Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Charity Becker
What Is Phenomenology?
Phenomenology as Theory
Before considering phenomenology as theory, let’s start with a more basic question: What
is theory? The Oxford Living Dictionaries Online (2018) defines theory as:
Theory is a way of guiding or controlling how data are interpreted or how the world is perceived
and categorized. It involves both ontology (what we know) and epistemology (how we know).
Max van Manen (2007) writes, however, that theorizing may also be defined as “a way of
comporting oneself” (p. 14) or “a form of life” (p. 15). Theory comes from the Greek word
theoria which “connotes ‘wakefulness of mind’ in the ‘contemplation’ or ‘pure viewing’ of truth”
(van Manen, 2001, n.p.). In fact, van Manen (2014) notes that “phenomenology does not offer us
the possibility of effective theory with which we can explain and /or control the world; rather it
offers us the possibility of plausible insights that bring us in more direct contact with the world”
(p. 66). As theory, phenomenology is a way of being in the world. It is a way of perceiving the
self, others, and the world from a state of wonder. It means maintaining an attitude of openness
and wonder about experiences and the world and reflecting through writing on those experiences
and things in order to gain insights about the essence of phenomena: what it means to experience
a certain thing.
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 3
van Manen (1990) defines phenomenology as a human science which “studies persons or
beings that have consciousness and that act purposefully in and on the world.” It “aims at
explicating the meaning of human phenomena and at understanding the lived structures of
meaning” (p. 4). In phenomenology, phenomena coincides “with the notion of experience. Thus,
to attend to experience rather than what is experienced is to attend to the phenomena” (Cerbone,
2006, p. 3). Phenomenological research is “commonly described as turning back zu den Sachen,
phenomenon or event that gives itself in lived experience” (van Manen, 2017, p. 811). It involves
a turning back to the experience as lived through in order to determine what the experience is
like.
(2006) writes:
is neither arbitrary nor idiosyncratic; rather the claim is that there is an essential structure,
irrespective of whatever the causal underpinnings of experience turn out to be. A further
experience is that these structures must be delineated in such a way that they are
While the essential structure is present in the experience itself, it is not a simple task to be able to
capture that prereflective experience, for “when we try to capture the ‘now’ of the living present
in an oral or written description, then we are already too late” (van Manen, 2014, p. 34). The
moment of reflection objectifies the experience and turns it “from the subjectivity of the living
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 4
presence into an object of reflective presence. No matter how hard we try, we are always too late
to capture the moment of the living now” (van Manen, 2014, p. 34). So if it is impossible to
actually capture the lived moment of experience, how does phenomenology determine the
essence of an experience?
Phenomenology as Method
van Manen (1990) notes: “to do research is always to question the way we experience the
world” (p. 5). This questioning is essential in the phenomenological method as phenomenology
does not aim to ascertain factual truth, but rather to explore possible truths.
there exist the possibilities and potentialities for experiencing openings, understandings,
giving us glances of the meaning of phenomena and events in their singularity. (van
It involves a digging down through writing to the “raw” experience which is “prereflective,
The basic method used in phenomenology to get to the lived meaning of experience is the
reduction, although there is not a prescribed method to be used in the reduction. van Manen
(2014) notes: “the reduction is not a technical procedure, rule, tactic, strategy, or a determinate
set of steps that we should apply to the phenomenon that is being researched” (p. 218). Unlike
other methodologies, phenomenology does not follow a specific procedure for “data” collection
and analysis. It is more about an “attentive tuning to the world” free from “presuppositions” (van
Manen, 2014, pp. 218, 220). Crowther, Ironside, Spence, & Smythe (2017) write: “hermeneutic
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 5
determined rules and research procedures, thus freeing us from dichotomous ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
ways of doing things” (p. 827), and, in fact, caution that “over reliance on method leaves what is
meaningful hidden and is antithetical to the pursuit of truth” (p. 829). Nonetheless,
According to van Manen (2014), the reduction consists of two moves that both oppose
and complement one another. “Negatively it suspends or removes what obstructs access to the
phenomenon - this move is called the epoche or bracketing. And positively it returns, leads back
to the mode of appearing of the phenomenon - this move is called the reduction” (p. 215).
number of forms. The heuristic reduction, for example, “aims to awaken a profound sense of
223). The hermeneutic reduction aims to avoid presuppositions by bracketing assumptions and
preunderstandings that “impinge on the reflective gaze” (van Manen, 2014, p. 224). The
meaning” (van Manen, 2014, p. 25). The methodological reduction brackets “all conventional
techniques and seeks or invents and approach that might fit most appropriately the
phenomenological topic under study” (van Manen, 2014, p. 226). In each case, the epoche-
reduction “is the preparatory move of the method that involves opening up and freeing oneself
from obstacles that would make it impossible to approach the phenomena of our lifeworld” (van
The positive reduction most often takes the form of the eidetic or imaginative reduction.
