Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches

1. Introduction

Phenomenology is a qualitative research strategy concerned with exploring and understanding lived experiences in depth. It seeks to describe phenomena as they are perceived by individuals, uncovering the meanings that people attach to their life events and situations (Lopez & Willis, 2004). In contrast to approaches that aim to generate abstract theory or measure predefined variables, phenomenology focuses on the subjective human experience as its primary object of study (Käufer & Chemero, 2021). Phenomenological research offers rich, first-hand accounts of what a given experience is like by attentively examining how events seem in consciousness, therefore illuminating participants’ “lifeworld”, or world of lived experience (Lopez & Willis, 2004).

Two major traditions of phenomenology have developed from different philosophical foundations: descriptive (or transcendental) phenomenology and interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenology (Sloan & Bowe, 2014). Descriptive phenomenology, grounded in the work of Husserl (1970), aims to reveal the essential structures of experience through careful description, suspending the researcher’s preconceptions as much as possible (Sloan & Bowe, 2014). Interpretive phenomenology, influenced by Martin Heidegger and others, acknowledges that understanding is always interpretative, shaped by context and the researcher’s own insight, and it seeks to unveil hidden meanings within experience (Lopez & Willis, 2004). Though their philosophical foundations and methodological approaches are different, both approaches are dedicated to researching lived experience.

This study examines each, outlining their historical-philosophical foundations and methodological implications, and appraising their suitability for research on lived experiences. Key considerations such as bracketing versus hermeneutic interpretation, double hermeneutics, researcher positionality, and participant selection are discussed. Brief comparisons to other qualitative strategies (grounded theory, Narrative and ethnography) are included to highlight the distinctiveness and appropriateness of phenomenology for certain research questions. Classical sources and contemporary studies are integrated to provide a comprehensive and critical overview of the phenomenological research strategy.

2. Descriptive phenomenology: Husserlian foundations and methodology

Descriptive phenomenology originated with the German philosopher Edmund Husserl, whose ideas laid the groundwork for using phenomenology as a scientific research method (Farber, 2017). Husserl argued that experience as perceived by consciousness has intrinsic value and should be studied rigorously and without presuppositions (Husserl & Moran, 2012). This marked a departure from positivist science by asserting that subjective phenomena – how things appear to individuals – can yield valid knowledge about reality. The oft-quoted maxim of Husserl, “zu den Sachen selbst” (“to the things themselves”), encapsulates the descriptive phenomenological aim of returning to the lived experience of a phenomenon as directly as possible, uncontaminated by theoretical judgments.

A cornerstone of Husserl’s approach is the practice of epoché or “bracketing”, a methodological suspension of the researcher’s pre-existing beliefs and assumptions about the phenomenon (Butler, 2016). Bracketing one’s prejudices helps the researcher to observe the phenomenon “with fresh eyes,” as it presents itself to the participants’ consciousness. Moustakas (1994), who popularised Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology in applied research, describes epoché as setting aside “prejudgments, biases and preconceived ideas about things” so that the researcher can focus on the participants’ descriptions instead of on their own interpretations. The goal is to achieve what Husserl called transcendental subjectivity, wherein the influence of the researcher’s standpoint is minimised during data collection and analysis (Moustakas, 1994). Through this disciplined openness, the descriptive phenomenologist attempts to grasp the phenomenon as experienced by participants, in its essential form.

Husserl believed that if one could sufficiently bracket out extraneous factors and examine experiences in their pure form, one could identify the universal essences or invariant structures of those experiences (Husserl, 1999). In other words, there are core features of any given phenomenon (be it grief, joy, or a specific life event) that are common to all who experience it (Spinelli, 2005). The task of the researcher is to use participants’ detailed descriptions to distil these essential qualities. This process is often aided by phenomenological reduction and imaginative variation, techniques introduced by Husserl and elaborated by later methodologists.

In reduction, the researcher repeatedly reflects on the data, stripping away incidental details to reveal the “whatness” (the essence) of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Imaginative variation involves varying aspects of the experience imaginatively to test what is essential (Husserl & Moran, 2012). As Giorgi explains, if removing a certain feature would cause the phenomenon to “collapse,” then that feature is essential to the phenomenon (Giorgi, 1997). Applying creative variation to participants’ stories helps the researcher to distinguish between necessary structures and accidental ones, therefore obtaining a structural description of the core of the phenomenon (Giorgi, 1997).

