3.1.1. Data collection

In the hermeneutic phenomenological approach, data can encompass the researcher’s feedback on a topic, collecting information from research participants, and identifying external and textual effects on the research project (Heller, 1989). Hermeneutic phenomenology recognizes the effect of the researcher on the direction and representation of the study (Hjørland, 2003). Although approaches such as ethnography have shown this effect, hermeneutic phenomenological research can describe and interpret these experiences as an integral part of the research process. Researchers cannot eliminate these experiences but interpret them.

The researcher should be aware of the potential impact of his/her individual and social personality on data collection. In the hermeneutic phenomenological approach, different methods for data collection might be chosen. This process involves reconstructing the data in which the participants are involved. Gadamer (1976) also believes that the act of understanding is integrating horizons to establish a dialectical interaction between the researcher tradition and the meaning of the text. The horizons or preconceptions of each researcher are brought to the research and affect the research process. The horizon includes preconceptions and prejudices that enable us to make sense of events and people.

The researcher’s horizon cannot be marginalized. Gadamer (1976) emphasizes that we must have a present horizon with which to look at the horizon of the past, and that understanding is constantly influenced by the semantic horizon and the hermeneutic position of the interpreter. The integration of horizons is the mutual questioning between the author and the work. The author converses with his/her horizon with the text horizon. The integration of horizons is based on the logic of dialogue in which the mutual questions and answers of the author affect and are affected by one another. For a better understanding, three horizons are described below:

3.1.2. Data interpretation

Like phenomenology, hermeneutic phenomenology deals with the life world or experience of humans as it is lived (Annells, 1996). In this view, the emphasis is on clarifying the details and seemingly obvious aspects of experience, which we may take for granted in order to create meaning and understanding. Husserl (1980/1952), on the other hand, focuses on the understanding of beings or phenomena, which is translated as “the way man came into being” or Heidegger’s concept of the “human being” or the “Dasein” of the world. Husserl is interested in actions such as attending, perceiving, remembering, and thinking about the world and human beings as a preceptor. Heidegger, on the other hand, views man as being primarily concerned with creatures and emphasizes his realism in the world. According to Heidegger (1927/1962), consciousness and the world are not two separate things, but consciousness is the formation of lived experience historically. He believes that understanding is a basic form of human existence in which understanding is not our way of knowing the world, but our way of being. Being historical, individual history or even background refers to what a culture conveys to a person from birth, which also includes the presentation of ways of understanding the world (Koch, 1995, p. 831).

For Heidegger (1962/1927), interpretation is an integral part of the process of understanding. By claiming that being human is an interpretation and that man is a hermeneutic being, he emphasizes that any encounter requires an interpretation that will be influenced by the historical or human background. Annells (1996) describes hermeneutic phenomenology as an interpretive process that seeks to understand and reveal the phenomenon through language. Annells believes that hermeneutic phenomenology is the study of human cultural activities (texts or what can be translated into text, even human behavior) with a view to interpretation in order to find intended or expressed meanings.

While Husserl focuses more on epistemological questions about the relationship between the perceiver and the subject under study, Heidegger (1962) moved on to the ontological question of the nature of reality and “being in the world.” As noted earlier, both Husserl and Heidegger objected to the Cartesian gap between mind and body. Husserl (1970) believed that there is no such definite distinction between object and mind, that humans are able to obtain information directly, and that its basis could be seen in attention and parentheses (Polkinghorne, 1983). Heidegger further bridged the gap between the individual and experience, interpreting the two as building blocks of each other that could not exist without each other (Koch, 1995).

Phenomenological research is a descriptive study that relies not only on empirical evidence or logical reasoning (Laverty, 2003) but also on the structure of experience and organizing principles that give the life-world form and meaning (Van Manen, 1997). Such research seeks to elucidate the nature of these structures as they appear in consciousness. On the other hand, hermeneutic phenomenological research is interpretive and focuses on the historical meaning of experience and its cumulative effects on the individual and social levels. Allen (1995) argues that there is no clear distinction between a phenomenological and a hermeneutic approach, but he considers phenomenology as fundamentalist because it seeks to find a correct answer or a valid interpretation of the text that is not based on the interpreter’s historical or social position. Conversely, the hermeneutic approach has been described as non-fundamentalist because it emphasizes the meaning that results from the interpretive interaction between historical texts and the text reader (Allen, 1995, p. 175).