The eidetic reduction involves imagining variations of the aspect of the phenomenon to the point
at which a variation will change the phenomenon into something else in order to reach the
essence of what makes this particular phenomenon what it is. The eidetic reduction is
accomplished through imagination and “by comparing the phenomenon with other related but
different phenomena” (van Manen, 2014, p. 230). Other forms of positive reduction include the
ontological reduction, which “consists of explicating the mode or ways of being that belong to”
something (van Manen, 2014, p. 231); the radical reduction, which aims to extricate the person
experiencing the phenomenon as much as possible to focus “only on the self that gives itself”
(van Manen, 2014, p. 234); and the inceptual reduction, which consists of “orienting to the
originary beginning of the phenomenon” or “the birth of meaning” of the phenomenon (van
The final dimension of the phenomenological method is the vocative dimension, which
comes into play in the actual process of phenomenological writing, in which the researcher “aims
also to express the noncognitive, ineffable, and pathic aspects of meaning that belong to the
phenomenon” (van Manen, 2014, p. 240). The vocative method addresses the pathic or felt-
Phenomenology as Writing
primarily a writing activity. van Manen (2017) writes: “The problem for phenomenological
researchers is that a meaningful insight often cannot be secured through a planned systematic
method” rather “more profound phenomenological insights may only come in the process of
wrestling with writing and reflective rewriting - weighing every word for its cognitive weight
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 7
and vocative meaning” (p. 823). Phenomenological insights cannot happen without reading,
writing, and rewriting. It is also through the writing that the vocative dimension of
van Manen (2014) writes: “The intent of writing is to produce textual ‘portrayals’ that
resonate and make intelligible the kinds of meaning that we seem to recognize in life as we live
it. There is an entire separate form of reduction that comes into play in the experience of
reflective writing: the vocative” (p. 221). The vocative dimension involves several methods. The
revocative “aims to bring experience vividly into presence” so that the reader can recognize the
experience unreflectively (van Manen, 2014, p. 241). The evocative method “lets the text speak
to us” so that “its reverberative meanings seduce us to attentive recognition” through strongly
embedded language (van Manen, 2014, p. 249). The invocative method “intensifies the
philological aspects of the text so that the worlds intensify their sense and sensuous sensibility”
(van Manen, 2014, p. 260). The convocative method “aims for the text to possess (em)pathic
power” so that the text speaks to the felt sense of the reader (van Manen, 2014, p. 267). And the
provocative method aims to provoke the reader to action by articulating “the kind of ethical
predicaments” that are represented in the phenomenon (van Manen, 2014, p. 281). In all of these
methods, the quality of the writing is key in producing an effective phenomenological text.
reality. For the writer this is where insights occur, where words may acquire a depth of
meaning. But this is also the place where the writing shows its difficulties, where we find
out what language really is, where writing may become impossible, where language
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 8
ironically seems to rob us of the ability to say anything worth saying or saying what we
want to say. Strangely, in the space of the text our experience of language seems to
vacillate between transparency and impenetrability. One moment I am totally and self-
forgetfully entering this text - which opens up its own world. The next moment the
entrance seems blocked; or perhaps, I am re-entering the text with an acute awareness of
Writing phenomenologically requires finding a language which is able to say the unsayable. It
requires an intensifying and thickening of language so that the layers of meaning become
strongly embedded within the text such that the text cannot be altered without changing or
One method of thickening language is through poetry. van Manen (2014) notes that
through poetry “the author tries to intensify the complexities and subtleties of meaning” (p. 291).
rhythm - all add to the pathic sense of the text, the “epiphanic quality of language” that brings
about “phenomenological reverberation” (van Manen, 2007, p. 25). Gaston Bachelard (1971)
writes that “poetry supplies us with documents for a phenomenology of the soul” for the
language of poetry is “the language of souls” (p. 14). van Manen (2014) terms phenomenological
thinking as “poeticizing”, finding a language “that authentically speaks the world rather than
abstractly speaking of it”, a language “that reverberates the world” (p. 241).
In phenomenology, writing is both the process and the product. The writer writes their
way to insights and epiphanies but also produces a phenomenological text. And yet through the
writing, the writer also “produces himself or herself. The writer is the product of his or her own
product. Writing is a kind of self-making or forming” (van Manen, 2014, p. 365). The writing
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 9
mediates reflection and action; it distances us from the phenomenon and connects us with the
phenomenon; it objectifies and subjectifies; it shows us what have been given us to see.
van Manen (2003) writes: “Phenomenology aims to produce texts that awaken a sense of
wonder about the order of what is ordinary. Wonder means seeing the extraordinary in the
ordinary” (p. 49). Thus any human experience serves as possible subject matter for
phenomenological reflection. The primary source of “data” (though it is not data in the
traditional sense) in phenomenological studies is the example. “Examples are experiential data
that require study, investigation, probing, reflection, analysis, interrogation” (van Manen, 2017,
but not necessarily “directly sayable” (van Manen, 2017, p. 814). Phenomenology does not
attempt to generalize from the particular example, but rather uses the singularity of one
experience as it was lived, described from the inside. The researcher, however, may use the
process of “anecdoting” (van Manen, 2014, p. 250) to prepare powerful examples for
phenomenological reflection.
