Analysing and interpreting data Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

IPA offers a framework for analysing data whilst also emphasising that these stages are not meant to be rigidly followed and may be iterative (Smith, Flowers & Larkin 2009). IPA acknowledges that these stages are not remarkable compared to other qualitative methods: the difference is in the philosophical approach as described above. The stages are shown in Table 3.1 below.

With regards to stage 3 exploratory coding, although IPA uses the term ‘descriptive’ it does not mean there is no interpretation happening in answering the descriptive questions, as has been explained earlier (see 3.2.3). Exploratory coding involves looking for metaphors and ‘interesting phrases’, but IPA does not specify which theory or method to apply in identifying and analysing them.

IPA recognises that conceptual coding inevitably draws on the analyst’s own experiential and professional knowledge where their pre-understandings and their newly emerging

understandings of the participant’s world are in dialogue, and there is a distinction to be made between understanding the text and understanding the person (Smith, Flowers & Larkin 2009). Easterby-Smith et al (2008) say that in order to understand a particular text, the researcher should try to understand the context within which the text is written.

Fig 3.1 IPA stages of analysis (from Smith, Flowers & Larkin 2009) Stage 1 Verbatim transcription of interview

Stage 2 Initial encounter with the text, several close and detailed readings Stage 3 Line-by-line exploratory coding.

Exploratory coding involves asking descriptive, linguistic and linguistic questions.

Descriptive Qs

- How can this sentence / phrase / idea

be summarised?

- What experiences are being described

and claimed by the participant?

- What are the key features of those

experiences for the participant? Linguistic Qs

- How is the participant saying what they

are saying (hesitant, forceful, stumbling) - Is the participant shifting tenses or

pronouns in their speech, what might this mean

- Has the participant used any metaphors

or interesting phrases? Conceptual Qs

- What is this person trying to say

- What is going on here

- What is underlying this

- What do the experiences appear to

mean for the participant

- So what (what = the impact of what is

said)

- What does X mean, what does Y mean

- What is missing or not being said

Stage 4 Identification and organisation of initial

themes on case-by-case basis From the exploratory coding notes, the analyst identifies salient and recurring themes that seem to capture the essence of phenomenon. The analyst may draw upon existing theoretical concepts to assist the development and elucidation of themes (Larkin, Watts & Clifton 2006).

Stage 5 Clustering of initial themes into emerging

themes Associated salient themes are then clustered together into emerging themes

Stage 6 The emerging themes are further refined and condensed and then are clustered into higher order (super-ordinate) themes.

Stage 7 Cross case analysis performed The analyst looks for similarities and

differences in emerging and higher order themes across cases

Cognitive and ecolinguistics analysis

Cognitive and ecolinguistics have slightly different but also overlapping sets of concerns in analysis. Qualitative and quantitative methods can be used, although even the quantitative methods that involve use of computer software to statistically analyse patterns of words and compare results with other selections of similar text or with a national corpus, still draw on interpretative ability and judgement to interpret the results (Blackmore & Holmes 2013).

Ecolinguistics critiques discourses for the way in which they encourage ecologically beneficial or destructive behaviour (Stibbe 2013; 2015). In ecolinguistic analysis, judgements have to be made about what is and what is not ‘ecologically destructive’. This judgement is informed by the linguist’s environmental philosophy, which may or may not be made explicit.

Cognitive linguistics uses frame and metaphor analysis. It is concerned with analysing cognitive frames that are used in the text, and analysing the effect these structures might have on how people think about and act on the broader issue under enquiry. Frame analysis can contribute to the deconstruction of cultural narratives. Frame analysis and metaphor analysis are often combined because as previously explained (see 2.6.1) metaphors are a framing device that project a source domain of human experience onto a target domain. According to Schmitt (2005), there is no single systematic method for ‘extracting’

interpretation. For this reason he calls frame analysis an applied art. But this label does not only apply to frame analysis because discourse analysis more generally has been regarded as having an “important element of craft skill” (Potter 2011 p7). According to Brewer (2015), the methods of some frame analysis researchers is proprietary, and is not disclosed or subjected to peer-review process because of the usage of these methods in commercial consultancy.

Because of this lack of detail and the ambiguity about methods in the literature, I elicited the analysis process used by Paul Chilton professor emeritus of linguistics through a series of conversations in person and by email (Chilton 2015). I describe and explain his process below.

