From Uncomfortable Squirm to Self-Discovery: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Bracketing Experience

Abstract

Bracketing (also called epoche) is fundamental in phenomenological philosophy and is a widely recognized practice in phenomenological and other qualitative research methodologies. Bracketing definitions, types, and procedures still generate debate among contemporary phenomenological methodologists and other qualitative researchers. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the dialogue about the topic of bracketing with empirical research on one of its forms. In this study, we analyzed self-reflection reports of doctoral students who had engaged in a bracketing interview and subsequent group analysis. Our results show that the bracketing process can be an educational and revelatory experience for the novice researcher including heightening awareness of their presuppositions and other commonly discussed benefits in the literature. An unanticipated finding includes the powerful effect of bracketing as a springboard to developing a researcher identity. Being understood and validated by the research group was a unique experience for participants that helped to dispel student feelings of being an impostor and/or inadequately prepared to conduct doctoral research. Implications for improving the bracketing process for novice researchers include clear communication prior to bracketing and explicit instruction on research journaling.

Introduction

Bracketing (also called epoche) has been fundamental in phenomenology since its Husserlian origins (1913/1931), and its definitions, types, and procedures still generate debate and confusion among contemporary phenomenological methodologists and other qualitative researchers. Readers of research reports encounter vague references to bracketing with little elucidation of how and when it was allegedly accomplished. Those attempting to learn phenomenology typically receive only slightly more direction from qualitative methodology texts. Gearing (2004, p. 1432) expressed concern that bracketing had erroneously been reduced to a “formless technique, value stance, or black-box term in studies.” She further alleged that researcher claims that a bracketing process was used without further explanation could “critically undermine the scientific value of an investigation … and contribute to erosion of the bracketing concept” (2004, p. 1449).

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the dialogue about the topic of bracketing that has been going on for over 100 years, and clarify through empirical research one particular form of bracketing. We begin with a review of bracketing definitions and methods gathered from methodological literature. Then we present an empirical analysis of bracketing, as conducted in the Transdisciplinary Phenomenology Research Group (TPRG) at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) for over 30 years (Pollio et al., 1997; Sohn et al., 2017; Thomas, 2021). Empirical analysis of qualitative methods is an important growing trend (see Bartholomew et al., 2021; Woods et al., 2016) that can contribute to clarity for researchers and professors of qualitative research and thus ultimately to study rigor and quality.

A 1:1 audio recorded bracketing interview and subsequent group analysis of the interview are essential steps in the existential-phenomenological method at UTK (Pollio et al., 1997; Sohn et al., 2017; Thomas, 2021). As teachers of student researchers, we feel a deep responsibility to prepare them properly for thoughtfully undertaking phenomenological study. Preparation not only requires reading foundational phenomenological texts but also becoming fully open to the phenomenon they have chosen to investigate and the disparate life worlds of the research participants with whom they will interact (who could be school dropouts, sex offenders, or snake handlers), all of whom have been studied by researchers using our method.

One avenue to achievement of that openness is a bracketing interview that is conducted during the preparation stage of the research prior to collection of any research data. Students’ passion for their topic and/or personal issues can interfere with fidelity to the phenomenological method during participant interviews and data analysis (Thomas, 2021). Passion for one’s topic is expected, and “without some personal interest he (sic) could never follow through in completing or even initiating a research project” (Colaizzi, 1978, p. 55). But if pre-understandings of a phenomenon and self-deception are unrecognized, the result is likely flawed research. Providing examples from his students’ theses, Churchill (1990) has illustrated the self-deceptions that lead to flawed research if never confronted. In one example, “The Bar as an Essential Hangout” the student (who had spent extensive time in bars) had a personal need to justify “hanging out” in a “search for self.” If her annoyance at others’ judgmental “put-downs” of bars had been explored in a bracketing interview prior to data collection, perhaps she would have been able to see less healthy aspects of the phenomenon that were present in her data.

Another teacher of phenomenology pointed out the difficulty his students had with bracketing judgmental views when reading the transcript of a woman who had become disillusioned with God and religion—even though they had read about the concept of bracketing before this class exercise (Halling, 2012). Only through the experiential activity in class were the students able to enter this woman’s world of profound religious disillusionment, bracket their reactions, and resolutely stay with her words to ascertain the meaning of her experience. As Halling helped his students to see their judgmental stance, they became able to stand with the woman instead and see her perspective.

Bracketing is not a matter of navel gazing or placing undue emphasis on one’s own views, emotions, and experiences, but a path to achieving a phenomenological attitude (Finlay, 2008). Although step-by-step procedural guides for phenomenological research (e.g., Colaizzi, 1978) recommend various ways for researchers to bracket bias and preconceptions, such as writing a “reflexivity statement” at the outset of a study or keeping a log, most of these are solitary activities. It is logical to surmise that bracketing face-to-face with another human being offers the opportunity for deeper self-discovery. However, we could not locate in extant literature any empirical examinations of the meaning of this dialogical experience. In this paper, we describe our phenomenological investigation of what it is like to participate in the above-described type of bracketing interview, as articulated by individuals who have personally experienced it. Prior to presenting study findings, we provide a necessarily brief review of bracketing definitions and process issues.

