Week 5 DQ 1 – Response to fellow classmate – Sarah Benham

Husserl’s bracketing was conceptualized from math, separating one part of an equation from another, and the process was meant to remove the assumptions of the researchers of the outcome of a study by requiring the researchers to remain objective while collecting data (Hamill & Sinclair, 2010). The purpose of bracketing is to allow participants to provide researchers with the information without sway; therefore, the data is derived from the participant’s point of view rather than one influenced by the researcher (Hamill & Sinclair, 2010). There are advantages to both bracketing and hypotheses use in research in that bracketing minimizes the assumptions of the researcher, decreasing biases, allows the possibility of new information presented by the participants to be readily available, and improves the objectivity of the study (Hamill & Sinclair, 2010). Bracketing can also be taken too far because previous information must be applied to the raw data once it is collected and reviewed allowing for a richer and more accurate conclusion to be reached (Hamill & Sinclair, 2010). Husserl himself suggested that a disadvantage to bracketing is context in that if one is studying a chair, the location of the chair is essential to the study, thus researchers limiting their prior knowledge may also limit the context in which the study is being conducted (Hamill & Sinclair, 2010). These two approaches are not mutually exclusive because and Hamill and Sinclair (2010) point out bracketing was intended for the data collection process, including creation of method and design; however, hypotheses are appropriate once data has been collected and prior to analyzation. Please answer the above question with at least 150-250 words and using at least 1 reference. Reference needs to be from a peer reviewed article or journal and needs to be cited in APA 6th edition format. Also, of applicable, please provide www or doi website info for reference.