following guidelines for a hermeneutic practice provided the foundation and guidance in

all stages of the research process.

Guidelines for a Hermeneutic Research Practice. The Guidelines for a

Hermeneutic Research Praxis outlined in Conducting Hermeneutic Research: From

Philosophy to Practice (Moules et al., 2015) were used to guide this study. The authors

developed these guidelines based on Gadamer’s philosophical writings in order to bring

clarity and understanding of how to engage in hermeneutics. These guidelines are not

methodological per se and not meant to replace good judgment, or tell, the researcher

what to do during the research process, but simply there to orient the researcher in

making, “responsible, reliable and defensible decisions” (Gadamer, 2013, p. 306; Moules,

2015, p.61). This flexibility allows the opportunity to respond to the research process as it

unfolds, in contrast with prescribing a method in advance (Moules et al., 2015). This is in

keeping with Gadamer’s philosophy that, “A theory of praxis of understanding is

obviously theory and not practice, but a theory of praxis is still not some kind of

‘technique’, nor an effort to make societal practice more scientific” (Gadamer, 2006, p.

52), thus noting Gadamer’s “ambivalence toward anything that would qualify as a

procedure for doing hermeneutics” (Moules et al., 2015, p.55).

Moules and colleagues (Moules et al., 2015) offer the following guidelines,

underpinned by Gadamer’s philosophy, as a means of being in service to the

phenomenon, acknowledging that they are constructed by humans and therefore,

“incomplete or fallible”, encouraging the guidelines to be “interpreted anew” (Moules et

al., 2015, p.61).

81
1. The way of hermeneutic practice is determined by the phenomenon, not the

method. The authors liken this to detective work, in which the detective doesn’t

solve a crime by jumping in with a predetermined method. Hermeneutics is a

thoughtful process, a way of attending to the phenomenon through careful probing

and questioning that will drive the exploration. It is a way of seeing the

phenomenon from different perspectives and angles and understanding the

phenomenon by learning from it and its relationship with context. There is never a

single round of asking questions, every encounter with the phenomenon is

interpreted and as a result a new set of questions is generated. In this process the

hermeneutic practice is not driven by the methods or procedures but rather by

being responsive to what is appearing in the life world of the participant and their

experience of the phenomenon. This process involves responding carefully to the

unpredictable “twists and turns” while staying with the phenomenon, the

researcher is essentially learning from the experience (Moules et al., 2015, p.62-

63)

2. Hermeneutic practice requires a disciplined (phenomenological) focus on the

particular. My interpretation of the “particular” that the authors speak of makes

reference to not just the “examples or cases” that participants describe within their

life world. Rather, ‘particular’ goes beyond this to include both the historical and

contextual. The researcher engaged in interpretive work is skilled at, “…being

critically distant, while being involved, caring and attentive”, done through the

process of, “…reading cases into the past, into our lives, and into the future...” (as

82
 cited in Moules et al., 2015, p.65) this provides the necessary distance to view the

phenomenon as it manifests itself differently.

3. Hermeneutic practice requires that we be vigilant and open in our encounters

with the life world. This vigilance relates to being open to the life world of the

participants so that understandings and interpretations are not lost, while also

being mindful of one’s preunderstandings, presuppositions or what Gadamer

refers to as prejudice in our encounters with participants and in our interpretations

as a way of, “putting what we know at risk, to make our pre-understanding part of

the phenomenon of study by seeking out what was strange and foreign to us, such

that, confronted by difference, our understanding is broken open, refigured so a

new world could open in from our prefiguration” (Moules et al., 2015, p.65).

4. Reading in the hermeneutic tradition involves a practice of learning to read self

and world differently. It is not necessary to read every text on hermeneutic

philosophy literally or to understand every aspect of hermeneutics. Part of the

uncertainty of reading original philosophical writings is to emerge from the

readings with one’s own interpretations. Reading about the works of original

philosophers such as Gadamer and Heidegger through scholars who are devoted

to these works, “yields dependable and accessible translations” (Moules et al.,

2015, p.67) and the many ways in which they deepen one’s understanding from

their point of view.