What is Bracketing? Definitions from the Literature

The concept of bracketing, as described by Husserl (1913/1931), referred to a temporary suspension of the natural attitude of daily living, analogous to using brackets in algebraic formulas, thereby permitting primal phenomena of the lifeworld to be seen freshly. Initially, he aspired to a detached consciousness that cannot actually be achieved. In fact, Husserl changed his ideas about bracketing over time, making it difficult to pin down his final stance. Other phenomenologists, such as Heidegger (1927/1962), refuted Husserl’s early concept of bracketing, arguing that it is neither possible nor desirable to turn away from the world. Pre-understandings, in Heidegger’s view, cannot be put aside. Merleau-Ponty (1945/1962), whose work we follow most closely in the UTK method, asserted scientific theories and research propositions do need to be set aside in order to reveal the meaning of human experience as lived. In his view, the phenomenological attitude does not require breaking contact with the world, but stepping back far enough to “slacken the intentional threads which attach us to the world and thus bring them to our notice” (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/1962, p. xiii).

While there is consensus among phenomenology methodologists on the need to achieve a phenomenological attitude, contemporary researchers who draw inspiration from these foundational phenomenological philosophers conceptualize bracketing and its elements in different ways. Some even debate the need to engage in bracketing at all (e.g., Zahavi, 2019). Giorgi (2009), who follows the Husserlian descriptive phenomenology tradition, writes of not allowing past knowledge to interfere with being closely attentive to experiences of research participants. In the past he has said that in order to gain the phenomenological attitude, one must “bracket past knowledge about a phenomenon” because “past interpretations can predetermine present experience” (Giorgi, 1997, p. 240). In contrast, Benner (1994), who follows the Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology tradition, asserts that researchers can never escape their taken-for-granted background. She describes the difficulty of surmounting “blind spots and resistances” and avoiding “idealizing and villainizing,” but does not recommend critical reflective exercises for researchers before beginning a study.

It is beyond the purpose of this paper to further elucidate the extensive debates about bracketing between descriptive and hermeneutic phenomenologists and Zahavi (2019) and his interlocutors (e.g., van Manen, 2019). However, it is worth noting that some phenomenologists see debate between descriptive and hermeneutic approaches to bracketing as unnecessary. LeVasseur (2003) made a strong case that it is not inconsistent to employ bracketing in both phenomenological approaches. Langdridge (2008) decried rigid boundaries between the descriptive and hermeneutic phenomenologists. Todres and Wheeler (2001) have called phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism “natural bed-fellows.” Vagle (2018) sidesteps the debate and emphasizes instead the procedures one can follow to develop a phenomenological attitude (he suggests going to see a film, among other practical advice). Dahlberg et al. (2008), who prefer the term “bridling” rather than bracketing, draw from multiple descriptive and hermeneutic philosophers, including Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, in developing their reflective lifeworld research approach. Dahlberg (2006) describes the dual purpose of bridling: it emphasizes restraining personal beliefs and assumptions that limit openness to the phenomenon and also helps the researcher “take care” of the understanding as a whole. Thus the researcher can avoid making “definite what is indefinite” (p. 16). Bracketing can send the researcher back into their own history, which raises the specter of what Langdridge calls the “archeological trawl.” Dahlberg et al. (2008), conscious of this potential rabbit hole, emphasize that bridling must hold back presuppositions revealed through reflection while continuing to move forward.

As phenomenological thought and research procedures continued to evolve over time, other qualitative approaches (e.g., ethnography) incorporated bracketing processes. Various permutations ensued as scholars in applied fields made modifications that diverge from the ideas of the European phenomenological philosophers. Of the 6 types of bracketing delineated by Gearing (2004, p. 1449), phenomenologists at UTK identify most closely with existential bracketing, rooted in the work of Merleau-Ponty (1945/1962), in which the goal is to disrupt habitual patterns of thinking to permit curiosity and astonishment before the world. In accord with Fischer (2009), we consider bracketing an ongoing, dynamic process throughout the course of the study as surprising new descriptions of lived experience are gathered, “aha” moments occur, and early interpretations become refined. Finlay (2008) aptly described a dialectical movement or dance between bracketing preunderstandings and exploiting them as a source of insight.

What is to be Bracketed?

The literature yields a plethora of what the researcher is supposed to become more aware of, and/or to temporarily “set aside:” assumptions (LeVasseur, 2003); presuppositions (Ashworth, 1996); prejudices (Gadamer, 1960/1975); unmet needs (Ahern, 1999); judgement (Moran, 2000); past experiences, thoughts, and feelings (Giorgi, 2009); theoretical or scientific conceptions (van Manen, 2014); and personal knowledge, beliefs, bias, culture, values, clinical experiences, larger environmental factors (Gearing, 2004). Greenberg et al. (2019), following Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, describe categories of potential assumptions that are great fonts of bracketing material. People are embodied: they have bodies and are bodies. These bodies are written with experiences of life that are often implicit or taken for granted. People are embedded temporally, culturally, and linguistically; they come from somewhere, they speak a language, and they grow up within a particular socially constructed reality. A researcher attempting to conduct a study across a cultural and linguistic barrier does not have to let go of their own culture, but must be able to step away from its deeply held assumptions that differ from those of their study participants.

What are the Benefits of Bracketing?

