Search results

Due to the limitations to the purpose and practice of both phenomenological and duoethnographic research methodologies, the purpose of this paper is to propose phenomenological polyethnography as a hybrid qualitative methodology, which would guide skilled researchers in conducting phenomenological exploration of an emergent experience as insiders.

This study is an applied a hybridization approach to phenomenology and duoethnography as two distinct qualitative research traditions.

Employing a poststructuralist perspective, researcher-participants with relevant difference co-investigate a phenomenological question together. Borrowing elements from both hermeneutic phenomenology and duoethnography, this methodology involves the consideration of a phenomenon, the use of authors with relevant difference who have both special insight into that phenomenon as participants and skill as qualitative researchers, the intentional collection of prereflective data while all researcher-participants are experiencing the phenomenon or immediately after, the subsequent reflection upon and interpretation of the phenomenon as it was similarly and differently experienced by the researcher-participants, and the description of both the essence and meaning of the phenomenon.

This new, hybrid qualitative methodology will enable researchers to more efficiently analyze and disseminate the research of insider knowledge on emergent phenomena in higher education and other settings.

As a new methodology, it may be used to investigate events and provide rich, thick description in a way not before seen.

SINCE the year 1940, there have appeared two major reports on the Public Library system in Great Britain. The first, “The public library system of Great Britain: a report on its present condition, with proposals for post‐war re‐organisation” by Lionel R. McColvin, appeared in 1942. It suggested sweeping changes in the organisation of the public library system, more radical and far‐reaching than those embodied in the recent recommendations of the Library Association for local government reform. On library co‐operation, the report was equally radical, though certain similarities with the recommendations of the second report are apparent.