Several researchers have developed practical methods for descriptive phenomenology, drawing on Husserl’s ideas. Giorgi (2009) formalised a Husserlian approach in psychology, outlining systematic steps for transforming raw interview data into invariant themes and general descriptions. Giorgi’s method emphasises staying within the descriptive realm – describing the meaning of an experience without venturing into causal explanations or abstract interpretations, thus remaining faithful to Husserl’s vision of a rigorous “science of consciousness.” Similarly, Moustakas (1994) provided accessible guidelines for researchers, including the processes of epoché, phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesising meanings.

Moustakas (1994) underscored that descriptive phenomenological research is particularly suited to understanding the common or shared experiences of several individuals regarding a phenomenon. Data are often collected via in-depth interviews (sometimes multiple interviews per person) focusing on participants’ firsthand accounts. Researchers using this approach typically recruit a purposive sample of individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon under investigation, and who can articulate their thoughts and feelings about it.

Polkinghorne (1989) recommends interviewing perhaps 5 to 25 such participants for a phenomenological study, with the exact number guided by the principle of reaching data saturation – the point at which no new themes emerge from additional interviews. Descriptive phenomenology culminates in a comprehensive composite account of the essence of the phenomenon as perceived by the group, which is frequently referred to as the “essential structure” or “eidetic description” of the experience (Begun, 2019). Importantly, while descriptive phenomenology seeks a generalised essence, it does not claim a single absolute truth; even Husserlian scholars acknowledge that any resulting description is shaped by the researcher’s perspective and context. As Moustakas (1994) observed, the identified essences are never truly exhausted – they simply represent one researcher’s interpretative portrait of the phenomenon at a particular time and place.

3. Interpretive Phenomenology: Heideggerian Foundations and Methodology

The interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenological tradition grew out of a critique and extension of Husserl’s ideas, most prominently by Martin Heidegger, Husserl’s student. Whereas Husserl focused on describing the contents of consciousness, Heidegger shifted attention to the interpretation of existence, asking what it means to be a person in the world. Heidegger’s phenomenology is frequently referred to as hermeneutic phenomenology, indicating its emphasis on interpretation (hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation).

In contrast to Husserl’s more abstract transcendental approach, Heidegger asserted that individuals are always already embedded in a world of relationships, culture, and history. He introduced the concept of Dasein (“being-there”) to denote the situated nature of human being, emphasising that we cannot separate ourselves from the world we live in. Thus, for Heidegger, being-in-the-world is the fundamental unit of analysis (Dreyfus, 1990). A person’s experiences are inextricably linked to their context – their social environment, personal background, and historical moment (Carr, 2014). Phenomenology, in Heidegger’s view, should explore this inseparable relationship between person and world, rather than bracketing it out.

Heidegger’s approach introduced hermeneutics (the art and science of interpretation) into phenomenology. The term hermeneutics harkens back to the Greek messenger god Hermes, implying a process of conveying and clarifying meanings that might initially be hidden (Garagalza, 2013). In research terms, hermeneutic phenomenology goes beyond describing common features of an experience; it seeks to interpret the meanings embedded in those experiences, especially meanings that participants themselves may not be immediately aware of (Laverty, 2003). The researcher actively engages in making sense of the data, often reading between the lines of participants’ narratives to understand the significance of the experience in the participants’ broader life context. As one author explains, hermeneutic inquiry focuses on “what humans experience rather than what they consciously know,” looking for insights that may be tacit or latent in the descriptions people give (Laverty, 2003).

Philosophical assumptions distinguish interpretive phenomenology from the Husserlian model. Prior knowledge and preconceptions are not seen as “biases” to be eliminated but as inevitable and even valuable influences that can enrich the inquiry (Spinelli, 2005). Heidegger argued that one cannot completely rid oneself of the background understandings that inform one’s outlook (Rorty, 1991). In fact, our interest in a research topic arises precisely because of our existing knowledge and curiosity. Rather than deny this, hermeneutic researchers acknowledge their starting perspectives (sometimes called “fore-structures” or “fore-understandings”) and work with them reflexively (Smith, 2007). For example, having familiarity with relevant literature or personal experience of the phenomenon can guide researchers to ask insightful questions and notice meaningful patterns in the data (Käufer & Chemero, 2021). Hermeneutic phenomenologists critique the strict Husserlian bracketing as neither possible nor desirable in full (Farber, 2017). Instead of trying to eliminate their influence, researchers using this approach strive to be transparent about their assumptions and to let those assumptions enter into a productive dialogue with participants’ accounts (Husserl & Moran, 2012). This stance does not mean anything goes; rather, interpretations must still be grounded in and supported by the data. However, it acknowledges the co-constitutionality of meaning: the idea that research findings are co-created by the interaction of participant and researcher (Van Manen, 2023). As Koch (1995) notes, the meanings that emerge in an interpretive study are a blend of the participants’ meanings and the researcher’s interpretive insights, fused in the analytic process. Gadamer (1977), a later hermeneutic philosopher, metaphorically described this as the “fusion of horizons”, the coming together of the participant’s horizon of meaning and the researcher’s horizon of understanding to produce new, shared insights.