Successful bracketing does not result in researcher neutrality, objectivity, or detachment (Ahern, 1999; Hamill and Sinclair, 2010), but rather a stance of readiness to listen to one’s study participants from the humble position of the “unknower,” learning from them through the dialogue. Tufford and Newman (2010) remind us that

bracketing is neither a mechanized nor a manualized process that ensures that if a researcher does X, he or she will obtain Y. However, if a researcher conducts bracketing in a careful, thoughtful and honest manner, this will permit deeper engagement with the material and increased reflexivity on the part of the researcher. (p. 92)

The literature is replete with explanations of the benefits of bracketing, not only in phenomenological studies but in other types of qualitative research. These benefits tend to fall into three categories, with some overlap among them: practical benefits, study accountability and rigor benefits, and empathetic benefits. Perhaps the most readily apparent practical benefits are raising researchers’ self-awareness (Drew, 2004) and helping them achieve a better understanding of the life experience of the phenomenon (Gearing, 2004). Novice researchers, such as the nursing and psychology students who come to the TPRG, have little experience in nondirective interviewing (and perhaps some bad habits developed during clinical interviewing, with its terse questions about health-related or psychological symptoms). Being interviewed for their bracketing by a skillful phenomenological interviewer also illustrates proper phenomenological interview technique. They have read about it. But they have never seen it enacted. The interviewer will ask for descriptions of their own experiences with the phenomenon (e.g., “tell me about a time when … what stood out for you in that experience? ... what was that like for you?), modeling what the student researchers subsequently will be doing. They get to practice arranging an interview, recording, and transcribing.

The bracketing interview also serves to increase the rigor and accountability of a study. Particularly during the TPRG meeting when the transcript is analyzed, the student researcher is gently assisted to become aware of biases. Finally, participating in a bracketing interview can generate empathy for one’s future study participants (Thomas and Pollio, 2002). During the intimacy of a face-to-face dialogical encounter, novices will feel the anxiety that their future study participants will feel, including that perpetual awareness of being recorded, the vulnerability about revealing personal experience to a stranger, and the inevitable speculation about what the interviewer thinks of them as they speak.

How is Bracketing Accomplished? Methods of Bracketing

We turn now to the issue of how bracketing can be accomplished. Drew (2004), focusing on the data analysis stage of a phenomenological research project, recommended bracketing with a trusted colleague (i.e., a bracketing facilitator) in order to move away from the cognitive mode to emotional sensitivity to one’s personal history and experience of the phenomenon. The chosen bracketing facilitator is “one who can listen unconditionally as the researcher peels back the layers of personal history with the phenomenon” (Drew, 2004, p. 218). The concept of a bracketing facilitator is appealing. In our view, however, this plumbing of the researcher’s personal connection to the study should take place before the interviews are conducted with study participants. Our view is based on over three decades of experiences in the TPRG. From time to time, student researchers who had not received proper guidance from their faculty mentors have brought a set of poorly conducted interviews to the TPRG for assistance with their data analysis. Clearly, the study participants had been subtly guided (in some cases, almost coerced) to elaborate on the material that most fascinated the researcher and/or confirmed the researcher’s initial biases. Resolution of this undesirable situation requires careful examination of portions of the transcripts that were not contaminated by flaws such as leading questions and researcher indications of approval/disapproval of the participants’ responses. Sometimes, sadly, there is no solution but collection of new data after researcher bracketing.

Giorgi’s (2009) bracketing procedure does involve research introspection prior to data collection. He describes the researcher finding a quiet place for reflection, and perhaps multiple sessions until the researcher has brought biases to consciousness. Benner (1994) also recommended a critical reflective exercise to make assumptions explicit and to cultivate researcher readiness for challenges during data collection. It is unclear whether dissertation supervisors or other research mentors review the reflections described by Giorgi or Benner. In his textbook, Churchill (2022) does not recommend a specific bracketing procedure, but describes experiential activities such as taking his students to a zoo to observe animal behavior, holding in abeyance their previous knowledge about the species.

Rolls and Relf (2006) described a method of researcher bracketing in which an outsider conducted recorded interviews with the investigator prior to, during, and/or following data collection, sometimes formalized through payment of a fee. Although its value was extolled by the authors, scant mention of this bracketing approach was found in subsequent literature.

It has been the customary practice of the Transdisciplinary Phenomenology Research Group (TPRG) at University of Tennessee, Knoxville to require a bracketing interview prior to data collection for over 30 years (Thompson et al., 1989). The researcher answers the same question that will be posed to the future study participants (e.g., “What stands out to you about recovery from stroke?”). The bracketing interview, conducted by an experienced phenomenological interviewer, is then transcribed and read aloud by two TPRG members (one taking the part of the interviewer and the other taking the part of the interviewee) at a meeting attended by around a dozen or more faculty and students from disciplines such as psychology, education, nursing, social work, and child and family studies. During the reading, the TPRG identifies foreknowledge about the phenomenon, implicit theories, strong feelings, and cultural understandings that could present barriers to the researcher’s openness to what their participants are saying (Thomas, 2021). The researcher remains silent during the reading of the transcript, listening as group members proffer various observations and tentative interpretations of prominent features of the narrative, discussing words, phrases, and metaphors that convey meaning. At the end of the reading, the researcher is invited to share their thoughts and emotional reactions to the group discussion. It is recommended that a written reflection about this bracketing experience be added to the reflexive journal that will be maintained throughout the upcoming study. Bracketing will continue as themes derived from the bracketing interview frequently resurface during TPRG discussions of the subsequent research transcripts, some of which are also read aloud during group meetings. Themes from the bracketing interview will be included in the final research report, allowing readers to evaluate whether the initial assumptions of the researcher were honestly confronted.

