The Phenomenology Collective

What does it mean to take someone’s experience seriously—and how can research help us understand their relationship with the world?

In this special episode of The Phenomenology Collective, Dr Lewis Barrett-Rodger and Dr Sally Goldspink welcome Professor Michael Larkin to explore interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA).

From his early research into addiction and recovery to the practical challenges of interpretation, Michael reflects on what makes an insightful IPA study. Together, we discuss moving beyond descriptive topics to experiential meaning, keeping individual people visible within shared themes, and why IPA needs to shape a study from the outset.

Along the way, we explore reflexivity, the value of dialogue and Michael’s advice to researchers: “find your people.”

A thoughtful, friendly conversation for anyone starting out with IPA or looking to deepen their phenomenological practice.

Questions or reflections? Contact us at [email protected].

How many participants does a phenomenological study really need—and are practices such as pilot studies and member checking methodologically congruent?

In this bonus Q&A episode of The Phenomenology Collective, Lewis and Sally respond to questions submitted by listeners. Rather than offering universal rules, they explore why phenomenological researchers must make thoughtful, transparent decisions grounded in their particular methodology and study.

Together, they consider the relationship between participant numbers and analytical depth, the ethical implications of collecting more experiential material than a researcher can meaningfully engage with, and whether pilot studies sit comfortably within phenomenological inquiry. They also discuss the contested place of member checking and reflect on what examiners hope to encounter when reading a phenomenological thesis.

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why more participants do not necessarily produce better phenomenological research
• Balancing depth, feasibility and ethical responsibility
• Whether pilot studies are methodologically congruent with phenomenology
• The possibilities and limitations of member checking
• Why researchers must take ownership of their interpretations
• What examiners look for in a phenomenological thesis
• The importance of methodological coherence, accessible writing and researcher voice

A conversation about resisting simple formulas, thinking carefully about methodological choices, and being able to explain the reasoning behind every research decision.

How can a researcher shape a participant’s words without losing the meaning of their experience?

In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore crafted stories as a creative, interpretive and philosophically grounded practice within hermeneutic phenomenology.

We are joined by Professor Susan Crowther, Professor of Midwifery at Auckland University of Technology, whose work brings together phenomenology, ecological thinking and a lifelong commitment to relational care. Susan helps us consider how phenomenological researchers can move beyond simply reporting what participants say and begin to reveal meanings that may otherwise remain concealed or taken for granted.

At the heart of our conversation is the crafted story: an account carefully developed from interview material through a process of dwelling, interpreting, pruning and writing. Susan also reads a crafted story from her own research, allowing us not only to discuss this form of phenomenological writing, but to experience its emotional and evocative possibilities.

In this episode, we discuss:

• What makes hermeneutic phenomenology distinctive
• Moving from description towards phenomenological interpretation
• What crafted stories are—and what they are not
• The relationship between crafting, analysis and representation
• Voice, power, ethics and trustworthiness
• How rhythm, mood and reading aloud can reveal lived meaning
• Why phenomenological writing should speak to us emotionally as well as intellectually

A rich and thought-provoking conversation about the craft of phenomenological research—and the possibilities that emerge when we allow stories to do more than simply report experience.

What does it mean to practise transcendental (or descriptive) phenomenology?

In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore how Moustakas’ transcendental phenomenology moves from philosophical ideas into the practical realities of doctoral research.

We’re joined by Professional Doctorate candidate Emma Collins, who is using Moustakas’ approach to explore student nurses’ lived experiences of leadership learning. Drawing on her research journey, Emma offers an honest account of what it means to work descriptively with experience and to encounter a familiar phenomenon as if seeing it for the first time.

Together, we explore the distinctive commitments of transcendental phenomenology, including epoché, phenomenological reduction, horizonalisation, imaginative variation, and the movement from individual descriptions towards a composite essence.

In this episode, we discuss:

• What makes Moustakas’ approach transcendental and descriptive
• Why epoché is central—and what it looks like in practice
• Approaching a familiar phenomenon with openness and freshness
• Moving from horizons and invariant constituents to phenomenological descriptions
• The difference between the texture and structure of an experience
• Using imaginative variation to illuminate the conditions of experience
• Balancing individual descriptions with the search for shared meanings and essences
• How images can support the description of experiences that are difficult to articulate

An accessible, practice-focused exploration of Moustakas’ methodology and the challenges of undertaking transcendental phenomenological research.

What happens when a doctoral student chooses phenomenology, but their supervisor’s own methodological expertise lies elsewhere?

In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore the possibilities—and responsibilities—of supervising phenomenological research beyond one’s principal methodological specialism.

We’re joined by Professor Hilary Engward, an experienced doctoral supervisor whose own methodological background is principally in grounded theory. Hilary reflects on how supervisors can support phenomenological researchers through curiosity, critical questioning and a willingness to learn alongside the student—without pretending to possess every answer.

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why the research question should guide the choice of methodology
• What it means to “stick to the methodology like glue”
• Balancing creativity with methodological rigour
• Supervising beyond your expertise
• Learning to think and communicate phenomenologically
• The importance of finding a wider phenomenological community

This conversation reminds us that good supervision does not depend upon one person knowing everything. It requires intellectual humility, shared responsibility and a willingness to remain genuinely curious.