Context is integral to interpretive phenomenological analysis. Where Husserl sought essence independent of context in line with his notion of “radical autonomy” of consciousness, Heidegger introduced the notion of situated freedom (Elveton, 2020). This concept, developed by existential phenomenologists like Merleau-Ponty and Sartre as well, means that people are free to make choices but always within concrete circumstances that shape and limit those choices (Kruks, 2017). Thus, an experience cannot be fully understood without reference to the situation in which it occurs – social, cultural, historical, and physical.

Interpretive phenomenological research, therefore, strives to situate findings, explaining not just what was experienced but how and why it was experienced in a certain way given the participant’s lifeworld (Lopez & Willis, 2004). For example, if one were studying the experience of being a working mother, a descriptive phenomenologist might ask generally, “What is it like to be a working mother?” and aim to isolate common themes. Conversely, an interpretive phenomenologist could investigate the day-to-day experiences of being a working mother by asking the participant to describe a typical day, interactions with family and colleagues, feelings about time pressure, cultural expectations, physical experiences (fatigue), and so forth. In doing so, the interpretive researcher situates the experience within its relational and societal context, recognising that these contexts imbue the experience with meaning (Eatough & Smith, 2017).

Interpretive phenomenology often employs data collection methods similar to the descriptive approach (such as in-depth interviews and personal narratives) but with a different analytic emphasis. Instead of bracketing out theoretical constructs, the researcher may use existing theoretical frameworks and concepts as sensibilities to inform the inquiry, so long as these do not stifle the emergence of participants’ own meanings (Tufford & Newman, 2012). For instance, a researcher might be guided by a theory of coping or identity while interpreting interviews about living with a chronic illness, using that theory to deepen questions and pursue certain patterns in the data. Importantly, theory in hermeneutic phenomenology is used as a tool for interpretation, not as a set of propositions to be tested (Eatough & Smith, 2017). The researcher remains open to unexpected insights and is prepared to revise or abandon theoretical notions that do not resonate with participants’ accounts.

A hallmark of interpretive phenomenological analysis is engagement in the hermeneutic circle, a process of iterative, circular examination of data where the meaning of the whole text is understood by reference to its parts, and the meaning of parts is understood in context of the whole (Eatough & Smith, 2017). The analyst moves back and forth between reading individual excerpts in fine detail and considering the overall narrative, each time arriving at a fuller, more nuanced understanding. Throughout this process, the researcher employs both an empathic hermeneutic (trying to understand the participant’s perspective as if looking with their eyes) and a critical hermeneutic (questioning the text, reading between the lines for deeper implications) (Allan & Eatough, 2016). Ricoeur (1981) described these as the “hermeneutics of empathy” versus the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” and in interpretive phenomenology, both may be used complementarily. The researcher first seeks to faithfully represent the participant’s account and then also interprets it at a second level, possibly revealing meanings the participant did not explicitly articulate. This two-layer sense-making leads to what is known as the double hermeneutic where the researcher is trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of what is happening to them (Newman, 1990). In other words, the participant has already interpreted their own experience to tell their story, and then the researcher interprets the participant’s interpretation. This concept, highlighted by Smith and colleagues in the context of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), underscores the interpretive depth of hermeneutic phenomenology (Smith & Osborn, 2015). The researcher’s insight is not seen as a distortion of the data but as an inevitable and valuable part of the knowledge production, provided that the researcher’s interpretive moves are well-grounded in the data and clearly documented (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997; Geanellos, 2000).

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), developed by Jonathan Smith and colleagues, is one influential methodological approach within the interpretive phenomenological tradition. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis is widely used in psychology and allied fields for studying how people make sense of significant life experiences. It exemplifies the Heideggerian principles by insisting on the double hermeneutic and the idiographic focus (attention to particular cases) (Emery & Anderman, 2020). In an IPA study, researchers typically work with a small, fairly homogeneous sample and analyse each participant’s interview in depth before looking across cases for patterns (Smith, 2011; Engward & Goldspink, 2020). This idiographic commitment ensures that unique distinctions of each individual’s experience are preserved, rather than lost in premature generalisation.