TPRG members are convinced of the value of this bracketing procedure for heightening researcher awareness of preconceptions and preventing the inadvertent guiding of study participants toward confirmation of these preconceptions. Anecdotal evidence has been provided by dozens of students whose thesis or dissertation study included a bracketing interview. For example, Janet Secrest, a seasoned nurse in a hospital neurology unit, held many assumptions about the experience of stroke survivors:

Janet realized, after she transcribed and thematized her bracketing interview, that she was expecting the lived experience of a stroke survivor to be dominated by all of the losses … While she was being interviewed, she cried as she recalled the aphasia and immobility of some of her former stroke patients. Had she not been sensitized regarding her gloomy perception of the existence of the stroke survivor, she may have led her interviewees to focus on losses … such a picture of the stroke survivor’s world would have been narrow and inaccurate (Thomas and Pollio, 2002, p. 33).

Despite positive anecdotal evidence such as this, and the extensive literature we have cited about bracketing, no formal empirical investigation has been published. Clearly, a knowledge gap exists, despite the recent trend to empirically study methodological assertions (Woods et al., 2016). Hence, it was time to bracket our own assumptions about the benefits of bracketing.

The Present Study

The present study was prompted by a recent unsolicited report from a TPRG member that her bracketing experience was so powerful that it felt like an “out-of-body experience,” especially while her own words were being read aloud during the group meeting. We realized that we had never sought to capture the meaning of this experience from the first-person perspective of the interviewees despite hearing positive evaluations over the years. Our aim was to systematically examine the TPRG bracketing procedure by collecting and analyzing written reflections from a sample of doctoral students who had participated in the process.

Method

Our existential-phenomenological methodology is based predominately on the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty (1945/1962). Our focus within his vast work centers on the following: perceptual concepts of figure and ground, intentionality, embodiment, sociocultural embeddedness, ambiguity, and intersubjectivity (Greenberg et al., 2019). We seek to understand the explicit and implicit experience of study participants through a focus on existential elements of a description often including time, body, others, and world (see Sohn et al., 2017; Thomas and Pollio, 2002). We employ a part-to-whole mode of data interpretation that includes both an idiographic understanding of each transcript as well as identification of global themes across transcripts (Pollio et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 1989). Involvement of the TPRG in data analysis has been essential to the UTK approach since its inception, as described in one early publication:

The perspective of the group is broader than that of any one individual, and thus, a pattern that might not have been noticed by a single researcher may be “seen” by the group. Also, the perspective of a single researcher may become sedimented: that is, the researcher may become focused on certain aspects of the transcript while failing to see others. (Thompson et al., 1989, p. 141, emphasis original).

As transcripts are read aloud in the TPRG. Our analysis focuses on particular words and phrases, thematic meanings, and intentionality of the participants. In writing, we attempt to portray that intentionality for readers through extensive powerful quotes that capture the particular standpoint of the individual and the universal experience of the phenomenon. Our work often includes a figure to represent the thematic structure of the participants’ experience.

Procedure

After obtaining IRB approval, we began the study with each of us contacting the other’s former doctoral students who had participated in the TPRG process of bracketing (being interviewed and attending the meeting in which their transcript was analyzed). We emailed potential participants a description of the study and its aims and a consent form. They were asked to submit a written response to the following prompt: “What stands out to you regarding your experience participating in the group analysis of your bracketing interview?” Participation was voluntary, and responses were collected over a six-month period. Each of us checked the responses carefully to ensure the removal of identifiers such as student or faculty names, or the topic of the proposed dissertation study, before passing the response on to the other researcher. This procedure prevented us from knowing which of our students chose to participate, as pseudonyms had replaced real names before responses were shared. Each of us independently analyzed the student reflections phenomenologically, and 4 sessions of the TPRG were devoted to analysis of the written reflections, as is standard in the UTK phenomenological method.

During the TPRG analytic sessions, discussion of each text not only focused on discrete meaning units but also on the text as a whole. Diverse perspectives from their disciplinary training, gender role socialization, and cultural heritage fostered unique insights on the data among group members. All proposed thematic interpretations were challenged in a discussion that remained collegial and respectful. The final authority on the plausibility of an interpretation was the text itself. The first author took detailed notes summarizing each of the 4 analytic sessions. For example, during the second session, a group member suggested the relevance of the Johari window. In another session, the group endorsed “uncomfortable squirm” as an apt descriptor for interviewee experience. The fourth session was devoted to consideration of global themes. The second author developed and shared with the group a figure depicting the thematic structure.

Participants

There were 14 participants, 11 females and 3 males. All participants were first-time researchers undertaking doctoral dissertation projects. Most had completed the bracketing process within the past year. Data on age was not collected, but students in the TPRG generally range from 30 to 60 years old.

Results

In this phenomenological study, results are presented in figure-ground relationship. We share the ground, or context, first. The figures, or themes that emerged from the ground, are shared next. They were developed by the researchers in concert with the phenomenology research group and based in Merleau-Ponty’s four existential grounds: time, body, others, and world. Each theme is described and is accompanied by quotes from participants. Finally we share a thematic structure with a figure that illustrates the results. The idea of a structure is intended to help the reader understand that the themes cannot be split off one from another, rather they are interrelated and without one, the structure would collapse.

