IF YOU NEED A COMPLETE STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO WRITING YOUR PHENOMENOLOGICAL DISSERTATION, MY BOOK IS FINALLY OUT: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1544328362?pf_rd_p=ab873d20-a0ca-439b-ac45-cd78f07a84d8&pf_rd_r=7BSDQ32JB7VWA3YJD0RF IF YOU NEED MORE PERSONALIZED FEEDBACK: Schedule a dissertation consult with me at help@drkatpeoples.com Here is a presentation I did that gives more detail for all chapters of the dissertation. I hope it's helpful to you. ruclips.net/video/xDTQnBfAG-o/видео.html
Interestingly I ordered your book on Amazon and then searched for videos on RUclips on the topic. Your video was the first one that popped up. I watched it and took notes. Only at the very end, I learned that this video was presented by the author of the book I had ordered. What a nice surprise! I can't wait to get your book, which should be here tomorrow. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge. I enjoyed and learned so much from your video!
Thanks for this instructional video. Excellent, just like your 3 other videos so far, and your book (I got the Kindle version). All very practical, they're fast tracking my dissertation (Doctor in Communications) by leaps and bounds especially in the technical parts, so I'll be able to focus on the analysis more. More videos please...
@@drkatpeoples Regarding selecting either Husserl or Heidegger: You mentioned in the replies section of your video two years ago* that it depends on what speaks to you as a researcher, on what you believe about understanding phenomena, and that if you are immersed in the information it would be better to use Heidegger since it would be difficult to bracket (yet possible, and so Husserl could also be a choice). I am still at a loss, in spite of my two years Philosophy subjects in undergrad, plus one semester on Scheler's phenomenology in graduate school. I plan to study the experiences of my colleagues during their initial shift from onsite to online (in carrying out their work) at the start of the Covid Pandemic, which badly hit their area in Northern Italy last March to May 2020. Is it alright if I tell my dissertation adviser that I selected Husserl because I wish to strictly limit myself to what my colleagues express to me (and thus not to involve my pre-understandings and/or any other theoretical framework, which I feel might influence my analysis of the interviews)? Also that precisely because I am very familiar with my colleagues' activities, I would know what personal views to bracket (though making Heidegger frown a bit)? I don't know if this just merits a simple reply, or would be worth creating a video for (to detail a bit more the process of selecting Husserl vs. Heidegger, as well as the theoretical and practical advantages and disadvantages of following each - especially for a first time phenomenological dissertation writer). Thank you very much! * ruclips.net/video/JGSn-AQS804/видео.html
@@safeph Yes, I believe that Husserl would be the most appropriate phenomenology for you in your research if you want to purposefully set aside your pre-understandings. Now, I would disagree that you would know ALL of the personal biases to bracket as there may be -many that do not stand out as of yet. However, whatever pre-understandings you have are irrelevant in transcendental phenomenological method. Hence, it is not needed that you note them. It is only important that you focus on the data at hand and take nothing for granted (as you might if you leaned on pre-understanding). I hope that's helpful to you!
Dr. Peoples, your book and your videos are helping me so much. I only have one request. I am doing a transcendental study using Moustakas and I'm stuck on the textual, structural, and composite summaries. I know you explain the composite summaries. But it's so hard to find help with Moustakas' style of analysis (Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method). I didn't know enough about phenomenology when I started my work years ago (year 5 student now) so I'm going to complete it the way I started. But if you have any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it!
Sorry for the delay. The Moustakas book is one way to approach transcendental phenomenological method, but I do find that students are often confused by it, and I do not find it is as close to Husserl's phenomenology as I would like it to be. I would recommend Giorgi's works for doing transcendental phenomenological method as he is very clear. If you are set on working through Moustakas, it would be helpful for me to know what is confusing you about the three summaries specifically.
