A Human Science Inquiry into the Challenging Path to Greater Understanding: The Process of Understanding and The Role of Misunderstanding

The philosophical-hermeneutical work of Hans-Georg Gadamer (1990) and the existential-phenomenological work of Merleau-Ponty (2002) hold rich descriptions and conceptualizations of the successful dialogue. However, we argue that insufficient attention is given to the difficulties and obstacles that must be overcome for actual understanding to unfold, and to the limits of language.
Dialogues in professional contexts do not necessarily constitute dialogue in the exact Gadamerian sense. Nevertheless, in interactions such as those between a lecturer (or supervisor) and a student, various dimensions of the understanding process are thematized. Not only does the student develop a new understanding, but the professional also has the potential to do so. The pedagogical ideal of the lecturer extends beyond merely identifying what the student does or does not understand; it also involves challenging and intervening in ways that can develop the student's understanding further. In this process, misunderstandings (on both sides) can also play a crucial role as a pathway to understanding. Through a hermeneutic and phenomenological perspective, we can gain insight into various dimensions of this process.

In this paper, we explore this complex situation and ask:

1) What characterizes the attitude of a professional in preparing to understand the student’s perspective and the shared ‘subject matter’ [‘die Sache’] (Gadamer, 1990)?
2) In the processes of understanding, what role does misunderstanding play in advancing the understanding of both the lecturer and the student?

After analyzing the processes of understanding, we conclude by reflecting on implications for human science research. We understand our inquiry as guided by a "practical-understanding knowledge interest" (Habermas, 1965/1971), whose methodological principles, according to Habermas (1965/1971), are best articulated by Gadamer (1990). The aim of this knowledge-interest is to develop theories that can support ‘mutual understanding’ in practice between e.g. supervisor and student, and even intervention (1965/1971: 310), through epistemological processes involving the interplay between empirical material and theoretical pre-understanding, between descriptions of lived experience and theoretical interpretations.