Moustakas has identified a number of core processes (I have summarized these in Table 1). Moustakas also outlines six basic phases involved in this approach, although he clearly indicates a seventh phase as well (I have summarized these seven phases in Table 2).

I need to emphasize that, although heuristic inquiry can certainly involve the exploration of the experiences of co-researchers, it is an approach to research that very much focuses on the experience and transformation of the researcher. Here is how Moustakas (1990) describes this unique approach to research. He proposes that heuristic inquiry involves:

" . . . a process of internal search through which one discovers the nature and meaning of experience and develops methods and procedures for further investigation and analysis. The self of the researcher is present throughout the process and, while understanding the phenomenon with increasing depth, the researcher also experiences growing self-awareness and self-knowledge" (p. 9).

" . . . The heuristic process is a way of being informed, a way of knowing" (p. 10).

". . . From the beginning, and throughout an investigation, heuristic research involves self-search, self-dialogue, and self-discovery; the research question and the methodology flow out of inner awareness, meaning, and inspiration. When I consider an issue, problem, or question, I enter into it fully . . . I may challenge, confront, or even doubt my understanding of a human concern or issue; but when I persist in a disciplined and devoted way I ultimately deepen my knowledge of the phenomenon . . I am personally involved . . I may be entranced by visions, images, and dreams that connect me to my quest. I may come into touch with new regions of myself, and discover revealing connections with others" (p. 11).

" . . . Essentially in the heuristic process, I am creating a story that portrays the qualities, meanings, and essences of universally unique experiences" (p. 13).

" . . . In heuristic research the investigator must have had a direct, personal encounter with the phenomenon being investigated. There must have been actual autobiographical connections" (p. 14).

" . . . Heuristic inquiry is a process that begins with a question or problem which the researcher seeks to illuminate or answer. The question is one that has been a personal challenge and puzzlement in the search to understand one’s self and the world in which one lives. The heuristic process is autobiographic, yet with virtually every question that matters personally there is also a social - and perhaps universal - significance" (p. 15).

3. Some observations concerning heuristic inquiry
There is clearly more involved in heuristic inquiry than the researcher simply analyzing their own experience, which could easily be seen as a variation of phenomenological inquiry. What Moustakas seems to offer is the much wider context within which the researcher engages with the research question, examines their own experience amongst a number of other explorations, and follows this through with an awareness of the transformative processes at work in the research enterprise. Drawing on my own use of this method of inquiry, I would like to make the following observations.

1. Heuristic inquiry is a research process that is difficult to set any clear boundaries to, with respect to duration and scope. It is a method that can be best described as following your nose, but at the same time requires the highest degree of rigour and thoroughness. It is a method of inquiry that should not be undertaken lightly.
   
2. In heuristic inquiry, the research question chooses you, and invariably the research question is deeply personal in origin. Indeed, it is my own experience that the research question has been a preoccupation of mine for at least thirty years, and probably much longer than that.
   
3. There is a very striking similarity between the methods of heuristic inquiry and the practice of counselling and psychotherapy, particularly with respect to the use of the "self." It is therefore a method of research that particularly resonates with inquiry into counselling and therapy related issues.
   
4. Heuristic inquiry highlights the importance of working with the heuristic process of others, especially with the historical recordings of previous inquiry (especially spiritual texts). Indeed, it turns out that the works of writers, poets, artists, spiritual leaders and scientists can all be usefully treated as the creative products of heuristic inquiry.
   
5. In the light of this last observation, it would seem that heuristic inquiry was probably the first research method adopted for psychological inquiry many, many centuries ago. It should really be regarded as the most ancient of methods, with a proven track record well before the advent of modern science and psychology. It is a method of inquiry that is desperately in need of being re-invented!

The form that my own heuristic research has taken, in addition to my own self-exploration and lived inquiry, involved the designing and carrying out of several phenomenological/co-operative inquiries. I have interviewed people who have claimed to have had a near-death experience, people who have been victims of serious crimes, and people who have been attracted to voluntary, or paid work, which entails being in a helping role with others (i.e. counsellors, carers, nurses, social workers, advocates, etc.). Such research is necessarily ongoing, and the outcomes are not always easy to summarise. However, two fairly specific claims have emerged, (i) a clearer and more general view of the human response to loss, and in particular the human grieving process, and (ii) the crucial importance of the heuristic framework for researching human experience.

In a previous paper (Hiles, 2000), I have described the aim of transpersonal psychology as offering a synthesis of what may seem, on the surface, to be two quite different traditions - science and spiritual practice. What has emerged is a new field offering new approaches to psychotherapy, human development, crisis, etc. Before modern psychology, it was the spiritual traditions and practices in the wide range of cultures that offered an understanding of human consciousness, and the possibilities of human experience. Transpersonal psychology can be seen as an attempt to bring the world’s great spiritual traditions together with the basic ideas of (Western) modern psychology. This has, to a large extent, already been achieved in Eastern psychology, we are just coming rather late to this in the West!!

