Decision-making in applying qualitative rather than quantitative methods

It was expected that qualitative methodology would be helpful in this investigation: the researcher considered that by utilising an interpretative paradigm, it would allow

hermeneutic knowledge to be examined (see below for an explanation of hermeneutics) and to enable the exploration of subjective understanding and meanings - of both the participants and researcher. This will be returned to in the Findings chapter and Reflexive Account (Appendix B).

57

One key qualitative methodological approach is that of phenomenology, which can be useful and drawn upon when trying to understand the nature of human experience. Finlay (2011, p.3) describes phenomenology as inviting us ‘to slow down, focus on, and dwell with the

‘phenomenon’ – the specific qualities of the lived world being investigated’. This is contrary to the scientific approach which requires ordering, categorising and explaining (of behaviour or phenomena).

It can be difficult to get away from one’s own subjective filtering of experience and

understanding, but this may be seen as actually an essential part of the qualitative research approach. This was referred to by Pring (2004, p.100) for example: ‘To understand particular events one must see things from the point of view of the participants or of the people who are involved – how they interpret events and thereby constitute those events as events of a certain sort’.

There are arguments for and against both qualitative and quantitative research approaches.

Cohen et al. (2000) argued that both positivists and interpretivists have been criticised for presenting an incomplete account of social behaviour, by neglect of political and ideological contexts, which resonates with the importance given to addressing issues of social injustice raised earlier in this thesis (Chapter 2). It was considered that IPA could highlight such issues particularly well (for example educational, social or economic inequalities), by enabling close exploration of individuals’ own experiences of having a learning disability (or working with those who do) which may, due to their increased likelihood of social

disadvantage and exclusion, lead to them to find themselves in a socially disempowered situation.

Other qualitative approaches were considered, including the use of focus groups and narrative approaches to collect information, with Thematic Analysis or Discourse Analysis to explore and analyse the subsequent data. Thematic Analysis had been considered originally

58

alongside IPA, as it can be helpful when seeking to use qualitative information to test out hypotheses and to compare data to similar previous research (such as health professionals’

experiences of conducting therapy with PWLD – e.g. Hutchinson, Anderson, Lang &

MacMahon, 2017). The researcher had considered using Thematic Analysis as a first stage of analysis, to inform the second round of analysis via IPA. It has been argued that most qualitative research involves thematic analysis in a general sense, since researchers tend to look for themes, although it is mainly associated with phenomenology (Holloway, 2008).

Thematic Analysis can be useful for identifying themes and patterns in interviews, when listening to recordings and reading transcripts and was the approach used by the researcher in her previous Master’s degree research.

A Framework Analysis approach, which sits within the broad family of Thematic Analysis methods, was also considered initially since a larger number of participants than is typical in IPA studies was recruited into the study. Framework Analysis has been identified as an established and rigorous method of analysing qualitative data in health services research, found to be particularly useful as it allows teams of researchers to work together, following five distinct interlinked phases (Furber, 2010). The researcher considered this approach as it is well adapted to research that has specific questions, a pre-designed sample (e.g.

professional participants) and a priori issues, (such as organisational issues), as well as being a dynamic approach that allows change or amendment if needed, throughout the process. Framework Analysis is also considered to provide a helpful tool for assessing policies and procedures from the very people that they affect (Srivastava & Thomson, 2009) – another compelling argument in favour of using this approach, which the researcher thought could be useful for subsequent work involving the NHS and other services. There is some overlap with IPA, including the immersion phase, where researchers familiarise themselves as fully as possible with the data obtained, whilst developing a theoretical framework, making notes (usually in the margins of the transcripts) of the main ideas that appeared to recur in the data (Richie, Spencer & O’Connor, 2003). There are also

59

commonalities with the indexing, charting and synthesising of the data phases, which all help to facilitate transparency of the data analysis process and enhance rigour (Ezzy, 2002).

However, IPA was ultimately considered more suitable for this research project as it was hoped to collect data that reflected people’s actual lived experiences and perspectives, with a more idiographic focus and where experiential-type questions could be asked (as opposed to obtaining information from focus groups or story completion tasks for example). The Framework Method arguably cannot accommodate highly heterogeneous data, as it requires data to cover similar topics or key issues (Gale, Heath, Cameron, Rashid & Redwood, 2013), in order to categorise it – which the present research arguably contains - although it is useful for the thematic analysis of semi-structured interview transcripts, which is one reason it was considered initially. The choice of methodology was largely driven by the research questions, which were intended to be centred upon the participants involved and their direct experiences. It was hoped that by using IPA a more in-depth view on what the therapeutic experiences were like could be gathered. One disadvantage of Framework Analysis is that due to the framework it imposes, it can constrain what can be studied and suppress complexity (Bowling & Ebrahim, 2005), both of which are strengths of IPA.

Discourse Analysis (DA) had also been considered initially, as it similarly has a strong constructionist position, where language is analysed and considered in terms of constructing versions of truth, as it occurs. Inherent within DA is the idea of (i) speakers having a stake and (ii) language promoting that within social discourse. This was therefore a contender as a methodological approach involving empowerment and valuing the opinions of the

participants involved. In this case however, it was decided that a phenomenological focus on the meaning that participants made of their lived experiences was more critical than the actual words used, especially since many PWLD experienced various difficulties and challenges with expressive verbal communication, so articulation of experience may be more challenging and could be misinterpreted or used out of context. It was felt that the

60

interpretive nature of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis would help overcome this issue.