Combining phenomenology and discursive psychology

In the early phases of developing this study, I wondered how I could design a study that explored how adolescents and music therapists experience and talk about their relationships. I delved into the literature about different methods and theories on phenomenological and discourse analytical research, but did not find any single approach that focused equally on experience and discourse. Consequently, I decided to use two methods: one from phenomenology and one from discourse analysis. However, this raised new questions regarding the consequences of combining approaches from different fields with different traditions and philosophical

32 Relativism, as seen by Edwards, Ashmore and Potter, is a ‘meta-level epistemology’, a ‘non-position’, a ‘cri-tique’ and ‘scepticism’. It is not opposed to realism, but rather a critique of both realist and relativist practices alike (Edwards et al., 1995).

foundations. In this section, I review some of the theorists and methodologists who I drew on for inspiration when developing the dual-focused design of this study, before describing my approach to combining phenomenological and discourse analytical approaches.

4.3.1 Pluralism as using multiple methods

While mixed methods researchers have combined quantitative and qualitative methods for decades (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Yardley & Bishop, 2017), combining two or more qualitative methods in one study is still relatively uncommon. However, researchers like Denzin and Lincoln (2005), Lewis and Kelemen (2002), and Frost and Nolas (2011) argue for exploring the possibilities and advantages of including different interpretative traditions and methods:

People’s experiences are multidimensional. The worlds that we inhabit are much more multiontological than a single theory and method allow us to appreciate. Our actions, feelings, and thoughts intersect with issues of power, identity, meaning- making practices and interpretation, and practical, material challenges, all at the same time. As such, a framework of ontological and epistemological multiplicity and multidimensionality would be both appropriate and helpful in understanding such a reality. (Frost & Nolas, 2011, p. 116)

Frost and Nolas suggest a pluralistic methodological and theoretical framework, in which different methods and theories are used to illuminate the multi-layered complexity of pheno-mena.34 As an illustration of their pluralistic approach, they show how an interview transcript is interpreted differently by researchers using grounded theory, interpretative phenomenological analysis, Foucauldian discourse analysis and narrative analysis (Frost et al., 2011; Frost et al., 2010). The four interpretations emphasize different aspects of the transcript, presenting understandings of the data from multiple perspectives. In their studies, the four interpretations are given equal status, and Frost and Nolas make no attempt at synthesizing or integrating the analyses into a single theory.

While there are clear benefits to studying complex phenomena through different methods, critics have questioned the epistemological understanding of researchers following the pluralistic approach. As shown in the extract above, Frost and Nolas argue that reality is

34 The term pluralistic research is used differently in various contexts. In this thesis, the term describes the use of two or more qualitative methods in one study, as in the texts of Frost and Nolas (2011; Frost et al., 2010). Other theorists use the term to describe research involving multiple researchers (e.g. Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018), or any combination of research methods – both qualitative and quantitative (e.g. Barker & Pistrang, 2005; Davis, 2009;

Midgley, Nicholson & Brennan, 2017).

multi-ontological: no single theory can fully detail all aspects of our worlds. Even though the opponents of the approach may agree to this claim, they still argue that researchers should define their study in line with a single epistemological and ontological tradition. They argue that to claim that one does not follow any single paradigm, but neutrally chooses and applies different paradigms to different situations, is to build on the idea of an objective researcher, who stands free from any interpretative tradition (e.g. Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018; Lewis &

Kelemen, 2002; Lincoln, 2009).

4.3.2 Pluralism as ‘thinking with theory’

A more theoretically oriented approach to pluralistic research can be found in the writings of Alvesson and Skjöldberg (2018). They suggest drawing on different theoretical perspectives when interpreting a set of data, and argue for moving away from technical, methodological analytical processes:

Good qualitative research is not a technical project; it is an intellectual one. In our view, reflection addressing a multitude of levels of domains, not the following of set procedures, characterizes the scientific in social science (2018, p. 396).

Jackson and Mazzei (2012, 2013) present a similar approach, in which the researcher ‘plugs into’ different theoretical perspectives when viewing the data. Akin to Alvesson and Skjöldberg, they argue for seeing interpretation as an interplay between the empirical material and the researcher’s theoretical understanding. They also suggest that the goal of an analysis should be to present perspectives that are insightful and provoking, and that spark wonder in the reader. Here, we may see a similarity to van Manen and his insight cultivators. As mentioned earlier (see 4.1.3), van Manen suggests that phenomenological researchers consult the writings of earlier phenomenologists and use their texts to explore, discuss and re-evaluate the data.

He illustrates this idea by writing about bodily experience from the perspectives of Sartre, Nancy, Merleau-Ponty, Rümke, Kouwer, van den Berg and Lévinas (van Manen, 2014). This approach to research could be labelled theoretically pluralistic, as it emphasizes a plurality of viewpoints inspired by theory rather than a single, unified understanding of bodily experience.

I find that van Manen, Jackson and Mazzei, and Alvesson and Skjöldberg, while writing from different epistemological positions, present a similar understanding of research as a dialogue between the researcher, the researched and theory. They differ from Frost and Nolas by placing themselves in certain epistemological traditions, showing that their thinking, while pluralistic and flexible, still rises from specific epistemological and ontological positions.

4.3.3 Defining my pluralistic approach

For my study, I combine phenomenology and discourse analysis, two traditions which differ greatly in their philosophical understandings of ontology and epistemology. Early on, I consid-ered following Frost and Nolas’ pluralistic approach, but found that I agreed with the criticism raised towards the concept of multi-ontology and the objective researcher. This criticism can be seen in line with the fact that my thesis, while drawing on discourse analytical perspectives, is still phenomenological in its foundation. However, while I commit to phenomenological understandings of epistemology and ontology, this does not imply that discourse-oriented studies are considered ‘bad’ science. Both Zahavi and van Manen acknowledge the potential of language-oriented research, and van Manen draws on the poststructuralist theories of Foucault and Derrida in his discussions of research as writing (van Manen, 2014; Zahavi, 2007). Thus, using discursive psychology as a method to answer discourse-oriented questions is not necessarily problematic when following van Manen and Zahavi’s phenomenological approaches, as long as the researcher does not mix the traditions together (see van Manen’s discussions with Smith (Smith, 2018; van Manen, 2017a, 2018)).

Some discursive psychologists may be sceptical of phenomenological research. For instance, discursive psychologists like Potter and Edwards might argue that the phenomenological goal of studying pre-reflective experiences is futile, as our basic sense of reality is discursively constituted (Edwards et al., 1995). Still, as discussed in the previous subsection, Wetherell’s approach seems more aligned with Haraway’s stance on epistemology, seeing knowledge as situated and partial. Following this perspective, phenomenology and discourse analysis are different ways of viewing the world, and both may be helpful for revealing new knowledge about complex phenomena like relationships.

To summarize, the study is phenomenological in its philosophical foundation, with Merleau-Ponty being the main inspiration for my understanding of phenomenology. As I draw on other phenomenologists like Sartre, Lévinas and Derrida in my understanding of relationships, I also draw on Wetherell’s critical discursive psychology in my understanding of discourse, as I find her theory more suitable for analysing how the informants talk about their relation-ships than Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology. However, in order to respect the differences between phenomenology and discursive psychology, the discourse-oriented thematic analysis is treated as its own, separate exploration of the data. While this separation between the two explorations does not necessarily solve the problem of having conflicting epistemological viewpoints being presented in a single study, I find that it is a fitting design for a study that aims at understanding both how relationships are experienced on a phenomenological level and talked about on a discourse-oriented level.