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 10
Anecdotes are short, simple stories that describe a single incident in concrete detail
without reflection. Anecdotes “explain things that resist straightforward explanation” and “bring
things into nearness by contributing to the vividness and presence of an experience” (van Manen,
2014, p. 251). A key element of the anecdote is punctum. van Manen (2014) writes: “a text
acquires punctum when an anecdote becomes a compelling narrative ‘example’ and claims the
an intellectual sense” (p. 253). As Crowther, Ironside, Spence, & Smythe (2017) write: “Stories
crafted in hermeneutic phenomenology are thus a provocative and powerful means of evoking
shared pathic responses” and bringing “a sense of multi-perspectival wholeness and possibility
that exceeds, yet includes, individualized or specific details” and is always “a paradoxical play of
the many and the individual” (p. 827). The stories do not need to be factually true as they “do not
pretend to provide empirical, factually accurate accounts” but rather “a powerful ‘felt’ knowing
that is difficult to encapsulate” (Crowther, Ironside, Spence, & Smythe, 2017, p. 833), the
writing “becomes a showing” (van Manen, 2014, p. 48). It is through the specificity of the story
of a plausible experience that the researcher/reader is able to see the possibility of and reflect
insights and essences may be gleaned from and represented in phenomenological writing is
through exploring themes. Themes may be explored and isolated in a phenomenological story
through: a wholistic reading (considering the text as a whole), a selective reading (highlighting
Manen, 2014, p. 320). Writing thematically enables the researcher to simplify and focus the
experience in a way that captures and makes sense of the notion of the phenomenon (van Manen,
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 11
1990, pp. 87-88). Phenomenological writing may also be structured analytically (widening),
exemplificatively (using various examples), exegetically (working with other texts), existentially
(focusing on the existentials of time, space, body, and relationships), or through a hybrid or
invented form (van Manen, 1990, pp. 168-173). Just as the theory and methodology of
phenomenology are not fixed, so the writing preserves a flexibility to many potential forms
History of Phenomenology
Original Methods
the influential thinkers who have presented diverse versions of phenomenological inquiry
do not just offer variations in philosophies or methods. They inevitably also offer
alternative and radical ways of understanding how and where meaning originates and
occurs in the first place. And yet, it is the search for the source and mystery of meaning
that we live in everyday life that lies at the basis of these various inceptual
Phenomenology opens up the possibility for creativity and originality, and “each genuinely new
One of the earliest philosophers to develop the field of phenomenology was Edmund
Husserl. Husserl was born in what is now the Czech Republic in 1859 and taught at the
claim that there are truths and principles that the natural sciences presuppose, but for which they
themselves cannot account” (Cerbone, 2006, p. 14). Husserl views phenomenology as a “pure
discipline” (Cerbone, 2006, p. 12) which aims “to capture experience in its primordial origin or
essence, without interrupting, explaining, or theorizing” (van Manen, 2014, p. 89). It appeals
both to noesis, “the process of experiencing,” and noema, “the content experienced,” as well as
to “a third fundamental element of experience: the one whose experience it is, what Husserl
refers to as the ‘ego’” (Cerbone, 2006, pp. 31, 32). In Husserl’s phenomenology, the ego is“pure
ego” and “it is this pure or abstract sense of having that Husserl intends to explore within his
phenomenology” (Cerbone, 2006, p. 33). Husserl developed the key phenomenological methods
of the epoche, “the suspension or bracketing of the natural or everyday attitude”, and the
reduction, “the constitution of meaning” (van Manen, 2014, p. 91) and views phenomenological
reflection as a return “to the things themselves” (van Manen, 2014, p. 93). For Husserl “the
ultimate source of intelligibility seems to be the primal impressional stream of preconscious life
that becomes interpretively available to our understanding as lived experience” (van Manen,
2014, p. 95).
Martin Heidegger, born in Germany in 1889, met and studied under Husserl at Freiburg.
Husserl had hoped that Heidegger would be his successor but this was not to be the case.
reduction, led to a falling out between the two in 1929. Heidegger’s phenomenology “is
subservient to what he calls ‘fundamental ontology’, which is centred on the ‘question of being’”
Dasein or being human, as Dasein is the only being that can question its own being. Heidegger
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 13
rejects the phenomenological reduction because “if phenomenology’s task is to explicate the
which means in turn that phenomenology cannot proceed by bracketing or excluding entities”
(Cerbone, 2006, p. 44). Heidegger believes that “we are always submerged in meaning” (van
Manen, 2014, p. 108) and that “a form of understanding is always already involved in our
world” (Cerbone, 2006, p. 54). Heidegger believes the past, present, and future are all necessary
understanding comes from recognition of the past and possibility of the future, which gives us
freedom in the present (Reynolds, 2006, p. 34). In terms of the future, Dasein is always “ahead
of itself” or projecting towards the future (Reynolds, 2006, p. 41). According to Heidegger,
because of our awareness as human beings that we are going to die, we “get a perspective on life
as a whole” (Reynolds, 2006, p. 43) and thus we see our “choices as mattering, as indelibly and
irrevocably shaping [our] finite allotment of time” (Cerbone, 2006, p. 64). For Heidegger, the
key was to be able to reflect on our everyday experience with the past, present, and future in
mind, and thus to be able to live authentically with ourselves and with others.
Other early phenomenologists include Max Scheler, Edith Stein, and Jan Patocka. Max
Scheler, born in Munich, Germany in 1874, became a phenomenologist after meeting Husserl in
1901, although his phenomenology took a different direction than Husserl’s, focusing on attitude
and “the manner in which I understand and exercise this attitude” (Scheler in van Manen, 2014,
p. 97). Scheler’s “injection of ethical and pathic elements into the very process of inquiry and
reflection” (van Manen, 2014, p. 100) became important to future phenomenologists, and, in
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 14
fact, Heidegger claimed that “phenomenology would not have become what it was if not for the
work of Max Scheler” (van Manen, 2014, p. 97). Edith Stein, born in Breslau in 1891, was also
influenced by Husserl and became his first assistant and graduate student. Stein was the first to
apply Husserl’s method of phenomenology to empathy because she believed that “the various
experience is actually like” (van Manen, 2014, p. 103). Stein “carefully and painstakingly
examines the meaning of empathy in relation to physical causes and psychological motives” (van
Manen, 2014, p. 103) and considers empathy as essential to forming community with others. Jan
Patocka, born in Czechoslovakia in 1907, also studied under both Husserl and Heidegger and