Only after thorough within-case analysis does the researcher cautiously develop more general themes that reflect commonalities across participants, and even then, nuance and divergence are often discussed. Smith et al. (2009) advocate sample sizes as small as 3 to 10 for IPA studies (even single-case studies are valued) so that each case can be given detailed attention. The analytic process is iterative and inductive, involving close line-by-line coding, identification of emerging themes, and the crafting of a narrative that interweaves participants’ verbatim excerpts with the researcher’s interpretative commentary. The resulting account is not merely a description of what was said, but an interpretation of what the experience means for the participant, often linking personal experiences to broader contexts or theoretical ideas (Smith, 2011).

Interpretive phenomenology is well suited for research questions that ask “How do people interpret and find meaning in this experience?” or “What is the experience of being [something] in [context]?”. Rather than seeking one definitive essence, it embraces the multiplicity of meanings and the role of the researcher in uncovering them. Smith (2011) explains that the knowledge produced is recognised as context-bound and partial, yet deeply insightful. As Lopez and Willis (2004) note, in interpretive phenomenology, there is no single truth or ultimate interpretation; instead, the aim is to offer a plausible, coherent, and illuminating account of the phenomenon that resonates with participants’ realities and enlightens readers.

Quality criteria for such research hinge on the credibility and richness of the interpretation, the transparency of the researcher’s reflexivity, and the extent to which the findings are grounded in participants’ lived experiences. The interpretive approach greatly expands the scope of phenomenological inquiry to include social and cultural dimensions and to generate implications not just for understanding experience per se, but for informing practice, policy, or further theory. It aligns well with contemporary emphases on reflexivity and the co-construction of knowledge in qualitative research.

4. Key methodological considerations in phenomenological research

5. Hermeneutic interpretation and double hermeneutics

Interpretation is at the centre of phenomenology, but the degree and nature of interpretation differ by approach (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015). In descriptive phenomenology, interpretation is kept minimal and close to the data – the researcher aims to describe what was said in a coherent, structured form, rather than to explain why or delve into hidden meanings. There is an interpretive element even in descriptive phenomenology (since selecting and summarising essential themes involves judgment), but researchers bracket theoretical explanations and stick to participants’ perspectives as much as possible (De Vos et al., 2005). The outcome might be thematic statements or else distilled descriptions phrased in everyday language, capturing the core common experiences of participants.

In interpretive phenomenology, analysis is explicitly hermeneutic, meaning the researcher actively interprets the data to uncover meanings that may not be immediately obvious (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015). This involves reading between the lines and considering the influence of context, as described earlier. A key methodological tool is the hermeneutic circle where the researcher iteratively moves between parts of the text and the whole context to enrich their understanding (Wojnar & Swanson, 2007). Through this cyclical process, initial interpretations are revised and deepened. For example, a single sentence in an interview might take on new significance when related to a later passage or when viewed against the participant’s cultural background (Smith & Shinebourne, 2012). In this case the researcher may go back to that sentence multiple times to glean new insights in light of emerging understanding of the whole interview.

The concept of double hermeneutic, introduced in the context of IPA, encapsulates the interpretive layering: first the participant interprets their own experience by telling it (they select what to share, frame it in their own words, thus already engaging in sense-making), and then the researcher interprets the participant’s account (McCance & Mcilfatrick, 2008). Smith and Osborn famously put it as “the participant is trying to make sense of their world; the researcher is trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of their world.” (Smith & Osborn, 2003: 51). The double hermeneutic stance reminds the researcher to consider how participants understand and portray their experiences, and to be aware of their role in constructing an analytic narrative from those portrayals. Double hermeneutic also justifies a more active analytical stance in which the researcher may, for instance, infer a participant’s underlying emotion, but will then support that inference with quotes and discuss how they reached that conclusion (Howard, 1982). In addition, double hermeneutic offers researchers’ great insight by drawing on their conceptual skills, but it also requires caution to avoid unfounded speculation (Mills et al., 2010). Hermeneutic interpretation in phenomenology is what enables the research to speak to broader meanings and implications.

