the doubts, shifts, and small awakenings that arise in the research process. Written as a companion for early-career researchers and doctoral students developing their methodological orientation, this article demonstrates that rigor in hermeneutic phenomenology comes not from methodological certainty but from fidelity to the interpretive process itself and staying close to what is lived and emerging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".