Participant reflections richly described the whole of the bracketing experience, from the first phase of being the interviewee to the phase of silent listening during the group discussion of their transcript, to the final phase of thoughtful post-group reflection. In retrospect, we realize that the prompt we used to elicit the written reflection was too narrow, focused solely on the second phase. Fortunately, as is common in our experiences as phenomenological researchers, participants always begin where they would like to begin and proceed to share what they want and need to tell us. Although our prompt was not crafted to elicit the wholeness of the bracketing experience, participants were not constrained by it. A rich description of the dynamic and continually evolving process was obtained.

The participant descriptions of bracketing and the group analysis process varied across a continuum from a prosaic account of subjecting oneself to a necessary procedure (something like taking medicine that is good for you) to accounts of achieving deep insights into oneself and personal transformation (from novice or impostor to researcher). Common to all accounts was the discomfort but resultant benefit of the procedure. Hannah’s words provide a helpful introduction to the experience of bracketing:

I felt so vulnerable, so exposed, but yet it was a process that I was willing to subject myself to, willing to become a researcher, willing to open myself up to scrutiny, willing to go through the uncomfortable to reach scholarly enlightenment, willing to go inside my own head on a journey to self-discovery while bringing others along with me, willing myself to morph into a researcher. (Hannah)

The Ground

The ground for our participants was their broad experience in education and the educational systems of which they had been a part. These participants were all preparing for the research portion of a terminal degree program, a challenge for which few of them felt adequately prepared. Implicit in many accounts was a lack of confidence that they could be researchers or complete dissertations.

Figural Themes

The figural themes are contextualized within the 4 existential grounds of the lifeworld. Beginning with time, participants reflected on moments from their sometimes-painful past. They described ways that bracketing was an on-going process. They expressed an orientation to the future, describing ways they were developing anticipatory empathy for their study participants. In regard to body, participants experienced anxiety, excitement, and exposure. Participants described bracketing as “eye opening,” with some going so far as to relate it an out-of-body experience. The experience of others included descriptions of being heard, mis/understood, supported, analyzed, and validated. Participants described the TPRG others as providing a helpful, guiding hand in their development as researchers. Finally, the world of the participant included the online videoconference software (Zoom), and also the words of the transcripts.

Time: Back and Forth

The ways participants experienced time fell into three categories: reflecting on their past experiences; considering the on-going nature of the bracketing process, and describing a future-oriented empathy for their study participants.

Bracketing often took the interviewees back in time, sometimes to a very painful time in their life. Talking about these experiences was beneficial, as described by Julie:

After talking about these experiences, I was better able to put aside my own beliefs, and work through some emotions that I had always carried about the phenomenon under investigation … I could only have done this with the assistance and expertise of the transdisciplinary phenomenology research group. (Julie)

Erin commented similarly:

I learned about myself through the bracketing interview that I experienced trauma as an infant and that a traumatic event when I was 16 was traumatic because it was a re-experiencing of that very early trauma due to a similar situation. I must be careful not to over-identify with [my participants] during interviews. (Erin)

Other participants recounted fond, rather than painful, memories. These passages in the students’ written reflections illustrate the experience of a bracketing interview as a look back on relevant life experiences.

Bracketing is a process that also continues across time, described by some interviewees as a journey. After Kathleen’s bracketing session ended, she wrote that she was “disappointed” in herself and the TPRG: “I recall that during the actual bracketing interview, and just afterward, I thought, ‘well, I have a few items that may help me, but I’m not sure I got as much out of this as maybe others have.’” Later, she described a different perspective:

I’m really glad I made notes at the group’s suggestions, because later on, I realized more and more how spot-on many of the group’s comments and suggestions were …. I realized I had actually received more benefit from my bracketing interview than I previously thought. (Kathleen)

Similarly, Sylvia said, “It was challenging to listen to some of the interpretations, but in hindsight I know that those interpretations [were] necessary to identifying my own biases as I continued through the dissertation.” She recognized that bracketing is not a one-time event.

Bracketing engendered anticipatory empathy for the researcher’s future study participants. Here, Erin projected forward in time:

Being in the role of the interviewee and being asked to share what came up for me was challenging … This was a good reminder that my participants may experience something similar, and I want to actively listen and stay with them the same way my interviewer stayed with me. (Erin)

The following quote from Wilma helps us transition from themes related to time to themes related to the body:

That uncomfortable squirm I felt, I knew my participants would also feel so I worked extremely hard to make sure that it wasn’t there for them. I felt that this process helped me to be more prepared for my own interviews with my participants. (Wilma)

Many participants expressed this pragmatic orientation to their bracketing experience: it will help me do my study in a more empathetic and less biased way. It is likely the participants knew from their study of methodology that bracketing is an initial step, and therefore their experience of bracketing was a preparation for the yet-to-begin study.