built on the works of both. Patocka believes “we are not just situated in the world; we are our
situatedness. We are our personal being in our purposes, projects, and possibilities” (van Manen,
2014, p. 111). He focuses on the embodied nature of experience and sees phenomenology as a
Multiple Methods
phenomenologists focus on various different phenomena and create new ways of reflecting
Emmanuel Levinas, born in 1906 in Kovno, Russia, also studied under Husserl and was
introduced to Heidegger at Freiburg in 1929, around the time Husserl and Heidegger had their
falling out. Levinas became the first to introduce the works of Husserl and Heidegger to France
where he taught at the University of Poitiers, Nanterre University, and the Sorbonne, before
receiving a position at Freiburg. Levinas’ interpretation focuses on ethics and morality in our
relations with others. Levinas believes that we “do not encounter the other as a self who is in a
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 15
mutual relation with me as a self. Rather I pass over myself and meet the other in his or her true
alterity, an otherness that is irreducible to me or to my own interests in the world” (van Manen,
2014, p. 115). Thus we experience in meeting the other a call to “response-ability”, a situation
Levinas terms as being taken “hostage” (van Manen, 2014, p. 116). According to Levinas, the
other involves a “presentation that is ethical” (Cerbone, 2006, p. 148) and we have an “ethical
experience of responsibility in the face of the other” which is “absolute and prior to
Differing from his predecessors, Jean-Paul Sartre, born in Paris, France in 1905, was a
public intellectual rather than an academic philosopher. Though he never met Husserl, Sartre
read Husserl and Heidegger, and interestingly, as Heidegger joined the Nazis, taught Heidegger
to fellow prisoners when as an officer in the French army he was imprisoned by occupying
German forces. Sartre’s phenomenology focuses on “the activity as experienced” and Sartre
would argue that the ego comes into play only as an object for reflection, that “the ego is a
transcendental object for consciousness” (Cerbone, 2006, pp. 74, 76). Sartre believes that an
a “no-thing” (van Manen, 2014, p. 122) which is capable of reflecting on itself. Like Heidegger,
Sartre saw human existence as containing past, present, and future, our present determined by
(Cerbone, 2006, p. 90). Sartre also believes we have full responsibility for our own decisions and
actions and are thus “condemned to freedom” (Cerbone, 2006, p. 68). According to Sartre:
Condemned to be free, conscious beings confront the world in terms of choices and
decisions, and so they must evaluate their actions in light of that freedom. To opt out of
the task of evaluation is once more a kind of bad faith, since doing so involves a refusal
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 16
contrast, is precisely to combat this refusal: to awaken the for-itself to its own
Unlike Heidegger, Sartre believes that it is not knowledge of our mortality that gives meaning to
life but rather that it is finitude and the inevitability that each choice precludes other choices,
hence the term “condemned to freedom” that actually gives meaning to life (Reynolds, 2006, p.
86).
studied Husserl and was more sympathetic in his reading of Husserl than others had been. His
essences ‘back into existence’” (van Manen, 2014, p. 127). Merleau-Ponty returns to the notion
to Merleau-Ponty, “we know the world bodily and through our embodied actions. And in some
sense this is a preknowing knowing: we know our first first of all through our embodied being
rather than immediately in a disembodied intellectual manner” (van Manen, 2014, p. 128).
Because this preknowing knowing is so ingrained in our existence, ordinary experience is often
“transparent to us” and we often “look past our own experiences of things” (Cerbone, 2006, p.
121), thus Merleau-Ponty often uses pathological examples as a contrast to better understand our
understanding of freedom and believes that we are not entirely free but that freedom and
constraint are intertwined: “We are both constituted by the world and also serve to constitute it,
and consciousness retains both of the aspects” (Reynolds, 2006, p. 127) which leads to a sense of
others. The diversity of phenomenological approaches attests to both its flexibility and its
strength and rigor, and demonstrates that phenomenology is limited only by limits of possible
human experience.
movements such as the Dutch or Utrecht School in the 1950s, a loosely connected group of
professionals from a number of fields whose aim is to “stay as close as possible to the ordinary
events of everyday life” (van Manen, 2014, p. 195). The Utrecht School is unique because it
methodological explications, and it used literary and artistic ingredients, and its writings
demonstrate a vivid narrative quality (van Manen, 2014, p. 197). The Utrecht School included
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the 1970s with psychologists such as Amadeo Giorgi and Clark
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 18
Moustakas. The Duquesne School is “especially known for publishing methodological models of
phenomenological and related qualitative research approaches that could be applied to the more
practical fields of counselling, spiritual ministering, therapy, and clinical psychology” (van
Manen, 2014, p. 210). Following in the tradition of both early phenomenologists and practical
methods of phenomenology on the basis of practical examples” from the vast field of
phenomenological literature (van Manen, 2014, p. 212). It is to van Manen specifically that we
Phenomenology of Practice
issuing from the pathic power of phenomenological reflections” (p. 11), and states that, in fact,
“all phenomenology is oriented to practice - the practice of living” (p. 12). A phenomenology of
practice “aims to open up possibilities for creating formative relations between being and acting,
between who we are and how we act, between thoughtfulness and tact” (van Manen, 2007, p.
renewing and creative impulses of the search for the experience and origin of lived meaning and
the meaning of meaning in human life” (van Manen, 2014, p. 213). A phenomenology of practice
is not only an explication of the essence of human experiences but it is “the progress of
humanizing human life and humanizing human institutions to help human beings to become
increasingly thoughtful and thus better prepared to act tactfully in situations” (van Manen, 1990,
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 19
p. 21). Phenomenology of practice aims for deeper understanding, and through deeper
theory ‘thinks’ the world, practice ‘grasps’ the world - it grasps the world pathically” (van
Manen, 2007, p. 20). Pathic understanding is felt understanding; the pathic sense “perceives the
world in a feeling or emotive modality of knowing and being” (van Manen, 2007, p. 21).
Heidegger captures the pathic sense in the notion of Befindlichkeit, which means “the way one
finds oneself” in the world (cited in van Manen, 2007, p. 21). Pathic knowing is embodied
knowing, involving our whole selves. van Manen (2007) writes: “The pathic dimensions of
practice are pathic precisely because they reside or resonate in the body, in our relations with
others, in the things of our world, and in our very actions” (p. 22). Often these modes of knowing
are so much a part of our lived experience that they seem invisible to us, outside of reflection.