6. Researcher reflexivity and positionality

The position of the researcher and their relationship to the data is a crucial methodological consideration because phenomenology deals intensely with subjective experiences (Howell, 2012). Reflexivity refers to the researcher’s ongoing critical reflection on how their own background, assumptions, and behaviour may influence the research process. In phenomenology, reflexivity is closely tied to the ideas of bracketing and hermeneutics discussed above (Dörfler & Stierand, 2021). A researcher’s demographic characteristics, professional training, personal experience with the phenomenon, and even emotional responses during interviews can shape the data collection and analysis. Rather than treating this influence as error variance to eliminate, qualitative methodology encourages researchers to acknowledge and articulate their positionality (Glaser & Strauss, 2017). This enables the research to clarify where they are coming from and how this might affect the inquiry.

In descriptive phenomenology, reflexivity might take the form of the researcher examining their potential biases before interviews (to bracket them) and monitoring any strong reactions during data analysis that could skew interpretation (Dreyfus, 1990; Dörfler & Stierand, 2021). For example, a researcher studying “patients’ experiences of hospice care” might note prior to the study that they have worked as a hospice nurse and have certain preconceptions about what good end-of-life care looks like. A researcher would then make a conscious effort to set those aside and not let their professional perspective prematurely shape the coding of the interviews, using bracketing as a tool to maintain openness (Christensen et al., 2017). They might also engage a peer or mentor to review theme development to ensure that the findings are truly grounded in patient voices rather than the researcher’s expectations. These practices enhance the trustworthiness of the study by showing readers that the researcher has taken steps to let participants’ experiences guide the findings (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Shufutinsky, 2020).

In interpretive phenomenology, reflexivity is even more prominently featured. Being transparent about one’s perspective is vital since the researcher is effectively the primary “instrument” through which interpretations are made (Tracy, 2024). Researchers often write a positionality statement, either in the methodology section or woven into the text, disclosing relevant aspects of themselves. May and Perry (2022) posit that researchers may describe how their interest in the topic arose, what assumptions they brought to the research, and how their understanding evolved through interacting with participants. Tracy (2024) explains that reflexive journaling throughout the research project is a common practice. The researcher might record their impressions after each interview, note any changes in their thinking, and later include these reflections when reporting results (for example “Initially, I interpreted X in light of my own experience, but as I read more transcripts, I realised Y, and thus my perspective shifted”). This adds an important dimension of intersubjective accountability that shows the scholarly community how the researcher’s horizon merged with the participants’ horizons in the final analysis (Allan & Eatough, 2016).

Addressing researcher positionality is ultimately about enhancing the credibility and rigour of phenomenological research. The researcher instead focuses on being self-aware and honest about their role by recognising that complete neutrality is unattainable, especially in studies eliciting human experience (Lopez & Willis, 2004). Moreover, honesty allows readers to appraise how the findings were shaped (Shufutinsky, 2020). If a researcher shares that they have a similar life experience to the participants, readers might consider that an asset (insider understanding) but also watch for potential bias (over-identification). The researcher can turn this into a strength by demonstrating how they used their insight to probe meaningful issues in interviews while allowing participants to voice perspectives that differed from their own (Hancock et al., 2001).

7. Participant selection and sample considerations

Phenomenological research typically relies on purposive sampling, selecting participants who have firsthand experience with the phenomenon of interest and can richly describe that experience. The logic is qualitative and depth-oriented as a smaller number of well-selected cases is preferable to a large sample, because the aim is not statistical generalisation but in-depth understanding (Guest et al., 2013). In both descriptive and interpretive phenomenology, sample sizes are often small, commonly ranging from single digit up to double digits at most, allowing the researcher to collect detailed narratives and spend significant time analysing each one. Polkinghorne’s suggestion of about 5 to 25 participants for phenomenological studies is often cited as a guideline, though the actual sample size might vary depending on the research scope. What is critical is that all participants have intense lived experience with the phenomenon and a willingness to share their inner world.

When assembling a sample, researchers consider the degree of homogeneity vs. heterogeneity needed. In some phenomenological studies, a relatively homogeneous group is chosen to help identify a clear essence or to explore a specific context in depth (Smith et al., 2021). For example, female family caregivers of dementia patients, within a certain cultural setting, can be considered to narrow the context. This is often the case in IPA, where homogeneity helps the researcher detect patterns within a fairly specific lived world (Smith et al., 2021). In other studies, researchers might include a more heterogeneous mix of participants if the goal is to find commonality of experience across variation (Hill et al., 2005). A descriptive phenomenology of “the experience of awe” might intentionally sample people who felt awe in diverse situations, to see what is common in the feeling. Phenomenologists do not seek demographic representativeness in a statistical sense; instead, they seek participants who can articulate their experiences vividly and reflectively (Guest et al., 2013). Participants are often those who have recently undergone the phenomenon (so the memory is fresh) or who have a particular insight into it.

