Phenomenological Research Methods in Psychology: Husserl and Heidegger

This essay examines the phenomenological research methods in psychology that emerged from the philosophies of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. It explores at least two methods derived from each philosopher, detailing their central tenets and the key theorists/psychologists involved in their development. The essay discusses Husserl's emphasis on unbiased description of consciousness through methods like observation and case studies, including the use of epochs to set aside prior assumptions. It contrasts this with Heidegger's focus on the question of being, leading to methods like interviews and journals, emphasizing reduction, construction, and destruction. The paper highlights the differences between Husserl's focus on secure knowledge and Heidegger's ontological approach, their methods and implications in psychology.

Running head: HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note:

1HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
Introduction:
The German philosopher Edmund Husserl developed phenomenology, a qualitative
research method. The concept as well as methods of modern science was broadened with the
contribution of Husserl and Heidegger and their studies of consciousness. The philosophy of
phenomenology helped influencing social sciences and other humanities during the 20th century
(Van Manen, 2016). Husserl and Heidegger presented methods with a different fashion of
assisting psychological researchers in understanding human behavior and human experience. The
paper aims to discuss the Phenomenological Research Methods (PRM) in psychology that
developed from the philosophies of Husserl and Heidegger who have developed these methods.
The paper will also focus on the existing contrast between them PRM that developed from the
phenomenological philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger.
Discussion:
The phenomenological philosophy of Husserl and his Phenomenological research
methods
According to Roberts (2013) the German philosopher Edmund Husserl is the founder of a
method for the description and analysis of consciousness widely known as phenomenology.
Husserl made significance contribution with most of his career to psychology. The two
phenomenological research methods that emerged from the theory presented by Husserl are
observational method and case study. According to Husserl, his phenomenology follows the
basic methodological principle that scientific knowledge starts with unbiased and fresh
description of the subject matter. He uses two procedures naming it epochs. The epoche of
natural science which demands the researchers from incorporating natural scientific theories,

2HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
hypothesis, explanation, conceptualization of the subject matter. It requires to gain access the
epoche has to set aside the prior scientific assumptions. The second epoche is a methodological
abstaining utilized in order to interrupt self’s naïve belief in the existence of the things that are
presented in the life-world (Gill, 2014). This specific process will help in focusing the lived
through meanings as well as the subjective performances that occurred by human situation. Since
it is entirely a methodological operation, the implication is not that things are presents in human
life is not necessarily have existence. The validity and existence of human situation are
“bracketed” to have a move to a reflection from naïve on the ways life-world present itself. The
second epoche helps in recollecting various experiences of own and empathically enter and
reflect on the world lived by others in order to understand the meanings of the world of the other
person who give the first-person perspective. Psychologists are welcome to investigate their own
original perspectives along with an intersubjective horizons of experiences. According to
Husserl, the focus is on experience as the phenomenological psychological reduction as it brings
down the investigating field to the psychology.
The phenomenological philosophy of Heidegger and his phenomenological research
methods
According to VanScoy and Evenstad (2015), although the beginning of the
phenomenology was by Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger was one of the most important being
his student. He, alike Husserl achieved worldwide fame during his twenties. However, his work
within a phenomenological perspective is different than Husserl. His philosophy revolved around
the question of being. Two of the phenomenological research method obtained from the
Heidegger’s phenomenological philosophy are interview and journal. His concern regarding
being lead him to the land of a priori. According to him, the term denotes a character through

3HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
which being proceeds being is the expression a priori. Due to the priori nature of question of
being, Heidegger developed his philosophy of phenomenology. The phenomenology is a method
that is used mostly to coherent and simplify the phenomenon of being. Heidegger reveals that
Husserl’s point of view is understood by him and even supports it to some extent when he says
that one has to access some being first and then the investigation has to be led in ontological
investment. A reduction is required in Heideggerian philosophy however to understand his sense
of phenomenological investigation, there more is needed. According to Heidegger, the reduction
from beings to being needs that humans should bring forth ourselves towards being itself. It is
necessary to bring in the view in a free projection. This step is called phenomenological
construction by Heidegger (Matua & Van Der Wal, 2015). The philosophy behind his
phenomenology is reduction, construction and destruction which gets meaning as per him.
According to him, more meaning lies with prohibition than positive sense. The language is the
most important in phenomenology that is used to articulate the objects. For Heidegger, any
displaying of an entity as it shows itself in itself is a phenomenon that phenomenologist want to
see. Dasein is the being that have understanding of the things that it means to be. The being part
is hidden mostly by the fact of Heidegger.
The contrast of the chief differences among the two phenomenological research methods:
Edmund Husserl was a mathematician, philosopher, epistemologist and a logician who
was interested in grounding theoretical and scientific knowledge. According to Abah, Abakpa
and Agbo-Egwu (2017), Heidegger was his student who touched upon scientific thoughts as well
as arts in his writings since he was interested in articulating issues related to fundamental
ontology. While for Heidegger the question of being dominated entirely his thinking, Husserl
was a logician interested in grounding secure knowledge. In the development of

4HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
phenomenological method, goal for Husserl was to try and establish secure philosophical and
scientific knowledge. His was aware that his point had to be consciousness for knowledge cannot
be achieved without a consciousness. According to Hanna, Wilkinson and Givens (2017),
Husserl’s method includes three steps, supposing the transcendental phenomenological attitude,
bringing an instance of the phenomenon that needs to be explored to consciousness state and
describing the essence that needs to be discovered. The first step of Husserl’s method is the
assumption of the transcendental phenomenological attitude. It is adopt an attitude of
consciousness which transcends the alignment toward the human being the human mode, the
consciousness. To be in the phonological attitude is to perform the epoches and the reduction.
Heidegger’s perspectives are certainly different. His work in the phenomenological perspectives
are different from the Husserl’s perspective. His philosophy revolved around the question of
being. The term indicates a character through which being precedes beings is the priory’s
expression. Being a priori, being is much easier than beings. Heidegger’s philosophical method
consisted three steps, reduction, construction and destruction.
Among the two philosophies, when compared, there seems some ambiguities in the way
Heidegger presents his method of phenomenology. Where Heidegger resolve the tension
between the free projection that was required in Dasein as well as the accuracy required for
depicting that is exhibited showing itself in itself. Heideggerian perspective in psychology
certainly shows signs that argue against objectivism, rationalism, universalism and many more, it
does not deny the utilization of knowledge. Husserl’s perspective present more practical
knowledge that can be related with the real life. It is inevitable since Husserl’s thinking was
dominated by logic and reasons where Heidegger’s thinking revolved around the question of
being.

5HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
Conclusion:
Husserl and Heidegger are two philosophers who have major contribution in the field of
research. While Husserl invented the phenomenology method of research, Heidegger have
helped by contributing his different perspective to it. it is a qualitative research method which
was lately adapted by many more theorist in various fields. It is not compulsory for the
researchers to have philosophical training in order select phenomenology as a research method to
become phenomenological. However, it is one of the helpful research method in the psychology
and every individual need to be aware of its benefit.

6HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER
References:
Abah, J., Abakpa, B. O., & Agbo-Egwu, A. O. (2017). Emphasizing phenomenology as a
research paradigm for interpreting growth and development in mathematics
education. ABACUS, 42(1), 391-405.
Gill, M. J. (2014). The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational
research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 118-137.
Hanna, F. J., Wilkinson, B. D., & Givens, J. (2017). Recovering the Original Phenomenological
Research Method: An Exploration of Husserl, Yoga, Buddhism, and New Frontiers in
Humanistic Counseling. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 56(2), 144-162.
Matua, G. A., & Van Der Wal, D. M. (2015). Differentiating between descriptive and
interpretive phenomenological research approaches. Nurse researcher, 22(6).
Roberts, T. (2013). Understanding the research methodology of interpretative phenomenological
analysis. British Journal of Midwifery, 21(3), 215-218.
Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. Routledge.
VanScoy, A., & Evenstad, S. B. (2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis for LIS
research. Journal of Documentation, 71(2), 338-357.