Phenomenology and Sports Management: Explaining the Phenomenological Approach with an Emphasis on Studying Risk-Taking Among Mountaineers

Etymology and Essence of Phenomenology

The term phenomenology derives from the Greek root phainomenon, meaning “to appear.” It is formed from the combination of two Greek words: phainomenon and logos. Phainomenon refers to “that which shows itself,” and its root lies in the verb phaino, meaning “to bring to light.” Logos originally meant “to elucidate” or “to make manifest.” Heidegger, in Being and Time, defines logos as “enabling something to be seen as something,” arguing that the authentic meanings of phenomenon and logos are fundamentally identical (Heidegger, 2010; Van Manen, 2017b, 2023). Phenomenology is a broad term that refers both to a philosophical school and a research approach, applied in different ways in practice. While it originated as a philosophical method, it has gradually been adopted as a research methodology (Van Manen, 2017a). A precise definition of phenomenology is challenging; however, it can be understood as a philosophical research approach that emphasizes the perceptions and meanings experienced or interpreted by individuals (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenology was first introduced by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), the founder of this tradition, in the early twentieth century (Giorgi, 2010; Giorgi & Giorgi, 2008). Although the term “phenomenology” existed prior to Husserl, he established the foundation of the school inspired by the ideas of Franz Brentano, who focused on human consciousness and the concept of intentionality. Husserl’s primary inspiration came from Brentano, who first used the term “phenomenology” in 1889. Subsequently, Ernst Mach, a physicist and friend of Brentano, proposed the idea of “general physical phenomenology” to describe our experiences of physical phenomena. Husserl was familiar with Mach’s ideas and, in his 1929 lectures, referred to him as a pioneer of phenomenology while presenting himself as the scholar who developed the phenomenological approach in a more fundamental way (Moran, 2002).

Husserl (1931) aimed to provide a method for understanding individuals’ experiences of specific phenomena. He believed that lived experiences should be employed as a means of accessing phenomena in their authentic and original form. By extracting insights from individuals, the fundamental question of “How do we know?” entered the core of phenomenological research (Skinner et al., 2024). Phenomenological studies focus on individuals’ perceptions and experiences of the world around them—their lifeworld—and the meaning of these experiences. Phenomenology is concerned with how things appear to humans in the context of experience. Reality, as we experience it, is subjective and shaped through interaction with others and the world of objects (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2008; Smith & Osborn, 2008). Accordingly, Husserl’s phrase “to the things themselves,” introduced in Logical Investigations (1901), reflects the phenomenological intention to describe the world as it is experienced by individuals. The goal of phenomenology is to access the truth of phenomena and describe them in a manner that allows the phenomenon itself to manifest in the consciousness of the experiencer (Jones et al., 2012). Landridge (2007) emphasizes that phenomenological studies employ first-person descriptions of lived experiences to achieve a deep understanding of the nature and meanings of those experiences (Van Manen, 2023). The process of moving from exploring individual experience to identifying a “general structure” is known as eidetic or essential reduction (Van Manen, 2017a). Giorgi and Giorgi (2008) define phenomenology as “the study of consciousness as experienced by human beings,” with the aim of providing a structured description of lived experience. Marton (1992) describes phenomenology as a “research method” designed to describe and analyze the various ways a phenomenon is experienced, relying on analyzable experiential reports (p. 254). Van Manen (2017b) emphasizes the “manner of orientation toward lived experience.” (p. 775). Thus, phenomenological research does not merely seek to prove the existence of phenomena; rather, it aims to expand our understanding of individuals’ experiences and perceptions, producing representations of participants’ perceptions of their lived reality.

Schools of Phenomenology

Contemporary researchers are confronted with a broad range of methodological approaches within phenomenological inquiry. Just as phenomenology encompasses multiple philosophical traditions, it also offers diverse methodological strategies that researchers may draw upon in the research process (Moran, 2002, p. 125). In other words, given the substantial philosophical divergences among phenomenological thinkers, the existence of varied approaches and strategies among researchers in this field is both natural and expected (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2008). Each phenomenological approach is characterized by distinctive aims, procedures, and methods of data collection and analysis. Nevertheless, adherence to fundamental phenomenological principles remains essential, as it is the underlying philosophy of phenomenology that distinguishes it from other research paradigms. Broadly speaking, phenomenological research is commonly classified into two principal traditions: descriptive phenomenology and interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenology (Skinner et al., 2020). Although these approaches share certain foundational assumptions, they differ in key philosophical commitments and methodological practices. The selection of either approach is contingent upon the researcher’s theoretical orientation and philosophical stance. The following sections elaborate on these two major schools of phenomenological thought.

A) Descriptive Phenomenology

Descriptive, or transcendental, phenomenology originates from the philosophical work of Edmund Husserl and was later developed into an applied research methodology by Amedeo Giorgi (Skinner et al., 2024). Giorgi and Giorgi (2008) argue that Husserl’s philosophy, in its original form, cannot function as a fully operational scientific method; consequently, it requires methodological adaptations to be effectively employed in empirical research. Drawing upon Husserl’s philosophical insights, Giorgi articulated a systematic approach to descriptive phenomenology aimed at identifying the essence of phenomena as they appear in consciousness. Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) maintains that researchers in the social sciences should describe phenomena as they are revealed in experience, without embellishment or reduction. He emphasizes that analysts must remain faithful to the data and refrain from imposing interpretations that extend beyond what is given, while acknowledging that description can never be entirely exhaustive. The primary objective of this approach is to describe phenomena within the context of everyday lived experience in order to disclose their fundamental structures.