Through phenomenology of practice, these seemingly invisible aspects of human experience can
be brought to light.
Phenomenology of Pedagogy
van Manen (1991) defines pedagogy as “excellence of teaching” (p. 30). It has, in the
contemporary sense, “to do with the personal relational and ethical aspects of teaching” (van
Manen, 2015, p. 11). It is, like phenomenology, “driven by pathic sensitivities” or “affects”
including “thoughtfulness, tact, sensitivity, and the ability to graph what goes on in the inner life
of the other” (van Manen, 2015, p. 42). According to van Manen (1979), “pedagogic thought and
practice rely on phenomenological analysis of what it is like to live as a young person in present-
day society” (p. 5). Through phenomenological pedagogical reflection the adult is able “to be
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 20
fundamentally accountable for his educative work with children” and also “to be accountable to
that the ontological dimension of pedagogy consists in a (re)cognition of the ‘being called upon
the attempt to achieve phenomenological understanding which goes beyond language and
the unspeakable, it is because the secret of our calling is expressed by that of the
pedagogic work we do with children, which teaches us to recognize the grounds that
Phenomenological pedagogy “asks ever and anew what is the isness, the essence of the
pedagogic experience” (van Manen, 1982, p. 288). Phenomenology helps bring to light what
means to be a pedagogue and what pedagogy means in our relationships with children. It “bids to
recover reflectively the grounds which, in a deep sense, provide for the possibility of our
pedagogic concerns with children” (van Manen, 1982, p. 298). Phenomenological pedagogy
requires an attentiveness to our being with children and an attentiveness to the inner lives of the
children with whom we live. It is phenomenological reflection which “gives life or spirit to
(inspires) our pedagogic life” by helping us to “recollect that which is already possessed by us”
which we “recognize as potentialities and actualities of being” (van Manen, 1982, p. 298).
Pedagogical Tact
According to van Manen, one of the essential elements of pedagogy is pedagogical tact.
Pedagogical tact is “an expression of the responsibility with which we are charged in protecting,
educating, and helping children grow” and it is “always in the service of the person toward
whom the tact is directed” (van Manen, 1991, pp. 128, 138). It is the external aspect of
Pedagogical tact cannot be planned but occurs in the moment in response to a call by the
child. It “materializes itself in concrete situations in which we are confronted by the Other caught
in his or her own stream of experience” (Westfall-Greiter & Schwarz, 2012, p. 127). It requires a
sensitivity to what is happening with a particular child in a particular moment. van Manen (2015)
Since ancient times a Kairos moment has been described as a transformative moment of
chance depending on our ability and willingness to seize the opportunity that is offered
within it. Kairos moments are pure, perfect, unpredictable, and uncontrollable moments
that possess possibility. Kairos moments may yield insights and clarity but are often
brought on by pain, agony, and feelings of frustration and desperation. Kairos moments
force us to be absolutely present to ourselves and to the meaning and significance of what
Pedagogical tact acts always in the Kairos moment. It is “contingent, immediate, situational,
(van Manen, 2015, p. 82). It requires a thoughtfulness and perceptiveness that is both reflective
and prereflective.
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 22
Pedagogical tact is also individual and relational. It “is respectful of the individual” while
also being “mindful of educational goals” (Westfall-Greiter & Schwarz, 2012, p. 129). It
and it is exercised in “an active and expressively caring concern for the child” (van Manen, 1991,
p. 172). van Manen (2015) terms this caring concern as “care-as-worry” - a worry which echoes
the worry a parent would have for their child (p. 179).
Pedagogical tact manifests itself in numerous ways in our being with children. It may be
manifest through action - a word, a gesture, a look - or it may be manifest through a holding back
and exercising of patience to allow the child to work through a challenge independently in order
to preserve the child’s space. It is “not subject to rules” though it is “not ‘unruly’ or arbitrary”; it
stimulated and strengthened in individuals who are sensitive to its aims” (van Manen, 2015, p.
92). It requires a reflectiveness such that past pedagogical experiences enable the teacher “to
enrich, to make more thoughtful [any] future pedagogical experience” (van Manen, 1991, p.
205), thus enabling the teacher to “know what to do when they don’t know what to do” (van
Pedagogical Seeing
acting” (Saevi & Foran, 2012, p. 52). Like pedagogical tact, seeing “is unaware of itself in the
moment of seeing, and thus must be reflected on to be consciously addressed” (Saevi & Foran,
2012, p. 55). Pedagogical seeing requires bringing children, who often “live backstage” and are
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 23
“not reflectively noticed” (Saevi & Foran, 2012, p. 57) to the foreground of our thought and
reflection. For the teacher, seeing must become an innate way of knowing the world. As Saevi &
Seeing someone or something, however, is not synonymous with reflective knowing. The
lived experience of seeing a student in the pedagogical encounter is not the same as
having knowledge about students, pedagogy, or teaching. Even though most teachers do
have a great deal of professional and personal knowledge in regards to students, subjects,
and pedagogical practice, cognitive and professional knowledge are secondary to the
experience of actually seeing students as a way of relating and existing. Seeing and being
seen, in the pedagogical encounter are experiential phenomena that help us understand
the meaning of the special relationship between teacher and student. A teacher’s seeing, is
knowledge. While knowing students is a cognitive and conscious area of the teacher’s
Pedagogical seeing is embodied seeing, involving the whole self of the teacher and seeing the
Pedagogical seeing necessitates notice, from noscere, to know. But “being seen is more
than being acknowledged. For a child it means experiencing being seen by the teacher. It means
being confirmed as existing, as being a unique person and a learner” (van Manen, 2002, p. 31).
from the Latin recognoscere, which translates as to ‘acknowledge, recall to mind, know again,
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 24
examine, certify’” (Carabajo, 2010, p. 9). It inheres both a prior knowing and a renewed
knowing. It is welcoming of the other and cares for the uniqueness of the other.