What does it mean to listen to a child who does not communicate through conventional speech?

In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore how phenomenology can help us encounter experiences expressed beyond words.

We’re joined by Hannah McCormack, a final-year PhD researcher at the University of Dundee whose hermeneutic phenomenological study explores the voices and lived experiences of very young children with special educational needs and disabilities. Drawing on more than 20 years in early years education, Hannah challenges the assumption that an absence of speech means an absence of voice.

Together, we discuss:

• How gesture, movement, gaze and touch can communicate meaning

• The difference between hearing a child and genuinely listening
• Using hermeneutic phenomenology with non-verbal participants
• The importance of time, familiarity and attentive presence
• The role of parents and practitioners in interpretation
• Navigating consent, assent and ethical inclusion
• Remaining open and methodologically rigorous when conventional interviews are not possible

This conversation invites us to reconsider what counts as voice—and whether the real limitation lies not in children’s capacity to communicate, but in how adults have learned to listen.

What does it really mean for a researcher to make sense of a participant making sense of their experience?

In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and its distinctive value within practice-based research.

We’re joined by Dr Gillian Ferguson, an experienced social worker, educator and IPA researcher whose doctoral study explored how social workers experience learning through their everyday practice. Together, we consider why IPA is more than a method of data analysis—and what it demands from researchers seeking to understand the meanings people make of their professional lives.

Gillian helps us unpack the double hermeneutic: the process through which the researcher attempts to make sense of the participant making sense of their experience. We explore how empathy, careful questioning and interpretation work together, and how practitioner knowledge can enrich analysis when brought into a disciplined and reflexive relationship with participants’ accounts.

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography must run throughout an IPA study
• The difference between describing an experience and interpreting its meaning
• What the double hermeneutic looks like in practice
• How practitioner-researchers can work reflexively with their existing knowledge
• Why skilled questioning matters during phenomenological interviews
• The danger of rushing towards solutions before properly understanding experience
• How small, idiographic studies can influence professional practice and policy

A thoughtful and practically grounded conversation about rigorous interpretation, researcher reflexivity and how IPA can help us see familiar professional worlds differently.

What happens when we enter a research interview carrying professional ways of listening, responding and making sense?

In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore positionality as something that is not simply declared in a methodology chapter, but actively negotiated within the research encounter.

We’re joined by Ally Grant, an experienced social worker and Professional Doctorate researcher at Anglia Ruskin University. Ally’s IPA research explores how statutory children and families social workers make sense of expressions of masculinity.

Together, we consider what it means to interview participants from a familiar professional world while meeting them in a non-practice context. Ally reflects on the interconnected identities of person, practitioner and researcher—and whether the practitioner “hat” can ever truly be removed.

In this episode, we discuss:

• How positionality shapes the research interview in real time
• The opportunities and risks of interviewing within a familiar professional world
• The difference between listening to respond and listening to understand
• Whether professional familiarity can create an illusion of understanding
• Using the Social GRACES to explore visible, invisible, voiced and unvoiced identities
• The role of presuppositional interviewing, reflexive journalling and supervision
• Why an interview that feels difficult may still contain rich experiential material
• Whether practitioner identity should be managed, removed or embraced as part of interpretation

What makes hermeneutic phenomenology distinctive—and how do we carry its philosophy meaningfully into research practice?

In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore what it means to begin, and continue, a journey with hermeneutic phenomenology.

For many researchers, encountering Heidegger’s philosophy can feel both exciting and intimidating. How much philosophy do we need to understand? Where should we begin? And how do we ensure that philosophy does not remain confined to the methodology chapter, but instead shapes the whole research process?

We’re joined by Professor Lesley Dibley, an experienced hermeneutic phenomenological researcher, author and educator. Lesley shares how she found her way into phenomenology through her research into the lived experience of stigma among people with inflammatory bowel disease—and reflects on what she has learned from supporting researchers at the University of Greenwich’s annual Hermeneutic Phenomenology Summer School.

In this episode, we discuss:

• What makes hermeneutic phenomenology distinctive
• How to approach Heidegger without becoming overwhelmed
• Why philosophy should provide a “golden thread” throughout a study
• The essential role of the researcher in interpretation
• Working reflexively with presuppositions rather than trying to eliminate them
• Understanding the hermeneutic circle as an expanding spiral
• How we recognise when phenomenological analysis has gone far enough
• The challenges students commonly encounter when beginning hermeneutic phenomenology
• Why community and conversation are so important when learning to practise phenomenology

We also explore how phenomenological research can make a difference in practice—not by producing simple or measurable answers, but by encouraging others to attend more closely to what matters to people who have lived through an experience.

Whether you are beginning your first hermeneutic phenomenological study or continuing to wrestle with its philosophical and methodological challenges, this episode offers practical guidance, reassurance and an invitation to remain open, curious and willing to keep thinking.

If you have a question or suggestion, why not send us an email and join the conversation at [email protected]