Husserl contended that modern science, in its pursuit of objectivity, had separated subjective experience from lived reality, thereby placing humanity in a state of crisis in which science came to be regarded as the sole arbiter of truth. This objectivist orientation, he argued, resulted in a disconnection between human beings and the historical and social dimensions of their lifeworld. In response, Husserl introduced concepts such as the lifeworld (Lebenswelt) and lived experience, which constitute the foundation of our shared, taken-for-granted understanding of the world (Husserl, 1970). Polkinghorne (1984) similarly conceptualizes lived experience as an effort to grasp the meaning of human experience as it is actually lived. The lifeworld refers to experience that unfolds prior to deliberate reflection and without reliance on formal categorization or conceptualization, often encompassing what is perceived as self-evident or commonplace. The purpose of lifeworld-oriented inquiry is to revisit these taken-for-granted experiences and render visible their latent or overlooked meanings (Polkinghorne, 1989; Pollio et al., 1997).

In descriptive (transcendental) phenomenology, the description of phenomena is undertaken with the aim of accessing the essence of subjective experience. Achieving this requires moving through the multiplicity of meaningful appearances to arrive at the underlying structure that unifies them. Husserl proposed that experiences can ultimately be reduced to their essential structures through eidetic intuition, a process involving the intuitive apprehension of the essence of a phenomenon. One of the most significant—and at times controversial—concepts in Husserl’s phenomenology is bracketing (epoché). This concept entails suspending the assumptions of the natural attitude in order to focus attention exclusively on pure experience. This process, referred to as phenomenological reduction, involves setting aside presuppositions, attending to the core experience, and eliminating accidental, extraneous, or non-essential elements (Skinner et al., 2020).

B) Interpretive Phenomenology

Interpretive phenomenology extends beyond the descriptive portrayal of phenomena and adopts an exploratory and interpretive orientation. Often referred to as hermeneutic phenomenology, this tradition is grounded in the philosophical contributions of Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer (a student of Heidegger), and Paul Ricoeur. Heidegger, who had previously served as Husserl’s assistant, reconceptualized phenomenology within an interpretive philosophical framework and established it as a foundation for hermeneutic methodologies (Jones et al., 2012). Within interpretive phenomenology, the primary concern is the understanding of being. Heidegger thus moved beyond pure description, asserting that interpretation is an indispensable component of phenomenological inquiry. He famously argued that every description is already interpretive. Todres and Wheeler (2001) highlight the value of hermeneutics in enabling researchers to critically reflect upon findings and to pose meaningful and contextually relevant questions. Max van Manen, a prominent contemporary scholar in hermeneutic phenomenology—particularly within the field of education—has made substantial contributions to the development and application of this approach.

In his critique of Husserl, Heidegger maintained that human beings cannot be understood in isolation from the world; rather, human understanding is always situated within the context of the lifeworld and personal lived experience. He introduced the concept of being-in-the-world (Dasein) to emphasize the inseparability of human existence and worldly engagement. Heidegger argued that Husserl’s focus on consciousness neglected fundamental existential dimensions of human life, such as anxiety, fear, disorientation, and mortality (Jones et al., 2012; Smith & Osborn, 2008). Consequently, instead of emphasizing the Husserlian suspension of presuppositions, Heidegger employed hermeneutic concepts to explore the existential conditions of human existence. For Heidegger, phenomenology is fundamentally an ontological project—that is, an inquiry into the modes of human being in the world. He articulated this aim succinctly by asserting that phenomenology seeks to allow phenomena to “speak for themselves” and to inquire into the question: What is the essence of this being? From this perspective, phenomenology involves the explication of the meaning of being itself (Heidegger, 1988, p. 254).

The method of meaning interpretation in Heideggerian phenomenology is hermeneutics (derived from the Greek term meaning interpretation), a process through which individuals construct meaning in everyday life. Heidegger emphasized that interpretation is always informed by pre-understanding, which constitutes the condition of possibility for any interpretive act grounded in lived experience. He further introduced the concept of the hermeneutic circle, which posits that understanding always unfolds within a meaningful whole (Todres & Wheeler, 2001). In simple terms, a text or phenomenon is embedded within broader cultural, historical, and existential contexts, which themselves form part of an even more encompassing horizon of human existence. The hermeneutic circle thus provides a means for interpreting the human condition and accessing possibilities for understanding being (Stewart & Mickunas, 1990).

Moreover, Heideggerian phenomenology differs from Husserlian phenomenology with respect to the treatment of presuppositions. Rather than attempting to suspend them, Heideggerian phenomenology seeks to explicate the historical and cultural conditions that shape human understanding. Since culture precedes individual existence, a form of pre-understanding is always already present in any given situation. Accordingly, individuals encounter the world through interpretive resources that structure their perceptual frameworks, and their interpretations inevitably reflect those frameworks (Skinner et al., 2020, p. 398). From Heidegger’s perspective, all understanding emerges in relation to specific pre-structures, including one’s historical situatedness, which cannot be disregarded. It is therefore essential for individuals to cultivate awareness of the influence of these pre-structures on the processes of understanding and interpretation. This interpretive process unfolds through the hermeneutic circle, whereby understanding moves from parts of experience toward the whole and back again, continuing until meaning is adequately grasped (Van Manen, 2017b). The endpoint of this process is reached when an interpretation is achieved that is internally coherent, conceptually consistent, and free of contradiction.

Giorgi and Giorgi (2008) note that no standardized procedural guidelines exist for researchers conducting interpretive phenomenological studies, a limitation often associated with this approach. Van Manen (2017a) proposes six activities for interpretive phenomenological research; however, these are not intended as prescriptive steps and are not easily operationalized. Langdridge (2007) similarly observes that interpretive phenomenologists tend to resist formalization and rigid methodological structuring, a tendency that may pose challenges for novice researchers. Todres and Holloway (2004) argue that the distinctions between descriptive and interpretive phenomenology have been overstated. In practice, both approaches share several common features, including the elicitation of lifeworld descriptions, the use of bracketing or reflexive sensitivity as an analytic strategy, and the pursuit of essence or a fusion of horizons to explicate lived experience. Nonetheless, researchers and students must possess a clear understanding of the chosen approach and its philosophical foundations. As Giorgi (1997) contends, a sound grasp of phenomenological methodology presupposes a thorough understanding of its philosophical underpinnings.