Carabajo (2010) warns that “not recognizing a child or youngster is to deny them this knowledge
of their personal capabilities and possibilities” (p. 11). Recognition from an educator is often
what children most remember and appreciate. However, failure to recognize a student, either
through non-recognition or mis-recognition, can also have significant impact. Saevi & Foran
(2012) caution that “moments of non-recognition likely pedagogically mean more to students
than we as teachers might believe possible” (p. 58). Every action or non-action in our lives with
children has an impact. As van Manen (2015) emphasizes: “We know that we cannot not
influence our children” (p. 123). By seeing and giving recognition to each of the children with
whom we live, we are “helping to give the full value to a child” (Carabajo, 2010, p. 15).
Pedagogical Touch
Pedagogical tact also necessitates touch. van Manen (2015) writes: “To teach is to touch
and be touched” (p. 103). The idea of touch in teaching often raises serious concerns as a result
necessary. As van Manen (2012) notes: “The teacher touches the student with his or her voice,
eyes, gestures, and presence. To say it more pointedly: a real teacher touches the students with
his or her being and mind” (p. 22). van Manen (2012) also refers to this as “as soul [touching] a
One of the most prevalent ways in which we touch others is with the eyes. van Manen
(2012) writes: “Teachers who are blessed with pedagogical sensitivity seem able to ‘touch’
students with their eyes in a tactful manner” (p. 24). Smith (2012) calls this the “caress of the
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 25
eyes” and notes that in this moment “one notices a relaxation of the teacherly position, an
direction of the child” (p. 72). Teachers also touch with their voice, “letting one’s voice sooth and
assuage an otherwise difficult or even painful situation” (Smith, 2012, p. 72). The tone of voice
and choice of words can touch students in a negative or a positive way. van Manen (2012)
questions:
How does one find the right tone, the right words for each child? That is surely the
question that is at the heart of our pedagogic lives. The teacher’s task is not merely to
find an opening, a way of reaching the child. As if it is not difficult enough to detect what
language, what words, what gesture, what kind of tone can breach the barriers that
separate any particular child’s world from an adult’s understanding and good intentions.
The teacher must also do something with the language. The teacher’s aim is not to battle,
to penetrate, to violate the child’s inner nature; rather the teacher’s intent is pedagogic, to
Through eyes, words, tone, gestures, teachers form the relationships necessary to be
While touch through eyes, words, tone, and gestures are deemed appropriate, physical
touch is often deemed inappropriate. Smith (2012), however, would argue for an “embodied
ethics” (p. 66) in which the physical caress is also essential. Smith (2012) notes that:
To embrace a child is to accent, even more profoundly than most other gestures, this
inherent power of linking ‘a here and a yonder,’ a present and a future, because that
which provides such a link is the memorable resonance in the initiation of the gesture.
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 26
That instant is, there and then, here and now, ‘the measure of my existence’ that I enact in
the unfolding of the embrace, and its compass can be judged by its responsivity to and
allowance for the child to be more fully himself or herself. (p. 68)
I can remember at my staff meeting during my teaching practicuum at an elementary school the
principal admonishing the teachers not to be fearful of touch but to embrace the child who is
seeking an embrace because it might be the only one that they will receive. van Manen (2012)
Some students suffer through our schools, day after day, week after week, month after
month, while none of their teachers has an inkling of the daily drowning desperation that
is the consequence of having lost touch with lessons, not being noticed, not being
These are the students most in need of the pedagogical touch, and sometimes that touch must be
manifest physically.
A lived experience description taken from Frank McCourt’s Teacher Man (2006)
provides an example of the affective impact of the caress for both the student and the teacher:
Phyllis wrote an account of how her family gathered the night Neil Armstrong
landed on the moon, how they shuttled between the living room television and the
bedroom where her father lay dying. Back and forth. Concerned with the father, not
wanted to miss the moon landing. Phyllis said she was with her father when her mother
called to come and see Armstrong set foot on the moon. She ran to the living room,
everyone cheering and hugging till she felt this urgency, the old urgency, and ran to the
bedroom to find her father dead. She didn’t scream, she didn’t cry, and her problem was
how to return to the happy people in the living room to tell that Dad was gone.
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 27
She cried now, standing in front of the classroom. She could have stepped back to
her seat in the front row and I hoped she would because I didn’t know what to do. I went
to her. I put my left arm around her. But that wasn’t enough. I pulled her to me, embraced
her with both arms, let her sob into my shoulder. Faces around the room were wet with
tears till someone called, Right on, Phyllis, and one or two clapped and the whole class
clapped and cheered and Phyllis turned to smile at them with her wet face and when I led
her to her seat she turned and touched my cheek and I thought, This isn’t earthshaking,
the touch on the cheek, but I’ll never forget it: Phyllis, her dead father, Armstrong on the
Smith (2012) writes about the “eternity in the moment” which the caress affects; it is “about the
‘purity’ or goodness of the caress and not just its lingering affect, which surely wanes. Eternity in
the moment is the inherent sense of goodness, rightness, appropriateness, tactfulness and
thoughtfulness that gives the caress its lasting effect” (p. 78). We can never know the lasting
Pedagogical Hope
The final essential element of pedagogical tact is hope. van Manen (2015) writes that
“those of us who live with children cannot afford to be so nihilistic; we cannot abandon the
pedagogical place we occupy in the lives of our children. Children are hope” (p. 191). And yet
we must also have hope for our children. According to van Manen (2015), “Hope refers to all
that gives us patience, tolerance, and belief in the possibilities for our children. Hope is our
experience of the child’s possibilities” (p. 192). Hope dwells in the past, the present, and the
future. It sees what the child has been, what they are, and what they might become. It also
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 28
“dwells in the more distant future; in an open time” (Carabajo, 2012, p. 145). Hope opens up
Despite the challenges and frustrations teacher face, hope remains. Hope is born of the
relationships which teachers have with students, of our care and affection for our students, and of
the desire for pedagogical goodness. It is patient and realistic, and it “generates expectations.
