Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Designing a qualitative research project, rather than one predicated on quantitative

procedures, made sense for my enquiry. My purpose was not to draw up descriptions which are true of all Chinese post-graduate students in the UK, but instead to shine a light on the subjective experience(s) of these participants. Nonetheless, there are myriad methodological options available to the qualitative researcher, which can be bewildering for the novice

researcher, and initially, I was unsure [3.15] which

methods would suit my enquiry, given the options available.

However, it is not the case that there is a free choice in relation to the methodology of a research project: the type of knowledge which is sought narrows down the methodological options open to the researcher (Maxwell, 2012). For instance, Grounded Theory is a widespread methodology in current educational research and “meets a need” (Thomas & James, 2006:768) for the qualitative researcher who seeks a place between the “hard” methods of the natural sciences and “soft” ethnomethodology. Initially, I flirted with

Grounded Theory as an approach to my enquiry, since it “does” a lot of what I wanted to do. For example, it creates knowledge from the bottom up, using the words and experiences of participants to develop an understanding of their lifeworlds, rather than using the research process to confirm (or refute) pre-determined hypotheses. Grounded Theory also requires the research to take place in context and can be applied to the exploration of phenomena which do not lend themselves to quantification. It is therefore suited to exploring the convergences and divergences which exist within the subjective human experience, and which would otherwise remain obfuscated (Perakyla & Ruusuvuori, 2013).

[3.15_{] It may be more truthful to}

In time, however, I rejected a deep-end Grounded Theory orientation for four reasons. Firstly, a number of its proponents (e.g. Glaser, 1998) recommend that the literature should not be engaged with prior to gathering data, as this may distort the views of the researcher and preclude a clear, unbiased interpretation of the phenomenon. Yet having engaged with the literature before embarking on this project (see 1.4), I already had an understanding of established knowledge in my field and so could be neither neutral nor dispassionate in relation to the setting. Secondly, my own familiarity with the setting could not be bracketed off: the “inseparability of knower and known” (Pels, 2001:1, in Taylor & Hicks, 2009:63) is always an issue for researchers exploring a field with which they have already had considerable dealings, and I could not disregard my instinctive feelings about my participants’ lives in the UK. Thirdly, I felt that Grounded Theory, even in its more constructivist form (e.g. Charmaz, 2006) places too much emphasis on procedure, at the expense of interpretation: Thomas & James (2006:775) refer to it as “functionalism incarnate”, and Birks & Mills (2010) are even less generous, calling it a “smash and grab” approach. Finally, a key feature of a Grounded Theory study requires that the phenomenon is explored in such depth as to reach saturation (Charmaz, 2006; Birks & Mills, 2010) – the point at which no new themes emerge from the data gathered

[3.16]. For me, though, this was not practical, given the

limitations of time, resources and scope of the enquiry. In addition, saturation, in and of itself, does not

necessarily lead to insightful interpretation, and I preferred to aim for understanding rather than inundation.

After rejecting Grounded Theory, I explored Consensual Qualitative Research as a possible approach for my enquiry. Like Grounded Theory, this is an inductive approach to research: research questions in Consensual Qualitative Research are open ended and not framed as hypotheses, and the approach also allows for unexpected data to be

incorporated into the findings (Hill, 2012). However, Consensual Qualitative Research is characterised by collaborative analysis (hence “consensual”), with a number of

researchers (“judges”) working in tandem to analyse and interpret the data, and having a team of researchers was not a feasible design choice for my own project. In addition, Consensual Qualitative Research tends towards a more interpretivist relationship with data, in which researchers aim to distance themselves from it, so as to curb “researcher

[3.16_{] In principle, saturation}

sounds compelling: imagine finding out so much when out in the field that there is nothing left to uncover! In practice, however, it is tricky to achieve with a single-handed researcher on a time-limited project.

subjectivity” (Williams & Morrow, 2009:579). This for me was unappealing: I was reluctant to bracket off my own feelings about my participants’ experiences. Therefore, after a period of contemplation, I chose to take an Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach in my project. Although Patton (2002) argues that all interpretive

approaches are essentially variations on forms of Grounded Theory, since all build up accounts from the data (rather than using data to confirm pre-formed hypotheses), I feel that IPA is more suited to this reflexive account than Grounded Theory (Brocki & Wearden, 2006), since, as discussed above, the latter requires the researcher to adopt a more remote orientation towards the data. In addition, as Smith et al. (2009) point out, IPA draws on tandem phenomenological and hermeneutic positionings (see 3.7), and brings them together in ways which other methodological approaches do not. This was an important consideration for me, since one of my commitments in this account is to

acknowledge to what extent my own biases and subjectivities have informed the research.

Six key elements of IPA were particularly appropriate to my project, in my setting. Firstly, it was more suited to my small-scale enquiry than the more generalised (or generalisable) accounts which typically occur with Grounded Theory (Smith, 1996). Secondly, given the local, contextual nature of my enquiry, IPA allowed me to provide idiographic accounts of my participants’ subjective experiences, by presenting “actual slices of human life” (Smith et al., 2009:202) from an “insider’s perspective of the phenomenon under study” (Smith, 1996:264). This allowed me to shine a focussed

spotlight on the experiences of my participants, exploring how the “everyday flow of lived experience takes on a significance” (Smith et al., 2009:1). This appealed to me, since these participants were living through a period of particular import in their lives. Thirdly, in IPA, research questions are held to (1) be open, not closed; (2) be exploratory not explanatory; and (3) focus on subjective interpretations of phenomena, rather than attempting to determine causation or correlation. These considerations were important because I wished to view my participants in the round, as individuals, rather than reducing them to numbers and variables. Fourthly, saturation is not required – IPA researchers, instead, comment on the representational nature of the sample and the data: it is when we believe that we have told “a suitably persuasive story that the analysis may be considered sufficiently complete” (Brocki & Wearden, 2006:96). Fifthly, IPA accounts tend to use easily-comprehensible language and straightforward guidelines, rather than using language to obscure meaning, which Brocki & Wearden (2006) claim some Grounded

Theory studies do. As I was working with participants whose first language was not English, clarity and concision were important considerations for me. In sixth place, a significant tranche of the literature regarding international students and their acculturation is psychological in nature, and IPA is common in the psychological literature. Although my own enquiry is roundly not psychological, there are elements of emotional wellbeing present in my enquiry, and it made sense for me to employ an analytical tool which has been used by others in related fields. Consequently, drawing on an already-established paradigm allowed me to engage with an “accepted and well-developed approach to research” (Maxwell, 2012:43).

By the time I entered the field to carry out some preliminary research, I felt confident that my methodological underpinning was fit for purpose. The following section sets out what that preliminary research involved, and what I learned when I entered the field.