The vitality and enormous scope of this field is demonstrated, amongst many other examples, in the pioneering vision of Ken Wilber (1977, 1980, 1983, 1998, 2000), in research on spiritual emergence/emergency and the model of the holotropic mind developed by Stanislav Grof (1985, 1988, 1998; and with Christina Grof 1989, 1990), and in John Heron's (1998) proposal for a person-based, person-centred spirituality.

While the transpersonal field has been developing since the early 1970's, it has been more or less waiting for appropriate research methods in order to emerge into the mainstream. The very nature of the transpersonal paradigm, where the basic assumptions of the field are so different from other areas of scientific inquiry, requires paradigms of inquiry that are necessarily quite different. However, transpersonal inquiry is no less empirical than any other area of inquiry, but the empirical focus is on human intuition and creative expression, and possible altered states of awareness. The empirical data can take the form of subjective experience, discernment and direct knowing which may emerge from dreamwork, imagery exercises, storytelling and meditation practices, etc. It is notable that recently very considerable progress has been made in the development of research methods more appropriate to the paradigm of transpersonal inquiry. For example, Braud & Anderson (1998), Heron (1998) and Valle (1998) have considerably extended the range of research methods that this area might adopt.

Braud & Anderson's work in particular reflects the need for a systematic approach to the development of new inquiry paradigms. They do draw up a general scheme which usefully tries to bring some order to the confusing diversity of methods of data collection and analysis, which I have summarized in Table 3. They propose five new methods for transpersonal research. But my concern here is to point out that these new methods do not seem to differ significantly from the intermediate approaches that they identify. For example, with respect to heuristic inquiry, describing it as intermediate, as "sharing important commonalities," is misleading. In most cases, the five methods outlined by Braud & Anderson are each variants of the heuristic inquiry process. They seem to overlook the fact that heuristic inquiry and phenomenological inquiry are both foundational to this whole area of research. Although heuristic inquiry is not of necessity transpersonal, it has a central role to play in the research into transpersonal and spiritual issues.

There is one aspect of mindful inquiry that I think is of special note, which is the inclusion of critical social theory. I do not have time to develop this point here, but one of the features of critical theory that I think is most important is the recognition that theories, explanations and understanding can be empowering. One of the goals of psychological inquiry and therapeutic practice must be empowerment, i.e. the use of psychological knowledge and techniques to empower people to make informed choices, express themselves freely, and challenge discrimination, oppression and unnecessary suffering. While empowerment is possibly universally held by counsellors and therapists to be an outcome of their practices, it is hardly ever acknowledged that this also needs to be a recognized outcome of research inquiry. Mindful inquiry clearly does this, as does heuristic inquiry.

6. Developing the heuristic approach
Recently, I have found myself adapting the heuristic approach for my own specific purposes of inquiry. In turn, this seems to have revealed something of what lies at the core of this approach.

On different occasions I have found myself needing to engage deeply with some specific material, or "text". I have come to call this deep study of a single text, heuristic engagement (and I am very aware that this is almost precisely how I view working with a client in therapeutic practice). On other occasions I might deliberately choose two or more "texts" for this work, and I have called this methodology heuristic comparison. Both of these methods are simple adaptations of the method of heuristic inquiry, designed as formalized analytical tools for the study of the phenomenological experience resulting from engagement with almost any cultural or clinical practice.

In the case of heuristic comparison, the methodology involves these basic phases:

1. choosing two texts/practices for comparison - this is not limited to only two and is not crucial - but the selection needs to be very limited, leaving other comparisons for further study, and the choice needs to be made from a range of texts/practices with some underlying feature in common
   
2. a phenomenological engagement with the texts/practices, examining and re-examining them, drawing out similarities and differences, exploring the demands placed on the researcher
   
3. a period of discernment and exploration, but avoiding superficial similarities and differences - with the likely need to follow "leads" to materials outside those chosen, but always returning to the comparison that is the main focus of the study
   
4. a phase of sifting through and gathering together the materials and experiences, allowing a range of insights, meanings and themes to emerge
   
5. reflection on the inter-relations of the texts/practices, working towards formulating a range of insights, perhaps working back through phases (ii) to (iv) again and again and again
   
6. a formulation, or synthesis of the inquiry involving self-validation
   
7. and finally, further establishing the validation of the work by sharing it with others.