5. The nature of hermeneutic practice is dialogical. This is not a tool or technique

for hermeneutics but a fundamental practice in hermeneutics. A dialogue from

which to understand the world, self and others. It is more about the foundation of

83
 who we are. I immediately connected with hermeneutics as I could relate to it’s

philosophical grounding. In my nursing practice and personal life, I have always

been interested in the language that others use to describe their experiences and

the deeper meaning behind this language. In my interactions, it is less important

for me to be right, or to have the final word, and more important to engage in, and

keep the conversation going to gain a deeper understanding (Moules et al., 2015,

p.67-68).

Gadamer’s hermeneutic phenomenology is not driven by a process of formal logic

but rather a practice that is underpinned by substance and not procedure (Moules et al.,

2015). There are no rules to understanding and understanding doesn’t evolve from the

awareness of a set of rules (Fleming et al., 2002). Further, hermeneutics recognizes that a

phenomenon cannot exist without context and the awareness of preunderstandings,

central to understanding. Next I will provide a description of Mount Royal University, the

context in which the experiences of flourishing have been explored.

Context

Mount Royal University (MRU) is set in the southwest quadrant of Calgary,

Alberta, Canada. Operating since 1910, MRU became an undergraduate university in

2009 (MRU, 2019b). In the 2016/17 academic year, MRU’s student population reached

approximately 9,534 full-time students, with 74.3% of these students enrolled in degree

programs. Students enrolled from Calgary made up approximately 73% of the total

student population while international students comprised of 3.5% of students across all

programs (certificate, diploma, and degree) – an increase from the 2015/16 academic

84
year. Those who self-identified as Indigenous students made up 5% of the total

population across all programs (MRU, 2019a).

MRU has two residence complexes (East and West Residence) with a maximum

combined accommodation of up to 1,000 students (MRU, 2019c). With 12 degree

programs and 32 majors, the average class size was 29 students in the 2016/17 academic

year (MRU, 2019a). In addition to academic programs, Mount Royal hosts hockey,

soccer, volleyball and basketball teams for both men and women (MRU, 2017a). There

are a number of other activities for students to become involved on campus such as:

student clubs, student council and committees, peer support groups, intramural sports,

drop in sports, volunteer and employment opportunities on campus, recreational

programs, workshops, student support groups and international committees.

In 2012, a presidential task force on student mental health was established at

MRU to explore MRU’s mental health initiatives (promotion, prevention and intervention

focused) covering seven key areas as a beginning measure to understand how the

university was positioned. As a result, several recommendations were made to enhance

and support existing initiatives and develop new ones to support and promote student

mental well-being at MRU (MRU, 2013), followed by yearly updates to track initiatives

(MRU, 2017b). Recently, MRU became one of seven Canadian universities and colleges

to partner with the Mental Health Commission of Canada to pilot The Inquiring Mind

project to train first year students how to better understand and manage their mental

health. The program focuses on stigma reduction, building resiliency utilizing the Mental

Health Continuum Model (Government of Canada, 2016) as a framework to explore these

concepts with students (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2017) Although this

85
model portrays either or approach to mental health (mentally healthy or mentally ill)

conceptualization of mental health, MRU has found that students relate to this model

more readily than the abstract conceptualization of mental health proposed in Keyes Dual

Continuum Model (anonymous personal communication, November, 17, 2017; Keyes,

2010), while interestingly the Keyes model is used to conceptualize mental health in the

MRU’s presidential task force on mental health report (MRU 2013).

Choosing MRU as the context for the study came about after a family move to the

Calgary, Alberta area. With an absence of connections or previous employment in

Calgary it was important for me to seek out committee members with an expertise in

MHP within the university context to provide the necessary guidance and expertise.

Having investigated several faculty profiles at both the University of Calgary and MRU

websites within various disciplines (Nursing, Social Science, Psychology and Public

Health), I located a Nursing faculty member with interest and expertise in MHP. This led

to being introduced to a Psychologist in the Student Wellness Department at MRU with

an interest positive psychology and strength-based approaches. Both agreed to become

committee members, facilitating the decision to choose MRU as the setting, in which this

study was conducted.

Population

The population chosen for this study involves a specific cohort of students

between the ages of 18-20 who transferred directly from high school into their first year

of university at MRU and enrolled in a full time degree program. This particular cohort

was chosen over students in their second, third or fourth year due to heightened

challenges that these students may experience adjusting to the first year. As mentioned in

86