Differences between Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenological philosophies have significantly influenced their application as research methodologies. While Husserlian phenomenology constitutes a primarily descriptive methodology, Heideggerian phenomenology entails an interpretive process. These contrasting perspectives are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1- Comparison of Descriptive and Interpretive Phenomenology (Skinner et al., 2020, p. 401)

Larsen (2023) further elaborate on distinctions among phenomenological schools that researchers may adopt as theoretical frameworks. These distinctions primarily concern differing conceptions of experience. Specifically, they relate to the contrast between experience as a psychological phenomenon and lived experience as it unfolds in the world. Participants themselves typically do not articulate such fine-grained distinctions; rather, these distinctions function as analytical categories that may constrain the research process and fail to fully capture the lived meaning of experience. Nevertheless, by selecting a particular phenomenological school, researchers implicitly delimit the types of insights that their study can generate. Larsen (2023) identify four major phenomenological schools that may serve as theoretical frameworks in research, as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2- Phenomenological Schools and Their Characteristics (Larsen, 2023, p. 100)

In phenomenological research, the initial step involves identifying the research topic. Phenomenological researchers often take perception as their point of departure. Merleau-Ponty et al. (2013) emphasizes that perception is neither merely an opinion nor a perspective. Rather, as he argues, “perception is not scientific knowledge of the world, nor is it a deliberate act of positioning oneself; instead, it is the background from which all actions emerge.” Novice researchers are often more concerned with understanding than with perception, as thematic analysis typically follows perception to examine how individuals interpret particular experiences. In transcendental and psychological phenomenology, the focus of inquiry is subjectivity, whereas in existential phenomenology, the central concern is being (existence). Accordingly, in phenomenological research, the object of inquiry is always experience.

Phenomenology in Sports Management

Phenomenology is particularly valuable in the field of sports and sports management because it emphasizes the body and embodiment. Allen‐Collinson (2009) argue that the concepts of “lived body” and embodiment should be revisited in sports research, asserting that “phenomenology of the sporting body” has often focused more on theoretical and abstract levels rather than on the experiential (p. 280). Furthermore, they note that relatively few studies have applied phenomenological approaches in the context of sport and physical activity, despite the significant potential of this approach for investigating such domains. Similarly, Skinner et al. (2024) argue that phenomenological research is important in sports management because sports managers are concerned with human experiences, and phenomenology provides a method to study these experiences (p. 315). Research conducted from a phenomenological perspective allows participants to express their experiences without the meanings being altered by sports management researchers, and it can enhance participants’ agency by encouraging them to reflect on and discuss their experiences.

Fortunately, in recent years, many researchers in sports management have begun to adopt phenomenological approaches in their studies, using this methodology to examine human experiences in sports contexts (Norouzi Seyed Hosseini, 2021; Norouzi Seyed Hossini, 2024). For example, McAllister (2006) used phenomenology to investigate how women managers perceive the benefits of competitive sporting experiences. Similarly, Callary et al. (2015) applied phenomenological analysis to study athletes’ lived experiences in coaching environments. They found this approach useful in sports research, as it allows researchers to deeply understand a particular phenomenon from the participants’ perspective. In another study, Newland et al. (2015) explored transformational leadership in sports contexts by interviewing eleven female collegiate athletes to uncover their positive experiences with current or former coaches. The results indicated that designing a qualitative study using a phenomenological approach helped expand existing knowledge and deepen understanding of the phenomenon. Finally, Clark et al. (2018) examined the meaning of skiing for those who engage in this activity. Employing a phenomenological approach, they were able to uncover the lived experiences of skiers participating in the activity, concluding that these insights would not have emerged without the use of this methodology (Skinner et al., 2024).

In sports research, phenomenology can be used to identify and describe the essence of specific experiences or to understand what experiences resemble one another. A deep understanding of sports experiences can be particularly beneficial for all stakeholders involved in sports—coaches, sports managers, family members and friends of athletes, sports psychologists, media personnel, and even the general public. Moreover, the rich and in-depth descriptions of sporting experiences obtained through phenomenological research can meaningfully enhance or refine the findings derived from other qualitative studies (Skinner et al., 2020). In other words, phenomenology offers a unique opportunity in sports management studies to achieve a deeper understanding of athletes’ and stakeholders’ lived experiences, an approach that has been increasingly utilized in recent research. For instance, in Norouzi Seyed Hosseini (2021) study on “Elderly Athletes and the COVID-19 Pandemic,” the researcher focused on the lived experiences of elderly athletes in Tehran, using phenomenology to examine the hidden psychological, social, and physical dimensions of their experiences. Similarly, in another study, Norouzi Seyed Hossini (2020) investigated the lived experiences of professional Iranian athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic, a subject accessible only through phenomenological methodology. Additionally, the study by Norouzi Seyed hossini and Hekmati (2020) explored female heads of households and their understanding of health through sports participation, demonstrating the capacity of phenomenology to reveal the deep meaning of sports involvement within specific social contexts. Beyond understanding athletes’ experiences, phenomenology can provide profound insights into sports managers’ experiences across their areas of responsibility—from local clubs to international events such as the Olympic Games. It can illuminate the often invisible cultural, gendered, economic, organizational, interpersonal, and political challenges that sports managers encounter in their professional and daily lives. Overall, phenomenological research is seen as a valuable method for sports managers to enhance their understanding of individuals’ lived experiences in sports, which can contribute to the development or strengthening of sports management knowledge and potentially lead to improvements in its processes.