3.1.3. Data analysis

The hermeneutic methodology has a different approach to data analysis. In this process, the researcher creates information with the help of the participant in the research while entering the hermeneutic cycle of understanding (Laverty, 2003). The researcher and the participant try to create the desired experience together by using imagination, the hermeneutic cycle, and attention to language and writing. In this methodology, understanding occurs through the integration of horizons, which is a dialectic between preconceptions and sources of information (Koch, 1995, p. 835). The result of this process involves structures that have been interpreted by the researcher and each of the participants, thus reflecting multiple structures or facts. Interpretation arises from pre-understandings and the dialectical movement between the components and the whole of the texts involved in the interpretation process, for which any method helpful can be used (Day, 1996). What is needed here is to understand the context in which the text or dialogue has been created and given rise to different interpretations. These interpretations are created by integrating the text, its context, the participants’ horizons, the researcher’s horizons, and the context in which they are located. The key aspects of the interpretive process are the use of thinking, the hermeneutic cycle, and attention to language and writing-related processes (Laverty, 2003). This requires attention to how language is used. Thinking about a phenomenon in new ways means seeing it in ways other than how it has been seen before.

One of the commonalities of hermeneutic and phenomenological methodologies is the use of the personal experience of the participants in research and acquiring information about the individual’s lived experience through introspection, which completely differentiates them from quantitative methodologies (Budd, 2005). However, in phenomenological research, it is an attempt to put aside these biases in order to obtain a correct description of the phenomenon in question, while from the hermeneutic methodological point of view, it is important to pay attention to one’s biases because without them, it is impossible to understand them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Since an individual’s biases change with the change of his/her historical position, in hermeneutic research, unlike in phenomenological research, it is not possible to achieve the final knowledge.

3.1.4. Research procedure

When research on a particular experience is to begin from a hermeneutical or phenomenological introspection, this process is typically part of the introductory phase of the research and can involve writing and recording these thoughts for reference during the analytical process. In phenomenological research, the purpose of thinking is to be aware of one’s biases and assumptions in parentheses or to put them aside so that one can enter the experience without having a prior idea of what is being achieved (Laverty, 2003). This awareness prevents the researcher from being influenced by assumptions or biases in the study. In the hermeneutic approach, the researcher is also expected to enter the process of introspection, but here the goal of the hermeneutic approach is completely different from that of the phenomenological approach (Van Manen, 1997). In this approach, not only are the researcher’s biases and assumptions not bracketed or discarded, but they are part of the interpretive process. Here, the researcher is expected to reflect on his/her own experience and then clearly state the various gaps that the experience has with the subject matter (Furner, 2010). Therefore, the final result of the research process contains the personal assumptions of the researcher and the philosophical foundations from which the interpretation is derived.

In hermeneutic phenomenological research, information and data can include the researcher’s thoughts on the subject under study, information obtained from research participants, and even descriptive descriptions such as poetry and textual experiences (Polkinghorne, 1989). In such studies, the criterion for selecting research participants is generally different from the criterion for selecting participants in studies that aim to access statistical data. The purpose of selecting a participant in phenomenological and hermeneutic research is to select the participants who have lived experiences that are the focus of a particular study, and these participants should want to talk about their experiences and be as different from each other as possible in order to have access to unique narratives (Van Manen, 1997). The number of participants required for such studies will vary depending on the nature of the study and the information gathered. For example, researchers may continue to interview participants until they believe that they have reached a point where they do not have any clearer an understanding of the experience in subsequent interviews.

The interview process in hermeneutic phenomenological research takes place in an environment of trust and security, which must be established from the beginning and maintained throughout the research (Giorgi, 1985). The interaction that occurs between the researcher and the participant during the research process has a profound effect on the results (Polkinghorne 1983). Participants are generally asked to describe their experiences in detail in the subject matter. The specific question that is asked is usually open-ended, and the discussion that arises as a result of answering the question is led not by the researcher but by the participant. The reason behind this is that as far as this process is concerned, the research process may be close to the individual’s lived experience (Koch, 1995; Van Manen, 1997).

3.2.1. Information technology

Technology has been the subject of many philosophical questions in recent decades, and one of the famous philosophers in this regard is Heidegger with his book entitled The question concerning technology (1949, trans. 1977). In clarifying the relationship between science and technology, he considered technological insight into the world as the basis for the emergence of new sciences, which in turn brings new technologies. According to him, it is a kind of philosophical insight that has led to the emergence of new science and technologies. Heidegger (1977) believes that throughout history, in response to what technology is, two definitions of technology have been proposed: the instrumental definition and the anthropological definition. In this sense, technology can be interpreted as pieces of equipment and tools or human activity and strategies to meet goals (Diamante, 2014). Inspired by Aristotle, he believes that how technology was manifested in the old is different from the new. At that time, how technology was revealed was the same as invention or procreation. However, in the modern era, how new technology is manifested is an invasion of nature, and this is the most fundamental difference between new technology and the archetype.

Heidegger believes that in the current technological conditions, certain values and criteria that are in line with the development of technology have been legitimized. Therefore, anything that goes against these values is suppressed. From Heidegger’s point of view, new technology is, on the one hand, the last stage of the West’s understanding of being, as if the Western man had consciously created and expanded it (Diamante, 2014). According to Heidegger (1977), with the establishment of the essence of new technologies, man has become the subject and the world has become the object. According to him, the way out of this situation is to be aware of the realm and limits of science and technology and to limit the technology to such a realm.

