We want submissions that are centered on a rigorous and original description of a given phenomenon in a lived world

More specifically, we want submissions that stay close to the chosen phenomenon in order to be faithful to it, and describe it vividly to others so that they too may see more deeply into it.

In other words, we are interested in the actual application of phenomenology’s insights, and the generation of detailed, rigorous, extended descriptions of a portion of the lived world, expressed in terms of essences or manifold matrices of meaning. The phenomenon itself must remain the chief focus of the paper.

We are also interested in questions of method. This will require authors to call attention to the method employed in generating their descriptions.

This might be done in a variety of ways, but the goal should be to show the audience how a description was generated. Explications of method should be stated in broad terms, and overly-detailed textual exegesis should be relegated to footnotes or appendices in order to preserve the “flow” of a description. We are interested in how our panelists have learned from, applied, adjusted, merged, questioned, subverted or otherwise deployed a variety of phenomenological methods in the development of their own critical phenomenological practice.

In summary, papers submitted to this panel must contain two things:

1. A detailed, rigorous, attentive, extended, and original description of a specific and carefully circumscribed phenomenon in the lived world; and
2. an explication of the method used to generate this description.

In the spirit of collaborative phenomenology, a paper’s commentators will view these descriptions in light of their rigor, originality, and application of method. Accordingly, commentators for this panel will act more as collaborators than critics in helping to extend, refine, and deepen a paper’s description. That said, criticisms of textual interpretation are welcome, but only so long as they further the aim of collaborative inquiry into phenomenological method. What we don’t want →