Core Components in Phenomenological Research

Regardless of the specific phenomenological approach adopted, researchers employing this methodology must have a thorough understanding of several fundamental concepts in order to conduct high-quality phenomenological studies. The following section examines the essential concepts of phenomenology.

a) Lifeworld

One of the central concepts in phenomenological research is the “lifeworld” (Lebenswelt), which refers to the world as it is experienced and lived by individuals (Van Manen, 2016). First introduced by Husserl, the lifeworld encompasses the range of experiences, perceptions, and meanings that people engage with daily and directly, prior to any scientific or abstract analysis (Todres & Holloway, 2004, p. 80). It is the world we inhabit and naturally interact with, including our environment, social relationships, culture, and material surroundings, forming the experiential and meaningful foundation through which humans understand and interpret the world (Ashworth, 2016, p. 22). In both descriptive and interpretive phenomenology, the term “lifeworld” replaces “data,” emphasizing the subjective nature of reality (Jones et al., 2012). Researchers do not study an objective reality; rather, they focus on lived experiences (Aspers, 2012). Moran (2002) describes this as the “unadorned world of experience,” a world that appears prior to any thought or description. Husserl emphasized the principle of “bracketing” to set aside assumptions, enabling direct and profound engagement with phenomena (p. 12).

Phenomenological research begins with collecting lived experiences, which in the context of sports can include “elite-level competition,” “passionate fandom,” “living with a disability caused by a sports incident,” “recovery from injury,” “pre-competition anxiety,” “sense of team belonging,” “engaging in sports to cope with loneliness or depression,” “exercising in older age,” or “encounters with gender or ethnic discrimination” (Jones et al., 2012). Husserl explains that individuals live according to the “natural attitude,” and this lifeworld is “pre-reflective,” forming before any conscious analysis or linguistic articulation (Moran, 2002, p. 12). A central challenge for phenomenological researchers is how to access participants’ experiences directly and represent them in a way that reveals the essence of the phenomenon, recognizing that language cannot fully capture the totality of lived experience.

b) Lived Experience

In phenomenological research, “lived experience” is among the most recognized and widely used concepts. Studies often pose the question: “What are the lived experiences of this individual or group?” Yet, the phenomenological significance of these experiences and the credibility of resulting insights often require clarification (Van Manen, 2023). To understand lived experience, it is first necessary to define “experience.” Varela and Shear (1999, pp. 1–2) describe experience broadly as “cognitive and mental events” in the first-person domain, events of which an individual is consciously aware. Key characteristics of experience include occurring in the first-person perspective, being grounded in real events and interactions, serving as a means to understand human consciousness, and providing a basis to explore subjectivity and meaning. Van Manen (2017b, p. 813) argues that the founders of phenomenology developed methods to recover meanings from everyday moments without recourse to assumptions or theoretical abstractions. The term “lived” indicates that phenomenologists deal with more than mere perception; it represents an inward narrative where perception and subjectivity intersect, intimately linked with emotions, interpretations, and personal understandings of events (Moran, 2002, p. 14).

Heidegger (2010, p. 32) asserts that the analysis of Dasein takes precedence over any psychological analysis. Dasein exists through intentional actions and interactions with the world and objects, revealing existential phenomenology. He emphasizes that cognition is not merely mental; the mind and our being are dynamically formed through engagement with the world (Heidegger, 1988, p. 66). His concept of circumspective seeing (Zuhandenheit) revises Husserl’s notion of intentionality, connecting lived experiences to intentional structures. Lived experience, therefore, reflects how Dasein interacts with the world rather than merely perceives or observes it. For phenomenological researchers, analyzing individuals’ lived experiences provides a profound understanding of the various forms and modes of “being,” a consideration that must inform participant selection and study design (Skinner et al., 2024).

c) Suspending Presuppositions and Sensitizing

In phenomenological research, the process of “bracketing” involves suspending prior beliefs and assumptions about a phenomenon to investigate its true essence (Aspers, 2012, p. 4). Husserl considered this a core component of phenomenological understanding and termed it the “phenomenological reduction,” aiming to maintain a mind free from preconceptions. By temporarily setting aside biases, researchers can uncover insights unaffected by prior theories or assumptions. Giorgi (1997) clarifies that bracketing does not require discarding prior knowledge entirely but rather suspending it during the inquiry. Both descriptive and interpretive phenomenology emphasize that seeing something anew requires adopting a fresh perspective, a key aspect of the exploratory phenomenological approach (Smith, 2024). Bracketing entails openness to surprise and readiness to accept whatever emerges throughout the research process, not only at its inception (Jones et al., 2012).

While descriptive phenomenology stresses the suspension of presuppositions, hermeneutic phenomenology often emphasizes “sensitization.” Here, existing presuppositions function as tools to enhance the researcher’s awareness of hidden, unknown, or unconventional aspects of a phenomenon (Jones et al., 2012). Sensitization involves heightened attention, preparedness, and conscious reflection. Hermeneutic phenomenologists argue that presuppositions cannot be entirely eliminated; instead, they must be explicitly acknowledged, enabling readers to evaluate the strengths and limitations of interpretations. Heidegger (2010) highlights that researchers are inseparable from the world they study, and phenomena should be understood within their historical and cultural contexts. Researchers should initially review relevant literature cautiously to avoid undue influence while remaining aware of existing studies and gaps. Bracketing is not the rejection of prior knowledge but an approach to examine a phenomenon from a fresh perspective and challenge existing assumptions. Its ultimate purpose is to cultivate openness, allowing the data to “speak for itself” and focusing on how phenomena are experienced rather than how they “should” be (Finlay, 2008). In sports research, this requires managing prior experiences as athletes, coaches, or fans to avoid influencing participants or imposing preconceptions during analysis.

d) Temporality and Meaning

Van Maanen (2011) argues that phenomenology looks to the past because humans cannot simultaneously experience and reflect upon their lived experience. Consequently, phenomenological reflection is retrospective rather than introspective. A distinction exists between “objective time,” which can be measured by a clock, and “subjective time,” which refers to the feeling of time passing within individual experience. Accordingly, Van Manen (2016, p. 306) defines phenomenological time as “lived time,” experienced differently depending on the individual’s activity. For instance, some days may feel longer than others. Despite this variability, phenomenological time is considered a sequence of “nows.” Psychologically, this pattern is examined through past experiences shaping expectations of the future. In contrast, phenomenologists like Heidegger integrate time with subjectivity through the concept of “temporality.” Heidegger (2010) contends that Dasein cannot be understood as a series of discrete, sequential moments. Temporality should not be perceived as a linear chain of events but as the “unity of past, present, and future”—a continuous horizon through which Dasein discerns the meaning of the world (Heidegger, 1988, p. 226).