Body: “That Uncomfortable Squirm”

The bodily experience of bracketing for our participants included initial anxiety (descriptions of sweaty palms, increased heart rate, anticipation of “sounding foolish” when words would be read aloud), as well as emotional ups and downs during the actual reading of the transcript in the meeting. Wilma spoke of the “uncomfortable squirm” during the meeting, and another participant described the experience as “exciting and also terrifying.” Erin compared the experience to being on a wild rollercoaster ride:

During the group analysis, though I felt discomfort and stress during it, there was also a release at the end that I could describe kind of like the moments after the wild rollercoaster ride comes to a complete stop (the mix of adrenaline and relief and fun). (Erin)

One aspect of the discomfort described by many participants was that of exposure and vulnerability. Kathleen articulated the feeling:

There’s a very palpable vulnerability to having your own words analyzed in a group and listening to others talk about what you intended and what you may have really been meaning (or not meaning) in the subtext … My words were out there, and I was totally exposed. (Kathleen)

Hannah described the vulnerability as “a letting down of the veil, knowing that you are intentionally and purposefully allowing others to hear and see you, really see you.”

For Bobbie, the experience was particularly intense and much stronger than the discomfort expressed by other participants: “I felt vulnerable and raw. The group was incredibly supportive, but that part of me deep down that wasn’t sure I was good enough to do what I was doing (starting my dissertation) was afraid.” She noted that this fear was likely rooted in “impostor syndrome feelings” rather than some negative quality of the group.

Another aspect of the experience expressed by some participants with intensity was that of observing the self from outside the body during the reading of the interview text. For Margaret, it was “uncomfortable to hear my own words read aloud.” She was “self-conscious listening to readers try to use the correct tone and inflection based on the context of the text. The process was very beneficial because it allowed me to see the answers that I gave from an observational standpoint.” Margaret and others took on the perspective of a spectator during the reading of their bracketing interview transcript.

For Kathleen, “it felt a little bit like I could imagine it would be if one were hanging around at their own funeral to hear what others say. I mean, I was there, but I wasn’t allowed to speak.” Kathleen’s apparent frustration was echoed by a few other participants.

Hannah found the spectator position helpful in finding the value of her research: “to hear yourself speaking through the text read aloud as to why this topic was important enough to pursue, why it mattered to me to delve into edgy research.” Bobbie’s experience went beyond value of the research to value and care for herself:

The experience was profound … almost out of body. Hearing my own words spoken by someone else was such as wild experience. I wanted to cry, hearing my own words reflected back to me. It was like caring for myself outside of myself. (Bobbie)

These intense bodily experiences under the banner of “uncomfortable squirm” were complemented by participants with a more cognitive-focused aspect of the bracketing experience: it was eye-opening. As David said, “Participating in the bracketing interview was a very enlightening experience…opened my eyes to multiple things … I was able to uncover some personal biases that I need to guard against in subsequent interviews.”

Sylvia remarked that what stood out to her about the experience was “what a learning experience it was.” Kathleen contributed further details: “I learned some important things about myself, and about my thoughts and feelings regarding my research topic. And these are things that, had I not participated in the bracketing interview, I likely would have completely missed.” Similarly, Erin remarked that “a few things clicked for me that had never clicked before.” She wrote, “Hearing my own descriptions of my experience as well as the dialogue of the team members allowed me to think about my experiences differently and from a more creative angle …” Erin described how the group analysis supported her “metacognition:” “I was able to approach my own thinking and emotions from a more curious and intellectual angle both during the group analysis and afterward. I could see myself more objectively and also more compassionately.”

These participants’ bodily experiences were uncomfortable, but useful, as Ted expressed succinctly: “I found myself learning and reflecting on my own presuppositions through listening to the group members’ analysis. This process laid a foundation that will make me a better researcher and interviewer.”

Others: Supportive, Validating, Mis/Understanding

Thematic within this existential ground were students’ perceptions of the TPRG group members and a variety of feelings generated by being among others in the group. For Hannah, the group acted as a mirror for those about to begin a research project: “We [researchers] cannot bracket ourselves off completely, but raising the mirror of our text/self-thoughts/vulnerabilities high against our scholarly intentions is eye-opening, and needed … The group becomes a mirror to those intentions, analyzing the motives, teasing out areas of bias/concern.” Subthemes within the experience of others includes feeling analyzed, feeling encouraged/supported, feeling understood/validated, and feeling misunderstood or stifled.

Participants felt analyzed by the group. Marian stated, “I felt like those listening and responding were like psychologists … able to read between the lines [of the transcript]. It felt like they were … able to pick up on things that I only thought about at a subconscious level.” Erin felt that the interviewer and those in the group “were able to see a part of me that I normally keep more private, closer to the chest.” Like Erin, Julie remarked on “the up-close and personal analysis of my transcript by the group.” This analysis, rather than being intrusive as potentially indicated by Erin’s and Julie’s words, was described as helpful, caring, and/or respectful. With the group’s help, Julie was “allowed … to reflect upon my earlier childhood—not only what it was like for me, but what it must have been like for my parents.” This subtheme, along with others, was often contextualized by participants within the purpose of bracketing, which is to set aside assumptions:

What most stands out to me regarding the group analysis was their expertise in identifying specific statements I made about the phenomenon in my transcript alongside their ability to highlight my responses, and help me to consider, and set aside, any personal beliefs and assumptions. (Julie)

Participants described feeling encouraged/supported by the group. Ted wrote that he “was very nervous in preparation for this new experience. However, my nerves were calmed by the professionalism and genuine interest provided by the entire group.” David explicitly remarked on feeling encouraged:

As a doctoral student, the bracketing process was very encouraging to hear from other individuals who had performed and participated in research similar to what I was going through. Their discussions and ideas gave me confidence moving into the bulk of my research. (David)

For Tamra, “the group provided positive feedback and areas for refinement or reflection” and “increased [her] confidence … during data collection.” Marian found the analysis by the group “uplifting.” She said, “It was like they were trying to find the positive things and convey them. Honestly, it was like attending a free therapy session, as it was like being able to get my thoughts out a second time.” Margaret expressed appreciation for the “sound advice” from the group members. Again in this theme, much of the encouragement and support was directed to the goal of doing the research project well.

Participants described feeling understood/validated by the group. Of all our participants, Bobbie expressed the strongest experience of being heard, understood, and validated:

I feel like the group heard my experience and could trace the reasoning … for why I wanted to do my study. I felt validated, not just as a researcher … but on a deeply personal level I felt validated as a human being. I think the afternoon that my bracketing interview was read in group was when this study really felt real. Like I was doing real research. Like my reasons for doing this research were valid and important. That part of me that has always wondered if I am good enough, smart enough, and just, enough … felt like just maybe I am exactly where I need to be, doing what I need to be doing at this moment in time and space. I’m not really an ‘everything happens for a reason’ person, but that day after the fear dissipated, and the impostor syndrome cleared, that day I felt like I was just supposed to be me.” (Bobbie)

Many participants implied being understood, as in, the group “got it right” regarding their assumptions about their topic. Hanna felt the group’s treatment of her bracketing transcript helped her see her topic as relevant, worthy, and “important enough.” The TPRG, according to our participants, is like a set of helping hands extended to the novice researchers, welcoming and guiding them into the research community.

The final aspect of the experience of others in bracketing is being misunderstood. Participants wrote about feeling stifled and expressed defensiveness that the group misinterpreted something from their transcripts. Carolyn wrote that the bracketing experience was “tougher” than expected: “Before my bracketing interview, I was not concerned about the group’s response. However, I must say that I felt a bit misunderstood … I felt some ideas were taken out of context.” Kathleen’s analogy to being at a funeral, unable to respond, is relevant in this subtheme as well: “I remember there was at least one statement for which the group thought I intended a totally different meaning than I actually did. But because I was supposed to remain silent … I didn’t chime in or try to correct anyone.” Wilma wrote, “It was really difficult to stay quiet and not engage throughout the process or to clarify at the end.”

While a few participants wrote in a defensive stance to indicate they felt misunderstood, Hanna was explicit: “At one point it was noted [by the group] that I was using stigmatizing language, and I felt defensive, but the group was right.” This acknowledgement of the group, despite defensiveness, echoed in the statements of some participants who greatly appreciated the utility of the bracketing experience despite the discomfort it caused.

World: Remote Videoconferencing

Except for one participant who had been bracketed before the pandemic when the TPRG met in person at the university, the world in which the TPRG meetings took place during the period of this study was the online world via Zoom videoconference technology. Participants were not face-to-face around a conference table, which might be considered a more ideal arrangement for processing intimate personal material in a group. Each individual was in his/her home or office seated at the computer. Nevertheless, most study participants did express that a safe place had been created for the group dialogue. One participant felt greater comfort than in other virtual settings:

In some ways, I feel the experience of participating in the group analysis of my bracketing interview led me to feel a deeper connection to and comfort with the other group members than I have had in any other virtual setting during the pandemic. (Erin)

For most participants, there was no explicit description of the world aside from the previously discussed themes of body, time, and others. One additional aspect of the world that was figural for participants was the transcripts: the words they spoke in their bracketing interview, which, during the experience, were the words spoken by group members. Participants almost unanimously connected the meaning of those words to the value they had for their research projects.

Summary

The following figure (Figure 1) was created based on the themes and revised after a group session in which the original figure was presented as a mechanism for member checking. It summarizes the results and illustrates the experiences of participants in the TPRG bracketing process.

Figure 1.

Thematic structure of the experience of bracketing. The bracketing process is the springboard for novice researchers, providing them with preparation, purpose, and insight.

The bracketing process is like a spark or springboard, with the TPRG as a set of helping hands to launch into the study. Some participants treated the process as perfunctory. Their attitude to the process was business like. This may have been reinforced for some by the fact that the analysis took place over Zoom: one more Zoom session like all the rest. Others took the process more to heart: they felt vulnerable and it was nothing like other Zoom sessions. The bracketing process was described as one “you have to subject yourself to,” in the vein of taking medicine to get better. Participants benefitted from the process, from gaining a sense of preparedness to finding a deep sense of purpose. Whether participants had a business-like or personal orientation to the process, all gained profound insight (See Figure 1).

Discussion and Implications

Findings of this study resonate with previous literature illustrating that bracketing enhances researcher self-awareness (Drew, 2004) and generates empathy and compassion for future study participants (Thomas and Pollio, 2002). Participant accounts of bracketing depicted the temporality of the phenomenon, as they described an unfolding process of being taken backward to prior lived experiences as well as projected forward to imagine themselves as researchers in dialogue with their future study participants. Even though bracketing initially induced discomfort, students felt its benefits outweighed the initial discomfort. Our data show that the bracketing process can be an educational and revelatory experience for the novice researcher beyond heightening awareness of their presuppositions and the other aforementioned benefits. Unanticipated from previous literature was the powerful effect of bracketing as a springboard to becoming a researcher, welcomed into the scholarly community by elders and peers. Being understood and validated by the TPRG was a unique experience that helped to dispel student feelings of being an impostor and/or inadequate preparation to conduct doctoral research. Bracketing enhances the confirmability of students’ research when their dissertation or journal manuscripts provide a synopsis of bracketing interview themes. Readers can judge whether they produced “data and descriptions of the essence of the phenomenon that has (sic) not been adjusted, massaged, embellished or misinterpreted” because of any initial bias (Hamill and Sinclair, 2010, p. 23).

