Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches

Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725" }, "headline": "Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches", "datePublished": "2025-07-24T10:57:01", "dateModified": "2025-07-24T10:57:01", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Alexander Oluka" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Phenomenology is an established qualitative research strategy dedicated to exploring and interpreting lived experiences to uncover the inherent meanings individuals ascribe to phenomena. This study examines the theoretical and methodological dimensions of phenomenology, focusing explicitly on its two predominant forms: descriptive (Husserlian) and interpretive (Heideggerian) phenomenology. While descriptive phenomenology emphasises bracketing preconceptions to reveal essential structures of experience, interpretive phenomenology acknowledges the researcher’s role in co-constructing meaning through hermeneutic interpretation and reflexivity. This paper critically analyses core phenomenological concepts, including epoché, bracketing, double hermeneutics, researcher positionality, and purposive participant selection. The study offers researchers a comprehensive understanding of phenomenology’s philosophical underpinnings, methodological rigour, and practical applications in qualitative research by systematically synthesising classical and contemporary sources." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725", "name": "Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches" } } ] } Home Browse Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Oluka A. Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166273.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Method Article Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Alexander Oluka https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7632-1490 Alexander Oluka https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7632-1490 PUBLISHED 24 Jul 2025 Author details Author details DUT Business School, Durban University of Technology, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, 4000, South Africa Alexander Oluka Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Phenomenology is an established qualitative research strategy dedicated to exploring and interpreting lived experiences to uncover the inherent meanings individuals ascribe to phenomena. This study examines the theoretical and methodological dimensions of phenomenology, focusing explicitly on its two predominant forms: descriptive (Husserlian) and interpretive (Heideggerian) phenomenology. While descriptive phenomenology emphasises bracketing preconceptions to reveal essential structures of experience, interpretive phenomenology acknowledges the researcher’s role in co-constructing meaning through hermeneutic interpretation and reflexivity. This paper critically analyses core phenomenological concepts, including epoché, bracketing, double hermeneutics, researcher positionality, and purposive participant selection. The study offers researchers a comprehensive understanding of phenomenology’s philosophical underpinnings, methodological rigour, and practical applications in qualitative research by systematically synthesising classical and contemporary sources. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Bracketing, Double hermeneutics, Descriptive phenomenology, Epoché, Interpretive phenomenology Corresponding Author(s) Alexander Oluka ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Alexander Oluka Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Oluka A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Oluka A. Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166273.1 ) First published: 24 Jul 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166273.1 ) Latest published: 24 Jul 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166273.1 ) 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 circl e , 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 4.1 Bracketing and Epoché The most discussed methodological issue in phenomenology is bracketing, also referred to by the Husserlian term epoché (from the Greek meaning “to refrain or stay away from” preconceived notions) ( LeVasseur, 2003 ). In descriptive phenomenology, bracketing is a pivotal step where researchers deliberately hold in abeyance their prior knowledge, theories, or biases about the phenomenon while listening to participants and analysing data ( Willis et al., 2016 ). By doing so, they aim to let the descriptions speak for themselves, mitigating the risk that the researcher will impose their own meaning or interpretations on the data. Practically, bracketing can involve techniques like writing down one’s assumptions at the start of the study, keeping a reflexive journal to identify emerging biases, or even setting aside literature review findings until after the data analysis ( Polit & Beck, 2008 ). Some descriptive phenomenologists recommend not formulating a rigid theoretical framework beforehand, to remain as open as possible to participants’ accounts ( Patton, 2019 ). The underlying intent is epoché, a state of neutrality or “phenomenological attitude” in which the researcher approaches the phenomenon with fresh eyes, much like a attentive learner. However, achieving pure epoché in research is challenging. Even Husserl acknowledged that complete freedom from presuppositions