Merleau-Ponty et al. (2013, p. 413) similarly asserts that both remembered past and anticipated future exist within the present; memory is not merely a repository of past events, and preserved perceptions remain active in the now. Contemporary neuroscience supports this, suggesting that recollections are shaped more by current beliefs than by objective past realities. In this sense, memory functions as a retrospective phenomenology aimed at addressing present challenges. For example, the phrase “the good old days” implies critique of the present while offering hope for a future shaped by an idealized, and not necessarily factual, past. Understanding temporality as a horizon of meaning is crucial for social science researchers because interviews—their primary data source—are conveyed within this temporal framework. Researchers must interpret participants’ narratives not strictly according to chronological time but through the lens of temporality (Larsen, 2023). Philosophically, Heidegger emphasizes that the meaning of Dasein emerges within temporality, and, alongside Ricoeur’s hermeneutic approach, this provides a theoretical foundation for phenomenological research. Thus, scattered memories of events are reconstructed narratively, reflecting human efforts to comprehend their existence (Larsen & Adu, 2021, p. 29).

Phenomenological Research Approach: Example of Risk-Taking in Himalayan Climbers

Phenomenological research in sports management can be conducted through a series of structured steps, depending on whether the researcher adopts a descriptive approach (Husserl) or an interpretive approach (Heidegger, Gadamer). The stages of conducting a phenomenological study are as follows:

Stage One: Choosing a Phenomenological Topic or Problem

The first stage involves selecting a phenomenological topic. Heidegger (2010, p. 5) emphasizes that “questioning is like searching, and every search already knows what it is looking for,” meaning that the research question frames the phenomenon from a specific perspective. He outlines three components of questioning: 1) the subject of inquiry, e.g., risk-taking among Himalayan climbers; 2) the method of questioning, which shapes how the phenomenon is perceived; and 3) the knowledge gained through this process. Merleau-Ponty et al. (2013) similarly notes that discovery requires a pre-existing awareness of the focus. Larsen (2023) identifies two main perspectives in phenomenological research: consciousness/mind-based and existence/behavior-based, both of which influence the research question.

As Larsen and Adu (2021) state, the focus of phenomenological research is always “experience.” In studying risk-taking among Himalayan climbers, first-person accounts (lived experiences) are central. For example, researchers may examine:

• The climber’s experience of navigating life-threatening conditions, avalanches, or sudden weather changes.

• Psychological preparation and coping strategies prior to high-risk ascents.
• Group dynamics and trust among team members during critical decision-making moments.
• Encounters with altitude sickness, frostbite, or injury, and the personal meaning of overcoming these challenges.
• The sense of achievement, awe, or fear associated with summiting peaks or returning safely.

The primary aim is to understand the unique lived experiences of climbers and the subjective meaning they assign to risk, rather than generalizing to all mountaineers. After defining the domain, the researcher develops a problem statement, research questions, and study objectives. Phenomenological research questions focus on understanding how participants experience the phenomenon: “What does risk-taking mean to Himalayan climbers?” (interpretive approach) or “What is the essence of risk-taking among these climbers?” (descriptive approach). In addition to the main research question, follow-up questions used during phenomenological interviews explore the “what” and “how” of the phenomenon. These are not formal research sub-questions, but probing questions that emerge in response to participants’ narratives. Follow-up questions explore the “what” and “how” of the phenomenon, such as how climbers respond to near-death experiences, navigate group decisions under extreme conditions, or reconcile fear with ambition. This approach allows researchers to capture the depth, meaning, and existential dimensions of risk-taking in high-altitude mountaineering.

Step Two: Suspending Assumptions or Becoming Sensitive

Once the research topic is selected and a phenomenological approach is deemed appropriate, the researcher’s primary focus shifts to the participants. To maintain clarity, a procedure known as “suspending assumptions” (bracketing) or “becoming sensitive” is implemented. In this process, the researcher undergoes a reflective interview with an expert familiar with phenomenological methods to identify potential biases and preconceptions (Skinner et al., 2020, p. 384). This practice is continuous throughout the study, requiring the researcher to remain attentive, suspend assumptions, and apply intuition during data collection and analysis. For studies on risk-taking among Himalayan climbers, this step ensures that the researcher’s own mountaineering experiences, fear of heights, or attitudes toward extreme sports do not color the interpretation of participants’ lived experiences. The researcher prepares for subsequent interviews by reviewing relevant literature and gaining foundational knowledge about the phenomenon, while remaining cautious not to impose pre-existing interpretations on climbers’ accounts.

Two main approaches exist regarding prior literature review: the first suggests minimal prior exposure to texts to avoid influencing the researcher’s perception, while the second advocates for a careful review to understand the phenomenon’s scope, boundaries, and existing perspectives. Both approaches emphasize separating the researcher’s assumptions from participants’ lived experiences, albeit through different methods. In social research, where phenomena lack fixed boundaries and often overlap with related concepts, literature review helps the researcher formulate pertinent questions and stay focused during interviews. A key challenge in phenomenological research is balancing awareness of the phenomenon’s limits with openness to uncovering new dimensions. Interpretive phenomenologists argue that complete suspension of preconceptions is impossible; instead, they employ the hermeneutic circle to achieve mutual understanding and deeper insight into the meaning of risk-taking as experienced by Himalayan climbers. This reflective process enables the researcher to interpret climbers’ narratives authentically, capturing the essence of their unique encounters with extreme risk and uncertainty.

Stage Three: Data Collection

The third stage in phenomenological research involves data collection, with phenomenological interviews being the primary tool. In this stage, interviews are conducted with carefully selected participants who have relevant and in-depth lived experiences. For studying risk-taking among Himalayan climbers, participants may include professional climbers, local guides, and expedition team members. This stage consists of two main components: sampling method and interview procedures.

a) Sampling Method

In phenomenological research, participants are selected based on their capacity to provide rich, reflective, and detailed descriptions of their lived experiences (Moustakas, 1994). Mere exposure to the phenomenon is insufficient; participants must also be willing and able to articulate the personal meanings they attribute to their experiences. Accordingly, purposive sampling is commonly employed to ensure the collection of information-rich narratives that illuminate the essence of the phenomenon under investigation (Jones et al., 2012). In descriptive phenomenology, researchers may also seek maximum variation to capture shared experiences across participants who differ in characteristics such as age, gender, or climbing background, while maintaining a focus on the common experiential core. There is no fixed consensus regarding sample size in phenomenological research. Methodological scholars emphasize that the number of participants should be guided by the depth, richness, and adequacy of the data rather than adherence to a predetermined numerical standard (Morse, 2000; Van Manen, 2016). Some researchers argue that a small number of participants—sometimes as few as three to five—can be sufficient when the aim is an in-depth exploration of lived experience (Polkinghorne, 1989), whereas others suggest a broader range depending on the scope and purpose of the study (Cresswell, 2013). Within this tradition, smaller samples are often preferred to preserve analytical depth and allow for a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon (Todres & Holloway, 2004). In line with these methodological considerations, the present study employs a small, purposive sample to ensure rich and meaningful accounts of risk-taking experiences among Himalayan climbers. The sample size was determined based on the quality and depth of participants’ narratives and the point at which experiential themes became sufficiently illuminated, rather than on a fixed numerical criterion.

b) Conducting Phenomenological Interviews

Phenomenological interviews are typically unstructured and open-ended, allowing participants to describe their lived experiences in a detailed and authentic manner (Larsen, 2023, p. 108). In exploring Himalayan climbers’ risk-taking, the interviews begin with broad, open-ended questions such as: “Please describe your first encounter with extreme altitude,” “What thoughts and emotions did you experience when navigating dangerous routes?”, or “How did you decide to continue the climb?” These initial questions are designed to invite rich narrative accounts rather than elicit brief or predefined responses. Follow-up and probing questions are not predetermined but emerge dynamically in response to participants’ narratives. As participants recount their experiences, the researcher formulates follow-up questions to clarify meanings, deepen descriptions, and encourage further reflection on significant moments, emotions, or decisions. For example, when a participant refers to fear, hesitation, or a critical decision point, probing questions such as “Can you describe that moment in more detail?” or “What did that experience mean to you at the time?” are used to access the experiential depth of the phenomenon. This adaptive questioning process ensures that the interview remains grounded in the participant’s perspective while allowing the researcher to explore the “what” and “how” of the lived experience. Throughout the interviews, the researcher adopts a non-judgmental and receptive stance, facilitating an interactive and iterative dialogue without imposing interpretations or assumptions (Giorgi, 1997). Techniques such as reflective listening, summarizing participants’ statements, and seeking clarification are employed to enhance understanding. At the conclusion of each interview, participants are invited to reflect on and confirm the researcher’s understanding of their accounts, thereby supporting interpretive credibility (Larsen & Adu, 2021; Skinner et al., 2020). This interview process enables a rich, nuanced, and methodologically rigorous exploration of risk-taking as lived and experienced by Himalayan climbers.

Stage Four: Data Analysis

The primary goal of phenomenology is to generate insights that can extend beyond the specific individuals studied, showing which elements or features of human experience may be shared. In other words, phenomenology seeks to identify the components of human experience that transcend particular situations. Van Manen (2016) describes phenomenological research as “an effort to understand the meaning of being human.” Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, refers to these shared elements as essential structures, sometimes also called phenomenological essences. The findings of phenomenological studies are thus not limited to individual cases but have the potential to be understood more broadly and applied to other people’s experiences. These findings often resonate with familiar human and sensory experiences, allowing readers to gain a deeper understanding of their own experiences. Phenomenologists present results in a way that illustrates the connections among common themes, often in a narrative form, where the overarching structure is organized according to key thematic elements (Husserl, 1970). For example, in a study on risk-taking in sports, one qualitative feature might be the “desire to outperform others to boost self-esteem.” In phenomenological analysis, researchers aim to extract shared aspects among participants while still acknowledging unique and individual dimensions of each experience. Hence, findings typically combine common structures with individual variations.

Hermeneutic phenomenologists, while similarly concerned with conveying meaning, approach it differently. Here, meaning emerges through multiple perspectives, relying heavily on personal insights and contextual understanding. Gadamer (1975), a key figure in hermeneutic phenomenology, uses the metaphor of the “fusion of horizons” to illustrate how different understandings can converge, producing broader and shared insights. This concept allows readers the freedom to interpret meaning within the context of their own lives or circumstances. Gadamer emphasizes that the credibility of phenomenological findings is based not on universal applicability but on coherence, consistency, and meaningful transferability to similar contexts (Vessey, 2009). It is rare for phenomenological studies to identify fusion of horizons themes that are universally applicable across all cultures or contexts; rather, researchers often find themes that are meaningful within specific settings, such as a particular culture, community, or historical period (Jones et al., 2012).