As mentors to the doctoral students participating in the bracketing process, we feel concern for the anxiety and vulnerability it engendered (“that uncomfortable squirm”). As we listened to our participants’ written reflections on bracketing being read aloud in the TPRG meetings, we leapt immediately to ideas for improvement of the process. Their words reminded us that being bracketed takes courage. Although the written reflections provided ample evidence that bracketing is beneficial, we will begin to provide more anticipatory guidance to future students. If bracketing is well worth it, we must acknowledge that it can still be a difficult experience. We offer several implications of the study to better serve our future students (and others undertaking a phenomenological study).

Because some students described powerlessness as “out of body” spectators during the period of silent listening while their words were being read aloud in the TPRG meeting, future students should be assured that they will have an opportunity to engage in dialogue with group members after the reading and correct any misunderstandings. Prior to the meeting in which their words will be read, it may be useful to discuss the familiar Johari Window which depicts four quadrants of awareness about the self (Luft, 1970). What created most discomfort for study participants is the opening of the “hidden” quadrant of the window, in which we keep from public view many aspects of the self that we ordinarily prefer not to reveal. Particularly during the TPRG analysis of the bracketing reflection, students felt that “the veil” was lifted and private parts of themselves were “exposed.” When these parts were exposed to the members of the group, as depicted in the fourth quadrant of the Johari Window, the group helped the person to see that which they cannot usually see about themselves. Students need fair warning that not all aspects of self-discovery are comfortable to own, at least initially. They must allow themselves some time to allow new insights to be incorporated into the self. They also need to be warned that the group is not omniscient and that it may be a bit off target when proffering early interpretations of the meaning of the text. Students who participate in the TPRG regularly throughout their doctoral study are more familiar with the tentativeness of all group interpretations and its valuing of diverse perspectives. If regular participation is not possible, it is advisable that a student attend at least one meeting to observe group process before the meeting in which they will be bracketed.

We intend to provide future students with a better preview of the “uncomfortable squirm” aspect of the bracketing experience, including the option of taking a break in the process, having a post-TPRG meeting with the chairperson or dissertation advisor, and/or referral to the free services of the university student counseling center if indicated. That being said, we have exerted considerable effort to create a safe and supportive space for this student experience throughout the 30+ years of conducting the TPRG bracketing procedure. Expertise within the group has included numerous professors of clinical and counseling psychology as well as psychiatric nursing. Some students do cry, as in the example of Janet Secrest cited earlier, but group members are prepared to deal with expressions of painful emotions or heightened anxiety.

Based on student reports that note-taking during the group meeting was helpful, we intend to explicitly encourage this in the future. Not only is this important because “hindsight” often brings deeper insight, but also because taking notes gives an anxious student something to do while their words are being read, decreasing feelings of powerlessness. Notes from the bracketing interview should be incorporated into the ongoing journal which will be kept by the student until the conclusion of the research, to document both their ongoing insights about data and their continued self-discovery. Re-reading their reflections about feelings of vulnerability enhances compassion for their future study participants and the similar “squirm” they may feel when called upon to reveal themselves to a strange researcher.

Limitations and Conclusion

This study was limited in time (a six-month period) and scope. Written reflections have the advantage of expediency, but lack the potential depth provided by interviews in which questions could be asked for clarification or elaboration. However, phenomenological analyses are often conducted on written reflections (e.g., Fischer, 2009; van Manen, 1990), and Fischer expressed preference for soliciting a written reflection rather than starting a project with an interview because participants are afforded extended time to reflect on what they experienced. Though precautions were taken to ensure confidentiality, it is possible that participants felt their reflections could be recognized by their doctoral chair (one of us, the authors). Some participants’ ongoing participation in the group may have kept them from fully disclosing negative experiences, but in our estimation, enough participants were sufficiently forthcoming. In regard to scope, our participants were a convenient group to solicit experiences from. Future empirical research on the effectiveness of bracketing outside the University of Tennessee, Knoxville method may enhance the method further. As noted in Thompson et al. (1989, p. 144), “true to its roots in existential and phenomenological philosophy, the final use and value of any given piece of research is determined by the scientific consumer who will either see and agree or will not see and agree with the themes.”

Our data suggest that bracketing is only the beginning of a transformational journey in phenomenological research, as described by van Manen (1990):

Phenomenology projects and their methods often have transformative effect on the researcher himself or herself. Indeed, phenomenological research is often itself a form of deep learning, leading to a transformation of consciousness, heightened perceptiveness, increased thoughtfulness. (p. 63)

The research process, so intimidating for so many students, can be enhanced by a bracketing experience that is communal, welcoming, eye-opening, and validating. As a springboard to transformation, bracketing can launch students into the world of seeing themselves as scholars.