is an ideal asymptote rather than a permanently attainable state, one must continuously strive for it ( Drew, 1999 ). Moreover, Gearing (2004) , distinguishes between different types of bracketing and suggests it’s a flexible, multi-stage process of engaging with one’s preconceptions rather than a single, all-or-nothing act. In applied research, bracketing is often about being aware of and managing one’s influence, as opposed to literally emptying the mind of all knowledge. Some have even criticised a naive application of bracketing. LeVasseur (2003) cautions that attempting to suppress all prior understanding can be counterproductive, leading to a shallow analysis; instead, she advocates “bridling” one’s preconceptions, restraining and reflecting on them, so they do not dominate the research process. In interpretive phenomenology, the notion of strict bracketing is generally seen as incompatible with the philosophical stance. Heideggerians argue that the researcher cannot stand outside their own historical and intellectual context ( Kiverstein, 2012 ). Rather than bracketing out presuppositions, the researcher’s task is to acknowledge and make explicit their starting assumptions and then allow these to be questioned and shaped by the data ( Aspers, 2009 ). This is a form of reflexive or dialogical bracketing where the researcher “brackets in” their subjectivity as part of the research process. For example, a hermeneutic researcher might write a section in their report about their personal connection to the topic and how they managed this influence. The idea of co-constitutionality comes into play here: researcher and participant co-create meaning, so the researcher’s presuppositions are not so much biases to eliminate as elements to thoughtfully integrate ( Cohen & Omery, 1994 ). Nonetheless, quality hermeneutic research still demands rigour – the researcher must support interpretations with evidence from participants’ narratives and demonstrate how conclusions were reached, rather than simply projecting their own views. In practice, whether one adopts a descriptive or interpretive phenomenology, it is crucial to maintain a stance of openness and curiosity, continually checking that one’s interpretations arise from the participants’ data and not from unchecked preconceptions. 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 8.1 Grounded theory Phenomenology’s unique focus and assumptions set it apart from other qualitative research strategies such as grounded theory and ethnography. Grounded theory, for instance, seeks to develop a theoretical explanation of a process or action grounded in data, often through coding procedures and constant comparison leading to a core category or model ( Kelle, 2007 ; Glaser & Strauss, 2017 ). A grounded theorist typically asks, “What is the process by which X happens?” or “What theoretical model explains the social interactions in Y context?”. In contrast, a phenomenologist asks, “What is the experience of X like for people?” and is less concerned with building theory than with richly describing and interpreting the meaning of that experience. Grounded theory studies tend to sample larger numbers of participants (until theoretical saturation is achieved) and look for patterns that answer “why and how ” things happen in a social process ( Glaser & Strauss, 1998 ). Conversely, phenomenological studies usually delve deeply into individual perspectives, sometimes even foregoing breadth for depth ( Van Manen, 2023 ). The outcome of grounded theory is a theory and conceptual model, whereas the outcome of phenomenology is a detailed description and insightful interpretation of a phenomenon. For example, to study caregiving, a grounded theory might produce a mid-range theory of “caregiver coping stages,” whereas a phenomenology might produce an elaborate depiction of “what it feels like to be a caregiver” and the essence of that lived experience. Therefore, grounded theory gives an explanatory framework, while Phenomenological studies give empathetic understanding. 8.2 Ethnography Ethnography research is oriented toward understanding cultural groups as it involves extended fieldwork, participant observation, and immersion in the participants’ natural setting to grasp shared patterns of beliefs and behaviour within a culture or community ( Finlay, 2009 ). Ethnographers typically address research questions about group norms, practices, language, and worldview, often synthesising findings into a cultural interpretation (such as “X tribe’s ritual of Y and its significance for community cohesion”). The unit of analysis is collective: the culture or social world of the group ( Leedy & Ormrod, 2005 ). However, Phenomenology, usually treats each participant as an individual experiencing a phenomenon, even if they belong to the same culture. It abstracts at the level of personal experience rather than at the level of cultural systems ( Musante & DeWalt, 2010 ). An ethnographic study of, say, immigrant communities might describe the community’s traditions and integration challenges, whereas a phenomenological study might focus on the lived experience of being an immigrant , cutting across individuals from different communities to reveal the experiential themes. Ethnography yields a portrait of a culture while phenomenology yields an understanding of an experience. Moreover, ethnography relies heavily on the researcher’s observations of external behaviour and context, supplemented by interviews, whereas phenomenology relies primarily on in-depth interviews (or first-person texts) about internal experience, supplemented by the researcher’s reflective analysis ( Tedlock, 1991 ). 