Descriptive vs. Interpretive (Hermeneutic) Phenomenology

Descriptive vs. Interpretive (Hermeneutic) Phenomenology: A Friendly Breakdown of Key Differences

$High school teacher leading a blended learning class$

By Karen Johnson Ed.D.

Context

Phenomenology might sound a bit intimidating at first, but at its heart, it’s really all about understanding how people experience the world. Among the many types out there, Descriptive��Ի��Interpretive (Hermeneutic) phenomenology are two of the most common approaches, especially in dissertation research. Both aim to get to the essence of human experience, but they take different routes, particularly in how they gather and analyze data, and how they report and discuss their findings.

Before getting too far into the details, it’s worth noting that phenomenology also includes other forms, think Transcendental, Existential, Heuristic, and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Moustakas, 1994). However, descriptive and interpretive phenomenology tend to be the crowd favorites for many researchers, including doctoral students, mainly because of their solid philosophical foundations and practical flexibility.

Data Collection

For our comparison, let’s start with data collection. If you use a descriptive phenomenology approach, inspired by Husserl, you commit to bracketing your own assumptions and biases to avoid influencing the participants’ stories. Typically, researchers carry out in-depth, semi-structured interviews with open-ended and neutral questions to help participants freely describe their experiences. Diaries or participant-written reflections might be used to add depth, but interviews remain the foundation of the data (Lim, 2024; Giorgi, 2009). For example, if you were studying chronic pain and had experienced it yourself, you would consciously acknowledge and set aside your personal experience so that it wouldn’t color the data you collect.

In contrast, interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenology, influenced by Heidegger and scholars like van Manen, assumes that both the researcher and participant bring their histories and worldviews to the study. Researchers do not attempt to bracket out their perspectives; instead, they actively use their own backgrounds as a resource for deeper understanding. Data collection still involves rich, in-depth interviews, but these tend to be more conversational and dynamic following wherever the participant’s narrative leads. Moreover, interpretive researchers sometimes supplement interviews with observations, documents, or artifacts, reflecting the view that meaning is co-created within context. They maintain transparency by keeping reflexive journals and openly sharing how their own perspective guides the inquiry.

Data Analysis

When it comes to data analysis, descriptive phenomenology follows a systematic and layered process. Researchers immerse themselves in the transcripts, repeatedly reading the data while vigilantly setting aside their own assumptions. They identify significant statements that reveal the phenomenon's core, cluster these into meaningful units, and then condense them into overarching themes. These themes are synthesized into a concise statement that captures the “essence” of the experience that holds true across individual accounts without being influenced by the researcher's biases or outside theories.

Interpretive phenomenology, on the other hand, employs what is called the “hermeneutic circle, which is an ongoing process of moving between examining parts of the data (like specific quotes or stories) and the whole context surrounding them. This method is less like following a strict recipe and more like creating art. Researchers seek to understand not just what participants say, but why and how they say it, often reflecting on the cultural, linguistic, and personal factors that shape meaning. Themes emerge through interpretation, and the researcher’s own reactions and reflections become part of the analytical process. The goal is to reveal not only what people experience but also why those experiences matter, capturing rich layers of meaning.

Reporting the Findings

Reporting findings also differs between the two approaches. Descriptive phenomenology presents themes closely tied to participants’ exact words. The narrative culminates in an “essence statement” that offers an unbiased and pure description of the phenomenon without the researcher adding their own interpretative spin or overarching theory. Conversely, interpretive phenomenology entails rich, narrative-driven findings where themes are imbued with interpretation about their meaning and context. Here, the researcher’s insights, prior knowledge, and reflections may be woven throughout the report (van Manen, 2016). The findings consist of layered narratives combining participant quotes, analytic commentary, and connections to relevant literature (Smith et al, 2009). (Note: Dissertation students should follow the CDS Dissertation Guide and Alignment Handbook for guidance of reporting findings as they may differ.)

When discussing findings, those using descriptive phenomenology tend to stay closely anchored to the essence revealed in the data. They carefully link it back to existing research and theory, while avoiding over-interpretation or speculation. The discussion is straightforward and transparent, highlighting study limitations and methodological decisions. In interpretive research, however, the discussion takes on a dynamic, dialogical tone, engaging with broader societal, philosophical, and cultural issues. Researchers reflect deeply on how their own positions and processes influenced the study and integrate personal, theoretical, and cultural insights to enrich the understanding of the phenomenon.

Summary

In summary, both methods allow us to look through someone else’s eyes, but with very different lenses. Descriptive phenomenology is ideal if you want the clearest, most unfiltered view of lived experiences, while interpretive phenomenology is great for those who value the added depth that researcher perspective, context, and meaning bring to the table. Ultimately, choosing between them depends on what you want to discover, your own philosophical beliefs, and how much you want your own voice to shape your research.

Want to know more?

Check out the full webinars on phenomenology, uploaded to the ��ٱ�.

References

Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.

Lim, W. M. (2024). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. SAGE Publications.

van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Karen Johnson Ed.D.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Karen Johnson, Ed.D., is a research methodology group leader in the University’s Center for Educational and Instructional Technology Research (CEITR).

A faculty member at the ��ɫ��Ƶ since 2005, she currently serves as a University Research Methodologist for CDS. She is also a reviewer for CEITR’s dissertation to publication workshop and a second-tier reviewer for the international journal, The Qualitative Report.

Johnson earned a doctorate in Higher Education from Texas Tech University and completed her Master of Arts and bachelor’s degrees from the University of Texas.