In phenomenology, the aim is to provide a comprehensive and analytical description of the phenomenon under study and understand its essence. After collecting participants’ descriptions of their lifeworld experiences, researchers transcribe these narratives to prepare them for analysis. Depending on the chosen phenomenological tradition, different approaches are used for analyzing and interpreting the data. For instance, Colizzi (1978) proposes a seven-step method, Diclimen et al. (1993) suggest a seven-stage model, Van Manen (1990, 2023) introduces a six-step approach, Giorgi (1997) uses a four-stage model, and Van Kaam (1967) presents a seven-step procedure. Additionally, Smith and Osborn (2008) developed Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), offering a flexible and interpretative framework (Skinner et al., 2024; Smith, 2024). Many of these approaches overlap in stages, allowing researchers to select the most appropriate methods based on their philosophical stance and research objectives.

a) Van Manen’s Method

Van Manen (2023) approach involves six steps:

1. Focusing on lived experience: Concentrate on participants’ experiences and refine the research questions.
2. Attending to the lived experience as it is lived: Collect evidence and data that accurately reflect participants’ experiences.
3. Discovering themes: Identify themes within the data to uncover the meaning of participants’ lived experiences.
4. Writing: Compose the thematic and conceptual analysis derived from the data.
5. Maintaining a connection to the phenomenon: Ensure that findings remain closely tied to the phenomenon, avoiding researcher bias or digression.
6. Holistic view of the study: Examine the coherence of parts and whole within the study.

Van Manen emphasizes flexibility in analysis, arguing that deep understanding emerges through writing and reflection, often using narrative as a method for integrating implicit meanings found in participants’ descriptions (Van Manen, 2017a, 2017b).

b) Giorgi’s Method

• Holistic approach: Researchers read all data to gain a complete (Gestalt) understanding before starting detailed analysis.
• Identifying meaning units: After obtaining an overall view, researchers distinguish meaning units—phrases, sentences, or paragraphs reflecting distinct meanings. These are initially labeled using participants’ own words.
• Transforming meaning into scientific language: Meaning units are then interpreted in formal, academic terms to construct the essential structure of the experience. Irrelevant units are excluded.
• Constructing the essential structure: For each participant, the structure is synthesized from meaning units. Commonalities across participants are then identified, producing the overall phenomenological structure, which includes representative quotes and relationships among essential elements. The focus is on the phenomenon itself, not solely individual narratives (Giorgi, 1997).

c) Diclimen et al.’s Method

Diclimen et al. (1993) propose a seven-stage procedure:

1. Read interviews for overall understanding.
2. Write interpretive summaries and identify potential themes.
3. Analyze transcripts collaboratively to extract interpretive topics.
4. Return to participants or texts for clarification.
5. Compare texts to identify common meanings and behaviors.
6. Determine patterns related to themes.
7. Consult peers for feedback on the final framework (Todres & Holloway, 2004; Todres & Wheeler, 2001).

d) Colizzi’s Method

Colizzi (1978) proposes seven steps:

1. Thoroughly read participants’ protocols for general understanding.
2. Extract statements directly related to the phenomenon.
3. Formulate meanings for each statement.
4. Organize formulated meanings into theme clusters.
5. Validate clusters against original protocols.
6. Develop a comprehensive description of the phenomenon’s structure.
7. Seek participants’ feedback for final validation, maintaining flexibility throughout.

e) Van Kaam’s Method

Van Kaam (1967) presents a seven-step procedure:

1. Grouping: Extract and group similar statements from transcripts ("horizonizing").
2. Reduction: Examine statements for essential moments of experience; remove overlapping or ambiguous data.
3. Clustering: Organize invariant elements into thematic clusters.
4. Validation: Ensure components and themes are explicitly supported by participants’ accounts.
5. Textual description: Create individual textual descriptions of participants’ experiences.
6. Structural description: Abstract and interpret each participant’s experience for underlying structure.
7. Final synthesis: Develop a comprehensive descriptive text integrating all essential meanings and invariant themes.

f) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

IPA emphasizes flexible, interpretative engagement with data and draws on hermeneutic traditions:

1. Read and re-read transcripts, noting initial observations in the margin.
2. Develop emergent themes from initial notes.
3. Organize related themes into conceptual clusters.
4. Create a table of themes, linking each with participants’ quotes.

This process is repeated for each transcript individually, eventually producing a comprehensive thematic table, reflecting both convergences and divergences across participants’ experiences (Smith, 2024; Smith & Osborn, 2008).

Stage Five: Ensuring Credibility and Preparing the Final Report

In phenomenology, the term “credibility” is used broadly. According to Polkinghorne (1989, p. 57), credibility concerns whether a general structural description accurately represents the shared features and structural relationships revealed in the collected sample. A central challenge for phenomenological researchers is convincing readers of the validity and trustworthiness of their findings. To achieve this, researchers must demonstrate that their methodology was applied with rigor, coherence, and integrity, and that the resulting findings possess logical consistency and analytical clarity. Pollio et al. (1997, p. 56) emphasize that the accuracy and depth of insight—a primary goal of phenomenological description—can only be attained if the findings are verified for precision and logical consistency. One key method for ensuring credibility of data from phenomenological interviews is to share the extracted thematic structures with participants and request their confirmation. This process ensures that the structures accurately reflect participants’ lived experiences. For example, when studying high-altitude mountaineers, a researcher might identify themes around decision-making under risk, such as choosing whether to continue ascending despite deteriorating weather conditions or limited oxygen. In the final stage, participants review these thematic structures to confirm that they faithfully represent their experiences, and provide feedback for revision or expansion. A researcher might ask: “How well do my descriptions capture the moments when you decided to take a risk on the mountain?” Any suggestions for adding, modifying, or removing elements from the thematic structure are considered and, if necessary, incorporated into the final report.

This review process exemplifies the hermeneutic circle, allowing the researcher to overcome the apparent linearity of reading: early parts of the text are interpreted in light of later parts and vice versa. Smith and Osborn (2008) emphasize continuous bracketing of assumptions, facilitating the hermeneutic process. Similarly, Stainton Rogers and Willig (2017, p. 15) notes that deepening understanding depends on one’s willingness to reflect on prior assumptions. For instance, a researcher might ask, “What assumptions did I hold about mountaineers’ risk-taking that prevented me from fully appreciating their decision-making under extreme conditions?” Continuous questioning during interviews and data analysis enhances researcher self-awareness and adds depth to the final interpretation. Reliability also requires consideration. Giorgi (1997, p. 93) argues that phenomenological findings are reliable only if a reader, adopting the same analytical perspective used by the researcher, can reach similar insights, regardless of personal agreement. Therefore, researchers provide detailed methodological information, including how assumptions were bracketed, alongside rich participant quotations. In the case of mountaineers, quotations illustrating moments of calculated risk, improvisation in life-threatening situations, or emotional responses to uncertainty help support the extracted themes and enhance reliability (Skinner et al., 2020, p. 386).