Along with the development of information technology, being is forgotten more and more, and instead, representation is expanded. By fixing events, a person produces a product that enables him/her to measure and master what s/he is (Capurro, 2000). Such insight into information technology is in line with Heidegger’s idea of the intrinsic properties of new technologies. Specifically, he believes that it is the intrinsic properties of new technologies that transform mankind into the subject and the world into the image before him/her, thus distancing him/her and the world around him/her.

In the use of information technology, due to easy and wide access to information, one of the bottlenecks can be equality of information and knowledge. Knowledge can be divided into different ways so that these forms are not just a collection of information. Knowledge is the result of a complex method of human perceptual experience. The role of information technology in Information Science is facilitative, not productive. Access to a wealth of information through information technology may be equated with access to knowledge. However, as noted, the different form of knowledge is more than just a set of information, and the production of knowledge involves the application of complex methods of perceptual experience.

3.2.2. Information behavior

The hermeneutic phenomenological approach also affects information search (Keilty & Leazer, 2018). In the positivist view, searching may be regarded as technical and algorithmic, based on which information is related to which keyword without bias in the search, assuming that the behavior is based on evidence and experience (Fisher, Erdelez, & McKechnie, 2006). The hermeneutic approach is based on the assumption that there is a continuous reinterpretation of related texts and refers to the need for great flexibility in search criteria and a high level of repetition in the search process, and most importantly, expresses the understanding that is found during the searches (Hjørland, 2004).

In the digital environment, users with different levels of understanding and temporal, spatial, and cultural situations apply for a document in online databases. If Information Science specialists have categorized and organized the information close to the users’ understanding and horizons, the users will be able to achieve the desired data. The closer the scientific, cultural, and social position of information professionals and users, the greater the possibility of complete and comprehensive retrieval of information for the users. For example, nowadays, when various interdisciplinary topics and issues are being developed in various branches of knowledge, categorizing a given text should be done in proportion to this growth so that it can be more horizontal with users (Keilty & Leazer, 2018).

Information producers and users are not separate individuals but belong to professional communities. They have common theoretical and practical interests that shape their horizons. This belongs to the human communication network in the specific context of the professional community. Hence, the dilemma and the questions are interrelated in various ways within the whole existential structure and within the concrete personality system of the users, that is, the social, cultural, political, geographical, or linguistic reference system (Benediktsson, 1989). The primary objective of Information Science is to study users, not as individuals, but as members of the public or professional dynamic community.

The perception of utterances, for example, of someone who has formed the information or uses a database, requires the combination of horizons (Day, 1996). Each horizon is limited and based on a diverse set of assumptions and values at the same time. The combination of horizons through which other horizons have been expanded has been achieved through the playful movement of the hermeneutic circle. The historical awareness gained is a concrete recognition of the effective role of history in constructing the horizons from which we look at events. In effective historical awareness and cognition, we become aware of an object from a perspective that we have achieved as a result of our history; but this is not mere relativism. Rather, Gadamer (1976) states that the task of effective historical awareness is to clarify the knowledge of the historical proximity between the object under study and the researcher.

3.2.3. Knowledge organization

Knowledge organization has strongly been influenced by empiricism and rational positivism, although other theoretical approaches like hermeneutics may be found in the related fields. Based on the basic notion of the situational nature of understanding, contemporary hermeneutics is potentially the theoretical basis on which a new form of knowledge organization systems would be perceived (Hjørland, 2015).

Information systems have been adapted from the frameworks of subject headings, classification schemes, thesauri, and the like from the very beginning of the heuristic model of organization, which has been profoundly influenced by rational positivism. This includes efforts to formulate reality in the form of formal definitions. Accordingly, current information systems seek to provide information as a fixed phenomenon and outside the display of text and individual situations. Besides this, moving from one language to another requires not only differences in the relationship between concepts and lexical expression, but also differences at the conceptual level, because the structures of concepts and meanings are always developed based on a specific culture-based language (VanScoy & Evenstad, 2015).

The information presented in the information systems with a hermeneutic approach does not merely contain data and information but reveals the truth through interpretation and dialogue while producing meaning and text. Those who pursue a hermeneutic approach use conceptual frameworks, like heuristic patterns. However, this is not necessarily hierarchical and may instead be interdisciplinary, highlighting different structures simultaneously (Savolainen, 2008). The hermeneutic approach to knowledge organization includes practical forms of knowledge classification, textual aspects of application areas, new experiences of software engineering, an open system with active user participation, and a desire for an interactive knowledge structure (Hjørland, 2015). Contemporary hermeneutics perceives knowledge as something that has always taken place from within, that is, from a particular horizon. Therefore, the meaning is not considered as a fixed but as a social and cultural structure that can be interpreted and changed based on various texts.

