Practicing Building-as-Dwelling in Philosophically Informed Phenomenological Research

• In Event: Rescuing? Method in (Post)Qualitative Research

Abstract

Purpose: Conducting research with youth complex, and youth studies scholars call for more open methodological approaches when working with youth (cf., Burke, Green, McKenna, 2017; Mallan, Singh, & Giardina, 2010; Watson & Marciano, 2015). Taking up that call, I draw on Heidegger’s (1971) concept of building-as-dwelling, which disrupts conventional notions that data can only be collected with certain methods. Specifically, I suggest that because building (i.e., creating methodological practices) is inseparable from dwelling (i.e., being in the world), being (dwelling) with youth is creating methodology (building). Building-as-dwelling, then, shifts conversations about methodology away from finding better methods or dismissing them outright toward asking how researchers might be (differently) with youth as a way to create methodology.

Perspectives: According to Heidegger (1971), dwelling and building are often perceived as two separate activities, related as end and means. We assume, for example, that we must build a house to dwell. However, according to Heidegger, we limit ourselves when we only consider building in the sense of constructing things (Heidegger, p. 149) and dwelling as something that happens alongside other activities. Only allowing this end-means schema closes off possibilities that building in itself is dwelling.

Similarly, when we conduct qualitative research, we close ourselves off to other possibilities when we assume any method can be built outside of dwelling. Researchers can get stuck, for example, when youth choose not to engage in the methods researchers have chosen (i.e., end-means schema). Instead, building-as-dwelling asks researchers to practice openness as a method, which includes being open to the possibility that conventional methods might not produce what we intended. Dwelling itself might allow different iterations of those methods that can then produce different possibilities.

Modes of Inquiry and Data:
I revisited a phenomenological study I conducted with 7th grade girls to explore their repeated rejections of my attempts at “collecting data” through conventional methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups). Curious to see what philosophy might do with me (Heidegger, 2000), I reread my field notes alongside Heidegger in order to understand how building-as-dwelling was at work.

Conclusions and Significance:
My repeated attempts to conduct interviews with the girls are just one example of methods that were constantly met with resistance. Revisiting those moments, I didn’t dismiss the methods I was attempting to use—they were always there. However, when I became more open to dwelling, it provided the girls space to help me build different methods in that dwelling. Several of the girls asked for example, why they needed to meet with me individually when we were already meeting as a group every week. “If you want to know something,” they said, “just ask us.”

This is particularly important for qualitative researchers who are interested in youth studies, because every new space in which we dwell and build requires a re-envisioning. We don’t have to decide in advance whether or not methods are useful, nor do we have to get rid of methods altogether. Instead, we can continue learning about, experimenting with, and building-as-dwelling in methods.

Author

• Hilary E. Hughes, University of Georgia - Athens