Frame and metaphor analysis involves several close readings of the whole text, followed by detailed micro-discourse analysis where the text is marked up sentence-by-sentence. The close readings of the whole text help to see the text as a ‘holistic construct’, which as Johnston (1995 p221-222) explains is important because the text is the “central empirical referent in micro-discourse analysis, and its integrity should be maintained”. It is a largely intuitive process and the analyst would also be observing their own reactions to a text, in iterative readings that become progressively more detailed. With regards to mark up of the text, the precise nature of the mark up depends on the particular focus of interest, and the mental model of the analyst. The analyst looks for trigger words that bring a certain source frame to mind. An example is the metaphorical expression ‘spend time’. ‘Spend’ is the trigger word activating the source frame ‘money’ (we spend money) so time is

conceptualised in terms of money. The conceptual metaphor is TIME IS MONEY: the source frame of money has been projected onto the target frame of time (see 2.6.1 for more explanation of frames and metaphors). After mark up, the analyst then looks for patterns and connections of similarity and difference with other words and contexts, both in the surrounding text and in cultural structures in which these meanings are embedded. Using abductive reasoning, the analyst draws conclusions to explain their findings and the implications for their area of interest. These methods involve interpreting the meaning of words through accumulated intersubjective phenomenological awareness and knowledge. Interpretation is necessarily subjective but meanings can be crosschecked with other speakers of the same language. Indeed, when we use language to communicate, intersubjective agreement is already presupposed.

The use of frames and metaphors is often unconscious (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) and trigger words or cues are not always immediately obvious - presuppositions and modal expressions for example (Crompton 2010), so metaphors may be easily overlooked in a text. Linguists and discourse analysts have trained themselves to notice and to do the analysis drawing on accumulated experience of observations and application of theory. Deignan (2005) advises establishing consistent procedures for spotting metaphors. An assumption with frame and metaphor analysis is that metaphor use is not arbitrary and that something may be inferred about how the speaker conceptualises their world by their use of particular terms. However, Deignan (2005) warns against overgeneralising based on limited linguistic evidence, asking us to remember that choice of language is partly constrained by the conceptual structures shared by members of the speaker’s community.

Cognitive linguistics approaches to explore sense making are not commonly used in organisational studies. Grant et al (2004 p23) report that the organisational discourse literature “exhibits a tendency to shy away from the cognitive aspects of words and their meanings in organisations” and so cognitive approaches are relatively undeveloped. An explanation offered by Marshak et al (2000, cited in Grant et al 2004 p23) is that there is a dominance of researchers with organisational sociology rather than psychology

backgrounds. This ‘dearth’ of cognitive research leads Grant et al to echo Marshak et al in calling for more studies of organisational discourse that examine the “psychosocial origins of organizational texts, narratives and meanings, which lie beneath the subtext of social interaction” (p24).

Analysing psychological threat

The coping and defence literature describes studies that use interview, storytelling

by psychological threat affects people. However, Cramer (1998; 2009) observes that there is inconsistency in identification of coping mechanisms and lack of agreed-upon criteria to decide what is and what is not a coping strategy. Skinner et al (2003) also find little

consensus about how to conceptualise or measure coping strategies. They report that in the more than 100 category systems examined, no two included the same set of categories. I had a similar experience with the literature on psychological threat and ecological crisis, and this led to me to develop a working framework of defence mechanisms and coping strategies complied from various sources that I used to make sense of the constructs for myself and to guide analysis (see Fig, 2.8 in 2.5.3). Identifying defences and coping strategies seems to be a similar task to identifying metaphors and frames in that it relies on intersubjective

awareness, experience and knowledge. Lertzman (2015) used thematic analysis in her study of how people experienced and made sense of local environmental issues, but notes that micro-discourse analysis of interviews would be a useful investigation.

Implications for my study

There seems to be quite a lot of flexibility in how to analyse and interpret a text in IPA and cognitive and ecolinguistics. Intuitive, experiential, intersubjective and professional knowledge can all be drawn upon by analysts (Firestone & Dawson 1982; Smith, Flowers & Larkin 2009). As I have already explained, being able to bring these forms of knowledge to my research is important to me (see 1.1.2, 3.2.5). Sensitivity and responsiveness to the subject-matter, which may arise from such knowledge, is considered critical in IPA research for yielding rich outcomes (Larkin, Watts & Clifton 2006).

In ecolinguistics, the analyst’s personal environmental philosophy informs the judgements made about discourses as environmentally beneficial or destructive. I have made my environmental philosophy explicit in the introduction to this thesis (see 1.1.2).