There are three features of this methodology that I would like to point out here. Firstly, it should be fairly clear that the methodology is the outcome of trying to do justice to the required depth of the engagement with the material, while also being able to set appropriate boundaries to the work that is involved. It is my view that a heuristic comparison is almost always simply a part of a wider heuristic inquiry. Secondly, I would like to claim that there is possibly something universal about these seven phases. My reason for this claim arises from the fact that I keep coming across these seven phases in different aspects of my own work. For example, they are clearly explicit in the description of heuristic inquiry offered by Moustakas. But they also emerge from my close examination of some of the work of William Blake, and I have found them to be the key to formulating a deeper understanding of the grieving process in the human response to suffering (Hiles, 1999). And, thirdly, I must emphasize the importance of the seventh phase, (vii) validating the work by sharing with others, which is the key to understanding good qualitative research practices. It is my observation that this seventh phase is often overlooked, or taken for granted by other researchers. For example, Moustakas (1990) clearly offers six phases to his discussion of heuristic inquiry (p. 27), but then clearly includes a seventh phase (p. 32-37). It is my proposal that validation of the research is two-fold, involving a process of self-validation (and possibly participant verification) that is integral to the sixth phase of the creative synthesis, and in the seventh phase a process of "external validation," a sharing with others, which is the basic requirement of any research paradigm.

I pointed out earlier that heuristic inquiry is really the most ancient of inquiry practices, and you can possibly see that what I am calling for is that it should be given the proper recognition that it obviously deserves.

What lies behind my thinking is that there seems to be a fundamental tension between experience that is grounded in human knowledge systems of our everyday occurrences, and experience that is more subtle which involves perhaps deeper or altered states of consciousness.

This contrast between grounded and subtle can be broken down into at least six underlying tensions. Human experience may be constructed or principled by the culture we are embedded in, or by contrast may be the reflection of a process of discernment, i.e. a more directly experienced "found" order in things. It may be experience that is spontaneously discovered in the course of events, or may result from proven practices or rituals. It may be common and ordinary, or quite exceptional in nature. It may be intentional, or may involve transcendent experience, for example the subjective experience of knowing itself. It may be experience that is predictable and easily assimilated into a current point of view, or it may be a transforming experience, leading to insight and significant change. Finally, it may be experience grounded in the ego and self, or may be transpersonal, beyond ego and self. My purpose here is simply to do justice to the full range of experience, setting out a curriculum for study in this field.

The possibilities of researching human experience from a transpersonal perspective are of course exciting, but also challenging. Not the least of the challenges involved will be in convincing the wider scientific community of the seriousness of this undertaking. I find it extremely encouraging that Ken Wilber, in his discussion of direct spiritual experience, asserts that such experience is "repeatable, reproducible and confirmable" (Wilber, 1999, p. 43). These are of course the basic requirements of any scientific approach. Wilber (1998, p. 155-6) proposes three essential aspects of any scientific inquiry: (i) instrumental injunction - "if you want to know this, do this," (ii) direct apprehension - the direct experience or apprehension of the data, and (iii) communal confirmation or rejection - checking the data with others. These three essential aspects of scientific inquiry ensure that the basic requirements of repeatability, reproducibility and confirmability are being met. Furthermore, it is quite clear from Wilber's position that in these respects research into human experience is no different from any other area of scientific research. It also seems to follow that in many ways spiritual experience, that so often is the product of an injunction to practice a certain form of meditation practice or ritual, may be relatively much easier to study scientifically than other types of experience which are more exceptional or spontaneous. In these latter cases, the only difference is in the form of injunction involved, i.e. "wait for this to happen, or, find instances of this happening", and then apprehend the data, and confirm the observation with others.

Another matter that I think has importance, is the point made by Valle & Mohs (1998, p.100). They propose that transpersonal awareness:

"seems somehow prior to [any] reflective-prereflective realm, presenting itself as more of a space or ground from which our more common experience and felt-sense emerge."

Moreover, it is an awareness that makes itself known to the experiencer, but:

"is not of the phenomenal realm of perceiver and perceived [but] rather it is a noumenal, unitive space within or from which both intentional consciousness and phenomenal experience manifest."

The important point here is the claim that transpersonal awareness is always prior to our phenomenal awareness. Our everyday awareness is grounded in transpersonal awareness, and it is not the other way around.

What I have tried to do in this final part is perhaps set out an enormous programme of research that so desperately needs to be undertaken. I am left wondering, do we care? And, if we do not care, who will? Do we want to make a difference?

8. Summary
I hope that I have achieved my modest aims. I have tried to provide a brief outline of the heuristic inquiry approach to research, originally pioneered in the work of Clark Moustakas. I have argued that it occupies a key place in transpersonal inquiry. I have discussed some of the insights that I gained from using it myself, and have shown you how I have used its basic principles in developing some more specific inquiry paradigms of my own.

What defines transpersonal inquiry is not its methods of research but the particular perspective it takes on human actions and experiences. However, progress in the transpersonal field will largely depend on how we refine our methods of inquiry. The promise of heuristic inquiry is that it offers a systematic way of incorporating the self into our inquiry methods, and, therefore, some of the most significant, exciting and urgent life events and extraordinary human experiences can be researched more closely.