Expectations, which are essentially positive, and upon which somebody else can imagine and
construct” (Carabajo, 2012, p. 148). Hope imbues us with a sense of wonder, the ability to see
“the everyday victories” of our students which never cease to surprise and amaze us (Carabajo,
2012, p. 144). Children “need to see and feel our wonderment” (Carabajo, 2012, p. 144) just as
they need to see and feel our hope for them. Sadly,
we know that there are still many children marked by misfortune and suffering who carry
a world on their shoulders that is too heavy for them to carry. We also know that there are
teachers who put themselves on the line to reach them and help them have a better future.
They are adults who actively work to maintain their hope knowing that, perhaps, they are
the only ones who have any hope for these children and young people. (Carabajo, 2012,
p. 150)
To give up hope would be to give up on our students. And “a teacher who gives up on a child,
who no longer knows how to have a sense of hope for that child, immediately steps back from
being a teacher” (van Manen, 2002, p. 65). As teachers, we must never lose hope.
Phenomenology is a writing activity. It may not only find its “data” in literature but it
also shows the phenomena through story. As van Manen (1990) notes, through good literature
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 29
“we are given the chance of living through an experience that provides us with the opportunity of
gaining insight into certain aspects of the human condition” (p. 70). Phenomenological writing is
not concerned with veritas truth, which is pragmatic, technical, bureaucratic, certain, right, and
just, but with aletheia truth which involved self-showing and hiding, felt experience of truth, and
meaningfulness (van Manen, 2014, pp. 342-343). Literature also invokes this “felt-sense” that
connects with “our deepest, pre-reflective experience” (Howard, 2010, p. 59). This “felt-sense” is
what gives meaning and insight in our reading of a text, both through phenomenological writing
Narrative inquiry is “an ongoing process of understanding how we invest space and
chronology with significance. In constructing stories to explain and account for our lived
experience, we transpose space into place, and objective time into subjective time” (Leggo ,
2008, p. 15). It is through stories, through narrative, that we recount our lived experience which
stories as an integral way to sort who we are as people in relation to other people. We are
to stories. Everybody lives stories, all the time, and everybody attends to the stories of
others. (p. 3)
Through stories we come to understand ourselves and we come to understand others. Sameshima
(2007) states: “stories whether fiction or non-fiction, provide examples of how others see and
live within stories” (p. 51). van Manen (1990) also notes: “We gather other people’s experiences
because they allow us to become more experienced ourselves” (p. 62) for “one’s own
experiences are the possible experiences of others and . . . the experiences of others are the
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 30
possible experiences of oneself” (p. 58). Stories offer us multiple possible truths and plausible
scenarios in a manner that engages our whole body. Vickers (2010) notes:
Fiction can offer us the possibility of vicarious experience that may be more likely than
another person, and is, perhaps, the closest we might come to being able to see the truth
of another person’s experience without actually being the person. (p. 563)
Through stories we come to see and understand the many and varied experiences which are part
Narrative inquiry, like phenomenology, is also a process of writing and rewriting. Leggo
(2004) writes: “I need to return often to the stories I have lived in order to know the stories in
their multiplicity, meaning-making possibilities, and mystery” (p. 109). No story is a simple
story. “Any story we tell will always be a fragment of the complex and wide-ranging experiences
that each of us lives daily” (Leggo, 2004, p. 98) and yet “through interpretation finds connection
to a whole” (MacDonald & Wiebe, 2011, p. 100). Crowther, Ironside, Spence, & Smythe (2016)
note: “Hermeneutic phenomenology accepts that phenomena are never fully concealed or
unconcealed” and thus each story is “understood as holding multiple meanings and further
uncovering of the phenomena” (p. 828). MacDonald and Wiebe (2011) also write that:
And “looking into the mirror of narrating a lived experience allows a further account of the
fragments we unearth (and produce) in our speculations and shifting contexts of meaning”
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 31
(MacDonald & Wiebe, 2011, p. 101). Through our stories, written and rewritten, we become
more human.
In both phenomenological writing and narrative inquiry, language matters. How the story
is told is as significant as the story itself. In phenomenological writing, one must “enter the dark,
the space of the text, in the hope of seeing what cannot really be seen, hearing what cannot really
be heard, touching what cannot really be touched” (van Manen, 2014, p. 371). Through
phenomenological writing, “the writer uses words to uncover a truth that seems almost within
reach” and “creates a space that belongs to the unsayable” (van Manen, 2006, pp. 717, 718).
Phenomenology requires good writing, as does narrative inquiry. Sameshima and Leggo (2014)
refer to this as “the art of discourse,” and emphasize that researchers using narratives “should
attend to language and the rhetoric of story-making” (p. 541). Leggo (2004) also notes that
“there is a need to expand the possibilities of narrative inquiry by paying more attention to the
ways that language and rhetoric shape both narration and understanding” (pp. 100-101). Writing,
phenomenologically or narratively, takes practice, time, and openness, and requires specific
attention to language.
language. Galvin & Todres (2009) write that “language informed by a poetic sensibility appears
to be most adequate when attending to a continuity between the felt sense and words that can do
justice to what is felt to some degree” (p. 312). The language of poetry “deeply describes
common humanity with others, and an emotional homecoming” (Galvin & Todres, 2009, p. 309).