![Eminem - Somebody Save Me (feat. Jelly Roll) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Vwa0HenQMi4/mqdefault.jpg)
IF YOU NEED A COMPLETE STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO WRITING YOUR PHENOMENOLOGICAL DISSERTATION, MY BOOK IS FINALLY OUT: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1544328362?pf_rd_p=ab873d20-a0ca-439b-ac45-cd78f07a84d8&pf_rd_r=7BSDQ32JB7VWA3YJD0RF
IF YOU NEED MORE PERSONALIZED FEEDBACK:
Schedule a dissertation consult with me at help@drkatpeoples.com
Here is a presentation I did that gives more detail for all chapters of the dissertation. I hope it's helpful to you. ruclips.net/video/xDTQnBfAG-o/видео.html
Interestingly I ordered your book on Amazon and then searched for videos on RUclips on the topic. Your video was the first one that popped up. I watched it and took notes. Only at the very end, I learned that this video was presented by the author of the book I had ordered. What a nice surprise! I can't wait to get your book, which should be here tomorrow. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge. I enjoyed and learned so much from your video!
@@roselifranco229 So glad it's been helpful, and I know the book will be even more helpful! :)
Thanks for this instructional video. Excellent, just like your 3 other videos so far, and your book (I got the Kindle version). All very practical, they're fast tracking my dissertation (Doctor
in Communications) by leaps and bounds especially in the technical parts, so I'll be able to focus on the analysis more. More videos please...
I am so glad they have been helpful. Any topic you would like a video on in particular?
@@drkatpeoples Regarding selecting either Husserl or Heidegger:
You mentioned in the replies section of your video two years ago* that it depends on what speaks to you as a researcher, on what you believe about understanding phenomena, and that if you are immersed in the information it would be better to use Heidegger since it would be difficult to bracket (yet possible, and so Husserl could also be a choice).
I am still at a loss, in spite of my two years Philosophy subjects in undergrad, plus one semester on Scheler's phenomenology in graduate school. I plan to study the experiences of my colleagues during their initial shift from onsite to online (in carrying out their work) at the start of the Covid Pandemic, which badly hit their area in Northern Italy last March to May 2020.
Is it alright if I tell my dissertation adviser that I selected Husserl because I wish to strictly limit myself to what my colleagues express to me (and thus not to involve my pre-understandings and/or any other theoretical framework, which I feel might influence my analysis of the interviews)? Also that precisely because I am very familiar with my colleagues' activities, I would know what personal views to bracket (though making Heidegger frown a bit)?
I don't know if this just merits a simple reply, or would be worth creating a video for (to detail a bit more the process of selecting Husserl vs. Heidegger, as well as the theoretical and practical advantages and disadvantages of following each - especially for a first time phenomenological dissertation writer).
Thank you very much!
* ruclips.net/video/JGSn-AQS804/видео.html
@@safeph Yes, I believe that Husserl would be the most appropriate phenomenology for you in your research if you want to purposefully set aside your pre-understandings. Now, I would disagree that you would know ALL of the personal biases to bracket as there may be -many that do not stand out as of yet. However, whatever pre-understandings you have are irrelevant in transcendental phenomenological method. Hence, it is not needed that you note them. It is only important that you focus on the data at hand and take nothing for granted (as you might if you leaned on pre-understanding). I hope that's helpful to you!
@@drkatpeoples Thank you very much. Very helpful indeed!
Thanks for instructional videos, your video was helping me much for writing it
Very helpful, thanks. Just ordered your book for my doctorate research here in Brazil, where IPA is relatively new.
I hope you find it helpful, and best of luck on your future research!
@@drkatpeoples thanks. I will let you know.
Thank you, Dr. Peoples. This was very helpful.
I'm so glad!
Dr. Peoples, your book and your videos are helping me so much. I only have one request. I am doing a transcendental study using Moustakas and I'm stuck on the textual, structural, and composite summaries. I know you explain the composite summaries. But it's so hard to find help with Moustakas' style of analysis (Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method). I didn't know enough about phenomenology when I started my work years ago (year 5 student now) so I'm going to complete it the way I started. But if you have any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it!
Sorry for the delay. The Moustakas book is one way to approach transcendental phenomenological method, but I do find that students are often confused by it, and I do not find it is as close to Husserl's phenomenology as I would like it to be. I would recommend Giorgi's works for doing transcendental phenomenological method as he is very clear. If you are set on working through Moustakas, it would be helpful for me to know what is confusing you about the three summaries specifically.