When skilled users use online information retrieval systems consistently, the components of a given system are not images of this world (Vamanu, 2012). Rather, they are tools through which the user becomes aware of the intentions of those who formed the computing tools. They are useful tools that accurately leave the realm of theoretical representations and transmit through regular use. In a way, they make people see a certain aspect of the world, not something that is just like that aspect of the world. In this way, the system and the database become a kind of tool through which communications that represent it are seen.

For example, in designing an online ontology with a hermeneutic phenomenological approach, texts would also be ontological. All concepts and relations are first placed in a text and then extracted from the text, and then transferred from the concepts and relations between them to an ontology. In the first step, this process is performed by ontology engineers. However, studies are also underway to automate this transition. This interaction is obtained through the application of questions. As soon as a copy of the text is published, potential ontology users read the text and ask questions to clarify the text. Answering these questions will make a difference in the text (Budd, 1995). These changes, in turn, will lead to changes in concepts and relationships in ontology. Changes in the text and subsequent changes in an ontology may occur to varying degrees. Sometimes texts experience slight changes in ontology, and sometimes changes may be larger and involve adding or subtracting concepts.

A hermeneutic conceptualization of the structure of a given classification scheme and its use may create a space for communication between users with different conceptions in mind (Hjørland, 2004). The supply of different systems may be set among users with different conceptual structures, who can teach each other their understandings. If we design on hermeneutic grounds, we achieve a space for users to learn from each other more fundamentally, beyond simply exchanging information within accepted dual patterns (Hansson, 2005). However, for doing so, we must first have a clear diagnosis of the hermeneutic context that is always present. When there is no disagreement about ontologies, it is mostly covered. Hence, it is in this context that opposition to judgment must be judged.

The ontology of the information system is the result of innovations gained in the face of suspension. The ontology of the information system should be predicted in the light of the suspension and designed to enable the user to avoid the suspension as much as possible (Hjørland, 2004). This framework of requirements and assumptions is called a horizon. The ontology should not be considered static and closed to issues that arise with new suspensions, but on the contrary, ontologies should be fundamentally flexible and open to progress.

3.2.4. Librarian’s roles

Hermeneutic phenomenology places interpretation at the center of the five elements including existence, nature, perception, intention, and self (Belkin & Robertson, 1976; Bruce, 1998). These elements could provide the basis for fundamental reflection in services delivered at libraries and by librarians. In fact, hermeneutic phenomenology considers the ontology of the library as before the study of its functions and seeks to understand all the presuppositions that have been taken for granted in the work of the library. Library ontology means recognizing its inner nature and existential philosophy. When being in the world, according to Heidegger, is participating in the world, being a user of information will not be a passive phenomenon, but an experience of a part of the world. Information, on the other hand, is essentially manmade and not merely a material package, and facts cannot be judged as fixed, determinable, and testable events. We should pay more attention to the nature and specificity of users’ responses than to the tools that are instrumental in information retrieval.

Also, perception is not an objective phenomenon and should be considered in the design of library systems. Another element is intentionality, which means the user’s intention and awareness of something. Once we recognize this awareness deeply, we will not only avoid user intentionality, but we will see information retrieval as a dynamic process, not an action that has a beginning and an end. To think of human beings as intentional beings is related to another element of phenomenology, the relationship between oneself and another. Specifically, in the information environment of the library, the user, the librarian, and the library each find meaning concerning the other.

If this notion that communication in the library is a discourse and has a dialogue aspect is accepted, it will reduce the likelihood that we will treat the user as a person and give stereotyped answers to their questions in the design of systems (Hjørland, 2004). The most important element is interpretation, which is a process consisting of three elements: the interpreter, the creator of the text, and the text itself, and is consistent with the communication role of the discipline in which the librarian is the interpreter and is the link between the text and the user (Wersig, 1993).

The user may not be able to fully understand what s/he is referring to when referring to a librarian unless there is communication between him/her and the librarian. The fundamental issue in hermeneutics is how the librarian’s horizon can be aligned with the user’s horizon (Pollock, 2002). It is necessary to have some kind of intuition of basic information and reference work. Otherwise, no understanding will occur. In this sense, reference knowledge is not just a collection of discriminated facts. Rather, it is a kind of knowledge that is closely related to the truth. The method that the librarian considers for answering involves a qualitative concept and cognition that is different from theoretical knowledge. This qualitative knowledge requires librarians to enter the world of the user in order to succeed in guiding the user and meeting his/her needs, and to know that this mutual relationship is completely two-way and close during the response and reference work (Savolainen, 2008). As a result, in addition to knowledge of librarianship and reference work, they must also apply the knowledge they have gained empirically in their daily experiences.