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

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

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

In this episode, we discuss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this episode, we discuss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this episode, we discuss:

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

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