Thomas and Pollio (2002) note that “thematic consistency” is central in phenomenological research. A researcher expects the overall thematic structure and insights derived from participants’ experiences—such as patterns of risk assessment, perseverance, and ethical judgment among climbers—to align with other empirical investigations. Because complete bracketing of assumptions is impossible and interpretations are context-dependent, multiple valid interpretations may exist for the same data. The goal of repeated interpretations is thus to expand and deepen identified themes and relationships, rather than merely replicate them.

Cresswell (2013) suggests guiding questions for ensuring credibility and trustworthiness:

• Has the interviewer influenced participants’ descriptions in ways that could distort their lived experiences? For instance, did the researcher unintentionally frame risk-taking in a judgmental way rather than neutrally?
• Are the interview transcripts accurate, reflecting participants’ intended meanings?
• Has the researcher considered alternative interpretations, such as viewing a mountaineer’s decision to continue ascending as both courage and calculated risk?
• Can transcripts be revisited to revise the overall structural description if new insights emerge?
• Is the structural description specific to the context of high-altitude mountaineering, or broadly generalizable to other extreme-risk environments?
• Does the researcher possess adequate philosophical understanding of phenomenological themes and express them clearly?
• Does the researcher capture the essential, universal nature of participants’ experiences, including both the experience and its context, such as risk evaluation, teamwork, and survival instincts?
• Has the researcher maintained reflective, self-aware practice, continuously examining their role and influence on the research process?

In phenomenological research, findings are typically presented in a descriptive and interpretive narrative form, rather than as numerical summaries or purely tabulated results. The primary aim of reporting is to convey the essence and meaning of lived experience as articulated by participants, while remaining grounded in their first-person accounts. Although summary tables may be used to provide an overview of identified themes, the core of phenomenological findings is presented through thick, rich descriptions supported by verbatim participant quotations (Giorgi, 1997; Van Manen, 2016). Each theme is reported as a distinct experiential structure that captures a shared aspect of the phenomenon. The presentation of each theme typically begins with a conceptual and experiential description written by the researcher, followed by illustrative excerpts from participants’ narratives. These quotations are used not merely as evidence, but as a means of preserving the participants’ voices and revealing the texture, emotion, and meaning embedded in their experiences. The researcher then offers an interpretive commentary that explicates how these accounts illuminate the essence of the phenomenon. For example, a theme such as Confronting Mortality at High Altitude may be introduced through a descriptive account of how climbers experience moments of acute vulnerability and existential awareness during ascent. This description is then supported by participants’ statements, such as: “At that moment, I knew one wrong step could be my last. I wasn’t thinking about the summit anymore—only about staying alive.” Such excerpts are followed by an interpretive synthesis that links individual experiences to the broader experiential meaning of risk-taking in high-altitude mountaineering. Overall, phenomenological findings are presented as integrated narrative accounts, where thematic descriptions and participant quotations work together to provide a coherent and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. Tables, if used, serve only a supplementary role (e.g., listing themes and sub-themes) and do not replace the detailed descriptive reporting that is central to phenomenological inquiry.

Conclusion

Phenomenology, originating from the Greek words phainomenon (to appear) and logos (to elucidate), is both a philosophical tradition and a research methodology that emphasizes the study of lived experiences and subjective meanings. Introduced by Edmund Husserl in the early twentieth century, phenomenology seeks to understand how individuals perceive and interpret their world, aiming to access phenomena in their most authentic and essential forms. The approach prioritizes first-person perspectives, focusing on how experiences manifest in consciousness, and employs techniques such as bracketing to suspend prior assumptions, thereby revealing insights that are unmediated by theoretical preconceptions. Concepts like the lifeworld, lived experience, temporality, and meaning form the foundational pillars of phenomenological research, guiding scholars to explore experiences as they are lived and perceived. In the context of sports and sports management, phenomenology proves particularly valuable because it accounts for embodied experiences, highlighting the physical, psychological, and social dimensions of athletic involvement. By focusing on lived experiences, researchers can understand athletes’ and managers’ perceptions without imposing external interpretations, offering nuanced insights into motivation, risk-taking, teamwork, and coping strategies. Phenomenological studies have been applied to diverse contexts, including elite athletes, professional sports managers, and specific populations such as elderly athletes or female heads of households, revealing the deep meanings embedded in sports participation and management.

A notable application is the study of risk-taking among Himalayan climbers, where phenomenology allows researchers to capture the subjective meaning of extreme experiences. Climbers’ narratives regarding decision-making under threat, navigating life-threatening conditions, and the interplay of fear, ambition, and accomplishment provide a rich understanding of human engagement with risk. Through phenomenological interviews and rigorous data analysis methods—such as those proposed by Van Manen, Giorgi, and Colizzi—researchers extract thematic structures that highlight shared and individual experiences, ensuring credibility through participant verification and reflective practice. This approach not only uncovers the essence of risk-taking but also illustrates broader patterns of human perception, resilience, and agency under extreme conditions. Overall, phenomenology in sports management offers a comprehensive framework for exploring the subjective realities of participants, enabling a deeper understanding of human behavior, decision-making, and embodiment. By emphasizing lived experiences, it provides actionable insights for athletes, managers, and researchers, ultimately enriching the knowledge base of sports management and informing strategies that are sensitive to the complexities of human experience in high-stakes environments.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Statement on the Use of AI

This manuscript has been reviewed using the generative AI tool ChatGPT 4.5 solely for the purpose of improving grammar and writing style. All scientific content, analyses, and conclusions were developed and verified by the authors.