Hermeneutics has lent its name from Hermes, notorious trickster and messenger of the Greek Gods. Gonzales (2015) points to the use of the word’s origins in Plato and Aristotle and claims that an original understanding of the word would be the act or art of expressing and communicating a message verbally and in a clear manner. Since the word gained its renaissance in a newer age it has been in the form of being a theory of interpretation. The hermeneutic tradition is mostly applied in the interpretation of texts, mainly within theology, law and prose. It is, however, not a uniform methodology and the discourse on how to interpret a text ‘correctly’ or in a
‘scientifically objective’ manner has run strong over the years (Grondin, 1994). In his magnum opus, ‘Truth and Method’, German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (2013) refined the hermeneutical thought, putting an emphasis on the interpreter rather than on the original authors’ intentions or the text to interpret. Starting by referring to the act of judgement of aesthetics, he illustrates how taste and judgment will always rely on the pre-understanding of the one who is judging. Likewise, a text has no right or wrong interpretation; rather, the interpretation relies on the pre-understanding of the reader. This pre-pre-understanding is also in constant change as the person in question continuously gains new experiences, leading to new perspectives
and new understanding. Gadamer draws this principle further, involving interpretation of the world as such. Instead of dismissing the interpreters’ pre-understanding and pre-judgment of a phenomenon as subjective distractions, he claims that the pre-understanding is a prerequisite for experience and understanding as such. As the interpretor gains new experiences and knowledge, the interpretations of similar experiences or even of a singular text will always change by repetition – as the pre-understanding is in constant change.
Gadamer does not present a method of interpretation, rather he claims to describe what happens in the act of interpretation, when new understanding is allowed to occur. Knowledge, he claims, does not occur as a result of rigid methodology, but as a result of a fusion of horizons between the interpreter and the object of
interpretation. He argues that it is not the methods as such that lead to new discoveries, but the ability to be prepared and open for what can be found in the empirical data. For this, the various methods may serve as excellent tools, given an acknowledgement of their essential hermeneutic nature; all science and gaining of knowledge relies on subjective judgments and interpretations, otherwise it could not be thought of, planned, carried out, or reported. Although Gadamer illustrates that there can be no strict method of hermeneutics, he does not invite arbitrary
interpretations based solely on the interpreters’ pre-understanding. Rather, he invites the interpretor to open up his horizon of understanding for new perspectives and allow new horizons of understanding to come forth. As a hermeneutical researcher, the task is then to describe this process, and the new horizon one has explored, as accurately as possible. Thus, allowing the critical reader to judge whether the interpretive process holds water – based on their pre-understanding of what characterizes an adequate interpretation.
A last point from Gadamer’s thinking is an emphasis on the relation between understanding and application. That is, he explains the hermeneutic process as an experience that leaves a trace on the person making this experience. If a new horizon of understanding truly has been brought forth, it implicates that one’s view of the world in some way has been changed. In turn, if one’s view of the world changes, it
should lead to a change in the way one relates to the world, and thus a change in one’s attitudes and actions when acting in the world. Hence, cognitive and normative understanding cannot be distinct. The answer to the above question on how to
‘correctly’ interpret a text, a set of data, or the world as such, in a Gadamerian way, will neither be by asking for an objective truth behind what we observe nor
attempting to understand what we observe in light of all possible contexts. Rather, it means to open oneself up for a dialogue with the empirical data, asking what they can add to one’s own understanding of the world, then, to ask how this new knowledge can or should affect the way one understands the world and how this experience of understanding should affect the way one relates to the world in terms of attitudes and actions.
These premises match the pragmatic aim of both studies in this thesis, which is to expand the horizon of understanding and explore how this new horizon may be applied into improved clinical practice and to then, again, explore how this application works and how it affects those involved, so that the horizon of understanding may be further expanded, in a spiraling hermeneutical movement.
Thus, this opens up for further refined application when conducting the LIVE-study on a larger scale.
2.1.1 On my pre-understanding in this project
My own pre-understanding founds on clinical experience as a nurse and leading nurse within the homecare services. I also worked as an assistant in dementia wards in nursing homes before entering nursing studies. While working as a nurse I took further training in health administration and in municipal healthcare. I then earned a master’s degree in nursing science where I wrote my master thesis about the political development of the homecare services in Norway, using a structuralist approach. In this PhD project, my supervisors are a medical doctor, a geriatric nurse, and a psychiatric nurse. They have considerable clinical experience from palliative, psychogeriatric and psychiatric care from hospitals, nursing homes and homecare. In research, they have experience ranging from large scale randomized controlled trials to qualitative studies in the hermeneutic tradition. Empirically, their academic
interests are primarily focused on dementia, with research ranging from pain assessment and treatment, through psychosocial interventions, to dignity
preservation. This variety in clinical and academical experience revolving around issues related to living with dementia brought forth fruitful dialogues concerning our pre-understandings, as well as in our later interpretation of the empirical data in both studies.
Based on previous research on the themes of inquiry, my clinical experience, and the clinical and scientific experience of my supervisors, we did not, as a research team expect to find uniform answers to the research questions in study one. Rather, we expected to find it challenging to draw general conclusions. When reflecting on this before starting the data collection process, we found this openness to variety to correspond well to the hermeneutical approach (Gadamer, 2013). On the other hand, it made us aware that such a view might hinder us from identifying and observing substantial, general features within the individual variety. We were also curious about what the expected variety might consist of and what the basis for the study
participants perceptions might be. Especially, in dialogue with study participants who had relatively recently moved to smaller apartments, we were curious about how they would describe the meaning of their present home.
We also reflected on the possibility that although open for variance between individuals, our former experience might lead us to categorize the individuals, as such, to fit into predetermined categories. Especially on questions about experiences with and attitudes towards care and support, we were aware that our former
experience might lead us to draw premature conclusions upon these matters.
Underway in the process, we therefore took time to read transcripts of completed interviews and reflect upon this matter within the research team.
For study two, we, as a research team had designed and organised the intervention and we were naturally inclined to hope for its success. Still, we had theoretical knowledge on the complexity of such interventions as well as of the importance of identifying crucial factors to consider when implementing the LIVE study in a large
scale. In the interview settings I as an interviewer therefore paid careful attention to follow up critical remarks on aspects of the intervention, regarding this as valuable information. In the interpretive phase, we paid caution to avoid using the data material to evaluate the intervention in terms of whether it was successful, that is whether it had effect, or not. Rather, we focused on using the data material to answer the research questions, searching for success factors, potential weaknesses and what effect the intervention had for the individual participating dyads.