Bachelard (1971) sees poetry as “one of the destinies of speech” (p. 3) and as such “because of
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 32
the privileged position which phenomenology gives the present, we have been ready to welcome
with open arms the new images offered by the poet” (p. 4).
Poetry has punctum. “A poet’s words can pierce us” (Wittgenstein cited in Zwicky, 2003, p. 55).
the author tries to intensify complexities and subtleties of meaning through poetic or
rhetoric devices and through a careful weighing of words and word combinations while
remaining attuned to the usage of words and to the possible augmenting and distorting
effects that words may have on each other when they are composed and composted,
Poetic language is powerful. Poetry “speaks languages that are not necessarily readily
translatable” (Leggo, 2012, p. 152). It “constitutes a way to say things evocatively and to say
those things that may not be presented at all” (Faulkner, 2012, p. 301). Like phenomenology,
“poetry’s work is the clarification and magnification of being” which enables us to enter “a
different mode of know” (Hirshfield cited in Butler-Kisber, 2012, pp. 142-143). Poetry is
inquiry: “inquiry into what it means to be human - experience, feeling, imagination, memory,
desire - human in relation with the self, with others, with the earth . . . The work of poetry is to
deepen understanding, to provoke thought, enable empathy, and sometimes provoke action”
Why Phenomenology?
for my research? One of the aspects of phenomenology that appeals to me as a writer is that it is
essentially a writing activity in which insights are gleaned through the process of writing and
from phenomenological writing or textual reflection” (van Manen, 2014, p. 389). Through the
to examine my own story, but also to use others’ life stories gathered through their writing,
interviews, literature, and art. In its connection with narrative and poetic inquiry,
phenomenological writing also lends itself to creative representations. van Manen (2014) writes:
“Phenomenology craves creativity” (p. 72). Phenomenological writings may take various forms,
such as poetry, narrative fiction, and creative non-fiction, but may also “involve the visual and
auditory languages of images, art, cinema, or music” (van Manen, 2014, p. 389).
research is to be read by teachers working in classrooms with students. It questions rather than
seeking concrete answers, and yet it is powerful, often evoking action through its vocative
nature. It is reflective, mindful, and attentive, and creates a reflective and open attitude in both
the writer and the reader. Through phenomenological reflection, I am able to gain a better
van Manen (2014) notes, through phenomenological writing “we may deepen and change
Just as becoming a writer has had a significant positive impact on my teaching, already I
can see how developing a phenomenological attitude and opening myself to phenomenological
reflection has impacted my pedagogical thoughtfulness and tact as I reflect upon and question
my ways of being with my students, always seeking ways in which I can better serve my
combined with a phenomenological attitude will only serve to continue to strengthen both my
References
Bachelard, G. (1971). The poetics of reverie: Childhood, language, and the cosmos. Boston,
Butler-Kisber, L. (2012). Poetic inquiry. In Thomas, S., Cole, A. L., & Stewart, S. (Eds.) The art
of poetic inquiry (pp. 142-150). Big Tancook Island, NS: Backalong Books. 142-150.
Limited.
Crowther, S., Ironside, P., Spence, D., & Smythe, L. (2017). Crafting stories in hermeneutic
Faulkner, S. L. (2012). Poetry as/in research: Connections between poets and qualitative
researchers. In Thomas, S., Cole, A. L., & Stewart, S. (Eds.) The art of poetic inquiry (pp.
Galvin, K. & Todres, L. (2009). Poetic inquiry & phenomenological research: The practice of
inquiry: Vibrant voices in the social sciences. (pp. 307-316). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Howard, P. (2010). How literature works: Poetry and the phenomenology of reader response.
Leggo, C. (2004). Narrative inquiry: Honouring the complexity of the stories we live. Brock
Leggo, C. (2008). Narrative inquiry: Attending to the art of discourse. Language and Literacy,
10(1), 1-21.
Leggo, C. (2012). Living language: What is a poem good for? Journal of the Canadian
Leggo, C., & Sameshima, P. (2014). Startling stories: Fiction and reality in education research. In
MacDonald, C., & Wiebe, S. (2011). Attention to place: Learning to listen. Journal of the
Saevi, T. & Foran, A. (2012). Seeing pedagogically, telling phenomenologically: Addressing the
Sameshima, P. (2007). Seeing red: A pedagogy of parallax. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press.
PHENOMENOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY 36
Smith, S. J. (2012). Caring caresses and the embodiment of good teaching. Phenomenology &
Sullivan, A. M. (2012). Poetry and cognition: An exploration and a suggestion. In Thomas, S.,
Cole, A. L., & Stewart, S. (Eds.) The art of poetic inquiry (pp. 86-97). Big Tancook
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness.
van Manen, M. (2001). Edifying theory: Serving the good. Theory into Practice, 11(1), 44-49.
van Manen, M. (2002). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). London, ON:
van Manen, M. (2003). Writing in the dark: Phenomenological studies in interpretive inquiry.
van, Manen, M. (2006). Writing qualitatively, or the demands of writing. Qualitative Health
van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11-30.
van Manen, M. (2012). The call of pedagogy as the call of contact. Phenomenology & Practice,
6(2), 8-34.
van Manen, M. (2015). Pedagogical tact: Knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do.
van Manen, M. (2017). Phenomenology in its original sense. Qualitative Health Research, 27(6),
Vickers, M. H. (2010). The creation of fiction to share other truths and different viewpoints: A
creative journey and an interpretive process. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(7), 556-565. DOI:
10.1177/1077800410371922