6. Hermeneutic Writing

STEPHEN LOFTUS AND FRANZISKA TREDE

6. HERMENEUTIC WRITING

HERMENEUTICS AND INTERPRETATION Hermeneutic writing is the art of transforming interpretations, meanings and arguments into words for the benefit of others and for oneself. Writing down our interpretations can be seen as an integral part of the hermeneutic process. When we attempt to express our interpretations in written form we may find that the very attempt to do so invites us to think more deeply about those same interpretations. It is not uncommon to discover that by trying to articulate and communicate our interpretations we realise that our understanding of a phenomenon is not as well formed as we first thought it was, prompting us to take a step back and think again, and think more deeply. Features of hermeneutic writing include adding meaning, making connections clearer and articulating a depth of understanding. Deeper understanding can lead to further revelations and insights. We cannot write without bias but we can learn to understand and manage our biases more critically. Hermeneutic writing makes explicit and transparent how we think, argue, and make sense of the world. Hermeneutic writing is a dialogical activity between the writer, the phenomenon being explored and the potential audience. The driving force behind hermeneutic writing is the need to understand better and more profoundly. It can be argued that all forms of research, qualitative and quantitative, involve interpretation of some kind. Researchers are expected to generate new knowledge through processing various forms of empirical data (including both sense and experiential data). In empirico-analytical approaches to research, data is collected and analysed and results are presented, whereas in a hermeneutic approach texts are constructed, interpreted, and findings are written up. Interpretation within hermeneutic traditions is seen as illuminating the very process of meaning making. By exploring the possibilities of understanding, hermeneutics opens up possibilities of deeper understanding for the reader. Hermeneutics is especially useful for exploring phenomena that have complex, multi-layered meanings and can be viewed from a number of different perspectives. Clinical reasoning is an example of such a complex phenomenon that lends itself particularly well to a hermeneutic approach (Loftus, 2006; Montgomery, 2006; Svenaeus, 2000). A hermeneutic approach to clinical reasoning opens up its enormous complexity, allowing us to appreciate the many disparate ways in which people have tried to understand what is involved in this particular aspect of professional activity.

Hermeneutics itself can be described as a tradition of interpretation that investigates the very possibility of understanding (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005). Hermeneutic writing consciously strives to utilise the hermeneutic circle, in which parts and whole (of the text and the emerging interpretation) are related to each other and give meaning, one to the other. Striving to find the appro- priate expressions to articulate our insights then becomes an integral part of the hermeneutic circle. In a way, all academic writing should strive to be hermeneutic, in the sense that the parts and the whole of the produced text (or interpretation) should be intimately related to each other. For example, in a chapter, every word, every phrase, every sentence, every paragraph, and every section should relate to the messages that the whole chapter is trying to convey. The chapter is the whole and it derives its meaning from the parts. However, those parts have meaning because of their relation to the whole. In turn, a chapter can be seen as a part that should both gain meaning from and give meaning to the whole book, and beyond this to all the other literature published on the same topic. In this way, hermeneutic writing can strive to bring out the multi-layered meanings that almost every text can possess.

HERMENEUTIC WRITING IN CONTEXT Hermeneutics has a long history, dating back as far back as the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, and on through the Middle Ages to the Reformation, particularly in religious text interpretation (Palmer, 1969). Hermeneutics has since developed in a number of different directions. We focus here primarily on two forms of hermeneutics: philosophical and critical hermeneutics. They are currently popular forms of hermeneutics among researchers, and are of great interest to researchers in the field today. The emphasis throughout the chapter is on writing within these two hermeneutic traditions; what it might look like, and why. Table 6.1 illustrates the distinctions between the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), and the critical hermeneutics of Jürgen Habermas (1929+). This table should be seen as a simplification to assist in understanding the nuances of these traditions. Philosophical hermeneutics seeks to understand phenomena within their cultural– historical situations. Through a question and answer dialogue deeper understandings are negotiated. The emphasis is on reaching consensus and gaining shared meaning. The philosophical hermeneutic approach has a strong commitment to finding common ground. In contrast, critical hermeneutics takes a sceptical stance to finding common ground and generating shared meaning. The emphasis is on questioning cultural–historical traditions with an intent to transform aspects of them that unnecessarily impede social and political awareness-raising. For the purpose of this chapter we focus on Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and Habermasian critical hermeneutics only.