8.3 Narrative research The phenomenological research strategy is different from narrative research, which gathers personal stories. Narrative inquiry concentrates on the storied nature of experience ( Clandinin & Connelly, 2004 ). It focuses on how people construct narratives about their lives and often deals with the chronology and context of individual stories. Narrative research might result in a case-centric story or a biographical account ( Clandinin & Connelly, 2004 ). Phenomenology, although it gathers personal narratives, looks across stories for the shared essence and meaning structure of the phenomenon, producing a collective understanding ( Matua & Van Der Wal, 2015 ). Where a narrative study might produce the life story of one person or compare a few stories, a phenomenological study synthesises multiple personal accounts into a thematised depiction of the phenomenon itself. Unlike narrative inquiry, which centres on individual stories, phenomenology is about deriving a shared meaning of an experience among a group of people. 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. Data availability The study is based entirely on the review and synthesis of previously published literature and does not involve the generation or analysis of new datasets. As such, no original data were created or analysed in the course of this research, and data sharing is not applicable. All sources referenced are publicly available and cited appropriately within the manuscript. References Allan R, Eatough V: The use of interpretive phenomenological analysis in understanding lived experiences. SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. Sage Publications; 2nd ed. 2016. Aspers P: Empirical phenomenology: A qualitative research approach (the Cologne seminars). The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology. 2009; 9 (2): 1–12. Publisher Full Text Babbie E, Mouton J: The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press; 2001. Bartholomew TT, Joy EE, Kang E, et al. : A choir or cacophony? Sample sizes and quality of conveying participants’ voices in phenomenological research. Method. Innov. 2021; 14 (2): 20597991211040063. Publisher Full Text Begun A: Social Work 3402 Coursebook.2019. [Accessed 12 February 2025]. Reference Source Bogdan R, Biklen SK: Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 3rd ed. 1997. Butler JL: Rediscovering Husserl: Perspectives on the epoché and the reductions. Qual. Rep. 2016; 21 (11): 2033. Publisher Full Text Carr D: Experience and history: Phenomenological perspectives on the historical world. Oxford University Press; 2014. Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications Limited; 2024. Christensen M, Welch A, Barr J: Husserlian descriptive phenomenology: A review of intentionality, reduction and the natural attitude. J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2017; 7 (8): 113–118. Publisher Full Text Clandinin DJ, Connelly FM: Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons; 2004. Cohen MZ, Omery A: Schools of phenomenology: Implications for research. Morse JM, editor. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994; pp. 136–156. De Vos AS, Strydom H, Fouché CB, et al. : Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers; 3rd ed. 2005. Dörfler V, Stierand M: Bracketing: A phenomenological theory applied through transpersonal reflexivity. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2021; 34 (4): 778–793. Publisher Full Text Drew N: A return to Husserl and researcher self-awareness.Polifroni EC, Welch M, editors. Perspectives on philosophy of science in nursing: An historical and contemporary anthology. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1999; pp. 263–272. Dreyfus HL: Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s being in time, Division I. MIT Press; 1990; vol. 1 . . Eatough V, Smith JA: Interpretative phenomenological analysis. The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology. 2017; 193–209. Publisher Full Text Elveton RO: The phenomenology of Husserl: Selected critical readings. Routledge; 2020. Emery LF, Anderman EM: Using interpretive phenomenological analysis in educational psychology research: A practical guide. Educ. Psychol. 2020; 55 (3): 142–153. Engward H, Goldspink S: Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Br. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2020; 9 (6): 1–9. Farber M: The foundation of phenomenology: Edmund Husserl and the quest for a rigorous science of philosophy. Routledge; 2017. Finlay L: Exploring lived experience: Principles and practice of phenomenological research. Int. J. Ther. Rehabil. 2009; 16 (9): 474–481. Publisher Full Text Gadamer HG: Philosophical hermeneutics. Univ of California Press; 1977. Garagalza L: In the footsteps of Hermes: The meaning of hermeneutics and symbolism. Parrhesia. 2013; 16 : 1–13. Geanellos R: Exploring Ricoeur’s hermeneutic theory of interpretation as a method of analyzing research texts. Nurs. Inq. 2000; 7 (2): 112–119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Gearing RE: Bracketing in research: A typology. Qual. Health Res. 2004; 14 (10): 1429–1452. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Giorgi A: The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 1997; 28 (2): 235–260. Publisher Full Text Giorgi A: The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press; 2009. Glaser BG, Strauss AL: Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber; 1998. vol. 4 . . Glaser B, Strauss A: Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge; 2017. Publisher Full Text Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE: Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications; 2011. Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchell ML: Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research. Sage; 2013. Publisher Full Text Guest G, Namey E, Chen M: A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PloS one. 2020; 15 (5): e0232076. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Hancock B, Ockleford E, Windridge K: An introduction to qualitative research. London: Trent focus group; 2001. Hennink M, Kaiser BN: Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022; 292 : 114523. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hill CE, Knox S, Thompson BJ, et al. : Consensual qualitative research: An update. J. Couns. Psychol. 2005; 52 (2): 196–205. Publisher Full Text Howard RJ: Three faces of hermeneutics: An introduction to current theories of understanding. Univ of California Press; 1982; vol. 280 . . Publisher Full Text Howell KE: An introduction to the philosophy of methodology. Sage; 2012. Husserl E: The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1970. Husserl E: The essential Husserl: Basic writings in transcendental phenomenology. Indiana University Press; 1999. Husserl E, Moran D: Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Routledge; 2012. Publisher Full Text Jancsics D: “A friend gave me a phone number”–brokerage in low-level corruption. Int. J. Law Crime Justice. 2015; 43 (1): 68–87. Publisher Full Text Käufer S, Chemero A: Phenomenology: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons; 2021. Kelle U: The development of categories: Different approaches in grounded theory. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. 2007; 191–213. Publisher Full Text Kiverstein J: What is Heideggerian cognitive science? Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012; 1–61. Publisher Full Text Koch T: Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of Husserl and Heidegger. J. Adv. Nurs. 1995; 21 (5): 827–836. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Kruks S: Existentialism and phenomenology. A Companion to Feminist Philosophy. 2017; 66–74. Publisher Full Text Laverty SM: Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. Int. J. Qual. Methods. 2003; 2 (3): 21–35. Publisher Full Text Leedy PD, Ormrod JE: Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall; 8th ed. 2005. LeVasseur JJ: The problem of bracketing in phenomenology. Qual. Health Res. 2003; 13 (3): 408–420. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Lopez KA, Willis DG: Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual. Health Res. 2004; 14 (5): 726–735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD: Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual. Health Res. 2016; 26 (13): 1753–1760. Publisher Full Text Matua GA, Van Der Wal DM: Differentiating descriptive and interpretive phenomenological research approaches. Nurse Res. 2015; 22 (6): 22–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text May T, Perry B: Social research: Issues, methods and process. McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2022. McCance T, Mcilfatrick S: Phenomenology. Watson R, McKenna H, Cowman S, et al. , editors. Nursing research: Designs and methods. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2008; pp. 231–241. Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E: Double hermeneutic. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. 2010. Publisher Full Text Moustakas C: Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. Publisher Full Text Musante K, DeWalt BR: Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman Altamira; 2010. Newman B: On the ethics of feminist historiography. Exemplaria. 1990; 2 (2): 702–706. Patton MQ: Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 4th ed. 2019. Polit DF, Beck CT: Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 8th ed. 2008. Polkinghorne DE: Phenomenological research methods. Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience. Boston, MA: Springer US; 1989; pp. 41–60. Publisher Full Text Ricoeur P: Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and interpretation. Cambridge university press; 1981. Rorty R: Essays on Heidegger and others. Cambridge University Press; 1991; vol. 2 . . Publisher Full Text Shufutinsky A: Employing use of self for transparency, rigor, trustworthiness, and credibility in qualitative organizational research methods. Organization Development Review. 2020; 52 (1): 50–58. Sloan A, Bowe B: Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Qual. Quant. 2014; 48 : 1291–1303. Publisher Full Text Smith JA: Hermeneutics, human sciences and health: Linking theory and practice. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well Being. 2007; 2 (1): 3–11. Publisher Full Text Smith JA: Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 2011; 5 (1): 9–27. Publisher Full Text Smith JA, Osborn M: Interpretative phenomenological analysis.Smith JA, editor. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London: Sage; 2003; pp. 51–80. Smith JA, Osborn M: Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. Br. J. Pain. 2015; 9 (1): 41–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Smith JA, Shinebourne P: Interpretative phenomenological analysis. American Psychological Association Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology. 2012; 2 : 73–82. Publisher Full Text Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M: Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage; 2009. Smith JA, Larkin M, Flowers P: Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage Publications; 2021. Publisher Full Text Spinelli E: The Interpreted World: An Introduction to Phenomenological Psychology. SAGE; 2005. Tedlock B: From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. J. Anthropol. Res. 1991; 47 (1): 69–94. Publisher Full Text Tracy SJ: Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons; 2024. Tufford L, Newman P: Bracketing in qualitative research. Qual. Soc. Work. 2012; 11 (1): 80–96. Publisher Full Text Van Manen M: Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge; 2023. Publisher Full Text Willis DG, Sullivan-Bolyai S, Knafl K, et al. : Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2016; 38 (9): 1185–1204. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Wojnar DM, Swanson KM: Phenomenology: An exploration. J. Holist. Nurs. 2007; 25 (3): 172–180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P: Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Routledge; 2015. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details DUT Business School, Durban University of Technology, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, 4000, South Africa Alexander Oluka Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 24 Jul 2025, 14:725 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166273.1 Copyright © 2025 Oluka A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Oluka A. Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166273.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Jul 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Adeniran AO. Reviewer Report For: Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r420282 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1#referee-response-420282 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Oct 2025 Adetayo Olaniyi Adeniran , University of Ilesa, Ilesa, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r420282 Thank you for a wonderful write-up. Below are my observations after carefully reviewing your paper: Abstract Section: There are many studies on the subject matter, especially on phenomenological research strategy; your study failed to lay emphasis on the ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for a wonderful write-up. Below are my observations after carefully reviewing your paper: Abstract Section: There are many studies on the subject matter, especially on phenomenological research strategy; your study failed to lay emphasis on the major contribution to knowledge. Kindly reflect this in the abstract section and in the body of the work. Keywords: Phenomenology as a keyword should stand alone before attachments. Introduction: The first sentence in the introduction is quite similar to the first sentence in the Abstract section. Kindly recast the first sentence of the introduction. The introduction should start with a discussion of the research strategy, followed by the qualitative research strategy, then the phenomenological research strategy. Following these arrangements will help address the above issue raised. Body: The citations used in the introduction and the body are old. This implies there are no recent studies done on the subject matter, which I doubt. Kindly do your literature search thoroughly. Is the rationale for developing the new method (or application) clearly explained? No Is the description of the method technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the method development and its use by others? Yes If any results are presented, are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions about the method and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Transport planning and logistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Adeniran AO. Reviewer Report For: Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r420282 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1#referee-response-420282 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Müller M. Reviewer Report For: Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r403659 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1#referee-response-403659 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Aug 2025 Michal Müller , Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r403659 I offer several perspectives that will help you continue your important work and increase its originality and impact. Your article provides a clear and concise introduction to the two main methodological strands of phenomenology - descriptive (Husserl) and interpretive ... Continue reading READ ALL I offer several perspectives that will help you continue your important work and increase its originality and impact. Your article provides a clear and concise introduction to the two main methodological strands of phenomenology - descriptive (Husserl) and interpretive (Heidegger) - including key concepts such as epoché , bracketing, imaginative variation, the hermeneutic circle, double hermeneutics, and researcher reflexivity. It integrates classical sources with more recent methodological discussions and offers practical considerations for selecting and conducting phenomenological research. The structure, scope, and basic conceptual framework of this article remind me of Michael Gill's (2014) The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research , which I consider an excellent overview study that I recommend to beginning researchers and students. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with this article and think about how to go beyond this state of the art. Your work and Gill's work organize the discussion around the division of phenomenology into that which is based on Husserl and that which is inspired by Heidegger. Like you, Gill discusses key analytical concepts (bracketing, imaginative variation, the hermeneutic circle, double hermeneutics) and briefly compares phenomenology with other qualitative approaches. However, Gill's contribution goes further and develops a typology of five distinct phenomenological methodologies across disciplines, systematically comparing their assumptions, goals, sampling strategies, and analytical steps, and deriving guidelines for choosing a methodology. This specific focus is where his originality lies. Your article misses an opportunity to engage in the ongoing methodological debate and clarify its unique contribution beyond existing reviews. I recommend the following steps to help increase the contribution of your study: -Clarify novelty and justification - Explicitly state what gap this work fills that has not been covered in previous methodological syntheses (e.g., Gill, 2014; Moustakas, 1994; Finlay, 2009). - Acknowledge and discuss earlier comparative frameworks (especially Gill's) and clearly articulate how this article complements or extends them. - Improve procedural guidance - If the goal is to guide researchers in selecting or implementing methods, provide more specific step-by-step examples and decision aids. - Limit claims about scope - Unless additional comparative analysis is added, tone down claims about “comprehensive” coverage to reflect the article’s current focus on two main traditions. I think this is a well-written educational article that will be valuable to readers who are new to phenomenological methodology. To strengthen its scientific contribution and enable its publication as a methodology article, the author should clearly state its relationship to the existing literature (especially Gill's work) and clarify whether its aim is to provide an overview for teaching or to deepen methodological understanding. Is the rationale for developing the new method (or application) clearly explained? No Is the description of the method technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the method development and its use by others? Partly If any results are presented, are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions about the method and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article? Partly References 1. Gill M: The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods . 2014; 17 (2): 118-137 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Qualitative research, management, social entrepreneurship, existential philosophy and phenomenology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Müller M. Reviewer Report For: Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r403659 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1#referee-response-403659 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 1 24 Jul 25 read read Michal Müller , Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Adetayo Olaniyi Adeniran , University of Ilesa, Ilesa, Nigeria Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Adeniran A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Oct 2025 | for Version 1 Adetayo Olaniyi Adeniran , University of Ilesa, Ilesa, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2025 Adeniran A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for a wonderful write-up. Below are my observations after carefully reviewing your paper: Abstract Section: There are many studies on the subject matter, especially on phenomenological research strategy; your study failed to lay emphasis on the major contribution to knowledge. Kindly reflect this in the abstract section and in the body of the work. Keywords: Phenomenology as a keyword should stand alone before attachments. Introduction: The first sentence in the introduction is quite similar to the first sentence in the Abstract section. Kindly recast the first sentence of the introduction. The introduction should start with a discussion of the research strategy, followed by the qualitative research strategy, then the phenomenological research strategy. Following these arrangements will help address the above issue raised. Body: The citations used in the introduction and the body are old. This implies there are no recent studies done on the subject matter, which I doubt. Kindly do your literature search thoroughly. Is the rationale for developing the new method (or application) clearly explained? No Is the description of the method technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the method development and its use by others? Yes If any results are presented, are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions about the method and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Transport planning and logistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Adeniran AO. Peer Review Report For: Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r420282) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1#referee-response-420282 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Müller M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Michal Müller , Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic 0 Views copyright © 2025 Müller M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I offer several perspectives that will help you continue your important work and increase its originality and impact. Your article provides a clear and concise introduction to the two main methodological strands of phenomenology - descriptive (Husserl) and interpretive (Heidegger) - including key concepts such as epoché , bracketing, imaginative variation, the hermeneutic circle, double hermeneutics, and researcher reflexivity. It integrates classical sources with more recent methodological discussions and offers practical considerations for selecting and conducting phenomenological research. The structure, scope, and basic conceptual framework of this article remind me of Michael Gill's (2014) The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research , which I consider an excellent overview study that I recommend to beginning researchers and students. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with this article and think about how to go beyond this state of the art. Your work and Gill's work organize the discussion around the division of phenomenology into that which is based on Husserl and that which is inspired by Heidegger. Like you, Gill discusses key analytical concepts (bracketing, imaginative variation, the hermeneutic circle, double hermeneutics) and briefly compares phenomenology with other qualitative approaches. However, Gill's contribution goes further and develops a typology of five distinct phenomenological methodologies across disciplines, systematically comparing their assumptions, goals, sampling strategies, and analytical steps, and deriving guidelines for choosing a methodology. This specific focus is where his originality lies. Your article misses an opportunity to engage in the ongoing methodological debate and clarify its unique contribution beyond existing reviews. I recommend the following steps to help increase the contribution of your study: -Clarify novelty and justification - Explicitly state what gap this work fills that has not been covered in previous methodological syntheses (e.g., Gill, 2014; Moustakas, 1994; Finlay, 2009). - Acknowledge and discuss earlier comparative frameworks (especially Gill's) and clearly articulate how this article complements or extends them. - Improve procedural guidance - If the goal is to guide researchers in selecting or implementing methods, provide more specific step-by-step examples and decision aids. - Limit claims about scope - Unless additional comparative analysis is added, tone down claims about “comprehensive” coverage to reflect the article’s current focus on two main traditions. I think this is a well-written educational article that will be valuable to readers who are new to phenomenological methodology. To strengthen its scientific contribution and enable its publication as a methodology article, the author should clearly state its relationship to the existing literature (especially Gill's work) and clarify whether its aim is to provide an overview for teaching or to deepen methodological understanding. Is the rationale for developing the new method (or application) clearly explained? No Is the description of the method technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the method development and its use by others? Partly If any results are presented, are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions about the method and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article? Partly References 1. Gill M: The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods . 2014; 17 (2): 118-137 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Qualitative research, management, social entrepreneurship, existential philosophy and phenomenology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Müller M. Peer Review Report For: Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :725 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183237.r403659) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1#referee-response-403659 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Oluka A'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725", templates : { twitter : "Phenomenological Research Strategy: Descriptive and Interpretive.... Oluka A, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-725/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/166273/183237") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "183237"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "403654": 0, "403655": 0, "422468": 0, "422466": 0, "422467": 0, "420288": 0, "422464": 0, "420289": 0, "422465": 0, "403662": 0, "403663": 0, "403660": 0, "403661": 0, "403658": 0, "403659": 40, "403656": 0, "403657": 0, "420286": 0, "422462": 0, "420287": 0, "422463": 0, "420284": 0, "422460": 0, "420285": 0, "422461": 0, "420282": 39, "420283": 0, "422459": 0, "420280": 0, "420281": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "fc830e66-bf59-4bd7-8380-75f97d68f3c3"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });