Applying IPA to the Current Study

IPA was found to be a method suitable for the current research, as it provides a way of examining the sense making of individuals’ experiences (Smith, 2004; 2010; 2011), and

more specifically for this research: how individuals cope with life experiences (Smith & Osborn, 2008) such as killing in combat.

IPA is tied to an epistemological and theoretical position, which can be seen as a type of ‘recipe’ approach to qualitative analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). As an early career

researcher, this was found to be ideal to help ground the analysis into a concrete stance, set guidelines that could be understood and developed to provide a rich analysis. Specifically, it was felt that this grounding in theory and epistemology, with an emphasis on meaning

74

making and the link between thought and action, made IPA a suitable method for understanding sense making of killing in combat. Standing at somewhat of a contrast to this style of analysis is what Braun and Clarke (2006) call the second camp of qualitative analysis, which is not tied to any epistemological or theoretical stance. An example of this would be Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic Analysis (TA) and IPA share some common traits. Both TA and IPA are methods for identifying and reporting patterns, or themes, within the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Although both involve searching across the data set to find repeated patterns of meaning (Braun and Clarke, 2006), TA tends to place more emphasis on this than IPA. In this way TA is used to find meaning and patterns across a data set, to form a coherent, running theme in order to formulate theories or concepts, it is for this reason that TA tends to focus on larger sample sizes, and broader, over reaching themes than IPA. Both IPA and TA have a commitment for the analysis to be grounded in the data set, by including in quote text to demonstrate transparency. In doing so, the reader of the analysis can check how closely the analysis is based on the textual data. In terms of the analytical procedure, there are some obvious similarities, such as familiarising oneself with the data set by immersing oneself in the data, reading and re-reading, noting initial ideas down, and generating concepts that will later become themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The process of naming and identifying themes shares parallels, and seek to work both as an individual theme, and to serve as telling an overall arching story of the analysis itself. Likewise, both IPA and certain approaches to TA are, to an extent, rooted in phenomenology, in that they both focus on subjective human experiences (Guest et al, 2012). In this regard, the individual’s

experiences and feelings are emphasised throughout the analytical process (Guest et al, 2012).However, as noted by Braun and Clarke (2006), TA can adopt a social

constructionist approach, which is, broadly speaking, informed by the critical

epistemological stance of Foucault (1985). This approach differs substantially from IPA’s

75

the researcher to focus on power relations in society, how objects and subjects are

constructed through talk (Parker, 1992), and by extension how people perceive the world.

However it is the emphasis of the over-arching narrative and the formulation of theoretical models, in which IPA and TA deviate from one another and that ultimately influenced the researcher’s decision to adopt IPA. TA is focused on generating codes, which later help

form more detailed themes and thematic maps, a type of code map which aid the

researcher to see any repeating themes, and consistency in the analysis across the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006). This commitment to forming a bigger picture is emphasised in TA, perhaps due to its lack of epistemological underpinning, making the analysis broader and by the same token, arguably a more shallow analytical process. In this way TA is designed to construct theories that are grounded in the data (Guest & Nancy, 2012), by identifying possible themes, comparing and contrasting the themes, and building theoretical models (Guest & Nancy, 2012). On the contrary, IPA has a commitment to focusing on the everyday experiences of reality in great detail in order to understand a particular phenomenon (McLeod, 2001; Hoolway and Todres, 2003). As such, IPA is considered focus is more on in depth, high quality themes and sub themes, instead of placing such a strong emphasis on an over-arching story and building theoretical models (Braun and Clarke, 2008). Finally, a method such as TA has what is sometimes referred to as a ‘branding problem’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006), in which there is a lot of variability in

both quality and method used in published studies (Antaki et al, 2002; Braun and Clarke, 2006). Indeed, there is no agreement on what TA actually is (Tuckett, 2005), as there is no accepted or prescribed way of conducting the analysis. In contrast, IPA has very clearly defined procedures and epistemological stance, which is discussed in detail in section 4.3.

There are two further additional points which, in the eyes of the author, made IPA the preferred choice over a method such as TA for this thesis. One of the major strengths for IPA, that this author would argue is a potential weakness in TA, is its suitability to explore

76

meaningful experiences in people’s lives. These experiences may have taken on a major

significance to that individual, who may use abstract language, metaphors, and

considerable reflecting to work through the meaning this experience has within the context of their life narrative (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2008; Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). The second point is that by sacrificing the options TA can offer, to talk about cultural discourse, power and influence in society, and the way in which cultures may be constructed, IPA removes the pretence of understanding the subject matter, in this case, killing, to focus on the individual’s experiences of the subject matter, and what it means to them. In this sense IPA is offering a glimpse into that person’s experiences of

killing in combat, which forms their sense making of their life as a soldier, and as a civilian, without drawing the focus way onto topics such as discourse surrounding killing in society, and social constructs within the military.

In summary, Thematic Analysis is considered one of the core, key research methods to learn within qualitative analysis, as it requires the researcher to learn a broad set of skills, such as coding, and re-coding, clustering themes, immersing oneself in the data set by reading and re-reading the data, and being transparent throughout the analytical process. These skill sets share similarities with other qualitative analytical methods (Brain and Clarke, 2008), Making TA an excellent way to be introduced to qualitative analysis. Indeed TA has been suggested to be more so a set of skills than a method (Boyatzis, 2000), which in on itself, is not necessary a negative. However, the ambiguity of what constitutes a good TA, the lack of epistemological framework to guide the research process, and broader, the shallower analysis focusing on constituency over depth are some of the

reasons it was found to be less ideal for this thesis than IPA. Indeed, IPA was found to be a good fit for analysing the sense making of combat soldiers, as it is concerned with the sense making of experiences as an individual reflects on the significance of events that transpire in their lives. In making assumptions that the individual engages in cognitive

77

processing, in order to express and make sense of the significance an event has to them, IPA assumes a link between people’s talk, thought processes and emotional states. In this

way an individual may engage in hot and cold cognition. Hot cognition is considered more of an instinctive response; coloured by emotional bias, where as cold cognition tends to be more analytical, derived from logic. Combined, these mechanisms allow the researcher to examine the meanings individuals place upon their lived experiences (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

The second axis of the double hermeneutic approach can be divided into empathy and scepticism. Empathy is used to discover the original meaning of the participant’s narrative,

whereas scepticism gives the researcher the opportunity to take a step back and be more critical with the narrative (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). This approach allows the researcher to simultaneously play both a critical and empathic role during data analysis; on one hand the researcher can explore the mind-set of the individual, whilst simultaneously not taking the information provided at face value (Aresti, Eatough & Brooks, 2010). Of particular interest to this research is IPA’s ‘unconstrained’ approach, by taking into account how the researcher’s own conceptions affect their ability to understand the observed individuals’ personal world, whilst at the same time being able to ask critical

questions about the motivations of the participant and what they are trying to achieve (Smith and Osborn, 2008).

In combination with empathy and scepticism, the analyst brings in psychological theories and perspectives to the analysis, to draw out the meanings of the experience (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). In this way, the IPA analyst adopts a ‘centre-ground position’, which provides the opportunity to be in the shoes of the author or participant, whilst also being able to be critical and reflective of the author’s narrative (Smith et al., 2009).

A strong IPA analysis requires the marriage of phenomenology and hermeneutics. Without the phenomenology, there would be nothing to interpret, yet without hermeneutics, there

78

would be no lens through which to discover the phenomenon (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). IPA can be viewed as a tripod of philosophies (hermeneutics, phenomenology, and ideography), which, combined, provide the researcher with the tools to produce rich, exploratory analysis. Indeed, much like a tripod, IPA cannot maintain stability without the third critical component of IPA; an adherence to an idiographic philosophy. An insightful analysis into a person’s sense making of lived experiences can make a significant

contribution to Psychology; IPA offers not only the opportunity to gather the painstaking detail required for such an analysis on a case by case basis, but also similarities and differences across cases (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

Phenomenological analysis has a commitment to empathic exploration of a topic, combined with sophisticated theorising, in order to avoid superficial, common sense analysis (Yardley, 2000). Indeed IPA is designed to provide rich insight into individuals’ lived experiences, and is appropriately set up to develop a contextual understanding of the experiential dimensions of emotion (Eatough & Smith, 2006). Eatough and Smith (2006) suggest that emotions can be expressed using metaphors to articulate how individuals both feel and experiences emotions. In investigating how anger is experienced, Eatough & Smith (2006) explored how participants used emotional metaphors to try and articulate anger into something meaningfully expressed through language. For example, Marilyn, one of the participants in Eatough & Smith’s (2006) study, described their anger as ‘very hot’ and ‘trembling’, a way to try and make sense of a very intense, difficult emotion to

express without metaphors.

Further, Eatough and Smith (2006) suggested that emotions as a metaphor can be used to distance the author away from undesirable qualities which they feel do not represent them. In the case of Eatough & Smith’s research, problems with angry outbursts were

‘animalistic’, and ‘wild’, which was the opposite of being a woman: i.e. ‘peaceful, gentle, harmonious’ (Eatough & Smith, 2006. p 489). These emotional metaphors can also

79

represent a transformation from a ‘rational civilised person, into an irrational uncivilised animalistic being’ (Eatough & Smith, 2006, p 489).

Schmitt (2005) suggests that metaphors may highlight or hide experiences, feelings and emotions and it is the ability of the interpreter, and often their lived cultural experiences, which dictate the quality of the analysis. Of particular significance to the present research, Schmitt (2005) demonstrates how speakers/authors may use metaphors as a tool of

communicating the way in which they view people who share common activities, and those that do not. As an example, men describe drinking in terms of manliness, strength, power and combat (Schmitt, 2005). Often, drinking was associated with proving one’s manhood and feeling strong, whilst one who does not drink is ‘not fit’, ‘not a real man’

(Schmitt, 2002b). However, when one individual decided to stop drinking, the reverse became true; abstinence meant proving one’s ‘strength’ ‘power’ and overall image of a

strong male (Schmitt, 2002b). The researcher would argue that the double hermeneutic nature of IPA makes it an ideal method to explore emotional metaphors, not only in the cultural and time context, in which they are provided, and the experiences and sense making of the author, but also the analyst’s sense making of the authors’ narrative.

In summary, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) assumes an individual to be a cognitive, linguistic, affective & physical being, and assumes a chain of connection between people’s talk and their thinking and emotional states (Smith & Osborn, 2008).

This is particularly relevant to the current research, as it provides a method for examining in detail the personal lived experience of participants making sense of their experience (Smith, 2004). Lived experiences are noted as being vital in how individuals cope with life experiences (Smith and Osborn, 2008) which suggests a link between how soldiers view killing in combat and sense making of the combat experience.

Finally, in relation to combat, and specifically killing in combat, IPA is well suited to exploring how the individual makes sense of significant life experiences. These

80

experiences can be life altering when the individual attempts to make sense of, and reflects on these experiences, within the context of their lives (Smith and Osborn, 2008; Smith, 1999). On a personal note, as suggested by Yardley (2000) , Elliott, Fischer and Rennie (1999), and Braun and Clarke (2006), this researcher, as an early career academic, was grateful to have a qualitative methodology with clear guidelines to adhere too, which they also felt would be accepted academically.