Participant recruitment is usually done through criteria that define the experience. Sometimes snowball sampling is used if the phenomenon defines a close-knit group (Jancsics, 2015). Unlike quantitative studies, phenomenology does not predetermine sample size by power calculations; instead, size is judged by information power, the point at which the data become repetitive or robust enough to support a meaningful interpretation (Malterud et al., 2016; Bartholomew et al., 2021). Many phenomenologists invoke the concept of data saturation, meaning they continue sampling until gathering new data no longer yields new insights or themes (Glaser & Strauss, 2017; Hennink & Kaiser, 2022). The depth of each interview influences this since a study that includes multiple in-depth interviews per participant may achieve saturation with fewer participants than a study with only one brief interview per person.

An often-understated aspect is the participant–researcher relationship during data collection process. In phenomenological interviews, participants are considered co-creators of knowledge, and the interview is often semi-structured, allowing participants to lead the conversation to what they find significant about the experience (Charmaz, 2024). The researcher’s interviewing skills in building trust and providing a comfortable space for sharing are crucial to obtaining rich data. In an interpretive vein, some phenomenologists even view the interview itself as a form of “dialogue” where meaning is constructed in real-time between participant and researcher (Guest et al., 2011). Researcher positionality can influence who volunteers and what they share; for example, a participant might speak differently about a deeply personal experience to a researcher who is an empathetic peer versus an authority figure. According to Guest et al. (2020), being attentive to these dynamics and reporting relevant details (such as “two participants opted for telephone interviews due to privacy concerns, which yielded shorter narratives” or “all interviews were conducted in participants’ homes at their request, which seemed to put them at ease”), adds context that helps readers evaluate the findings.

8. Phenomenology compared to other approaches

9. Conclusion

Descriptive and interpretive phenomenology provide qualitative researchers who want to examine human experience with an established and comprehensive strategy to understand the phenomenon under study. Its philosophical foundations in the works of Husserl and Heidegger provide guiding principles that continue to shape methodological choices: from the Husserlian drive to bracket biases and seek essences, to the Heideggerian emphasis on interpretation, context, and co-constructed meaning. Engaging with these foundations forces researchers to be explicit about their assumptions regarding subjectivity, objectivity, and the role of the researcher – issues that all qualitative research must contend with, but which phenomenology brings to the fore.

The review has highlighted how descriptive phenomenology is well-suited for uncovering the core features of a phenomenon as shared by individuals, yielding insights into “the thing itself” of experience, while interpretive phenomenology is adept at revealing layers of meaning and the situated nature of experience, acknowledging that researchers inevitably partake in the meaning-making. Key methodological considerations such as bracketing, hermeneutic interpretation, reflexivity, and sampling were examined, illustrating the careful balance phenomenologists maintain between openness to participants’ accounts and thoughtful analysis.

In applying phenomenology, scholars must be mindful of the approach’s demands: it requires deep engagement with qualitative data, a tolerance for ambiguity (as human experiences are complex), and rigorous self-scrutiny by the researcher. When done well, phenomenological research can produce profoundly poignant and revealing accounts that resonate with readers and contribute to theory and practice by grounding understanding in the reality of lived experience. It provides a humanising lens in research, ensuring that the voices and meanings of those who have lived through an event or condition are not lost to abstraction. High-impact qualitative studies often leverage this strength, for example, informing patient-centred healthcare interventions by first comprehending patients’ lived realities, or shaping educational practices by grasping students’ lived experience of learning.

Phenomenology can be done with scholarly rigour and creativity by maintaining clarity regarding its philosophical and methodological foundations. Researchers must clearly articulate whether they are following a descriptive or interpretive path (or a blend), justify the appropriateness of phenomenology for their question, and adhere to the methodological implications of their chosen approach (be it strict bracketing in a Husserlian study or rich reflexive analysis in a hermeneutic one). Through careful design and execution, phenomenological research yields outcomes that are not only academically credible but also deeply meaningful, offering insight into the textures of human existence that might otherwise remain hidden. In a research landscape increasingly valuing patient or participant perspectives and experiential knowledge, phenomenology stands out as a fitting and impactful strategy to explore the living dimensions of phenomena, complementing other qualitative approaches and enriching our collective understanding of the human condition.

Ethics and consent statement

No ethics and consent were required for this study.