Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

Methodology refers to the tools utilised in order to know the reality; however reality is defi ed Wai ight, . Jo atha “ ith s (Smith, Flowers, and Larkin, 2009)

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was chosen as an appropriate

experiential approach for this study, as it aims to gain insight into the lived experiences by getting as close to the pa ti ipa t s pe so al o ld as possi le (obtaining an insider perspective). It therefore seeks to understand what a given experience (phenomenology) is like and how individuals make sense of it (interpretation). IPA (Smith and Osborn, 2003; Smith, Flowers and La ki , is an

approach to qualitative, experiential and psychological research, which has been informed by concepts and debates from three key areas of the philosophy of knowledge - phenomenology, hermeneutics and ideography (Smith et al., 2009, p.

11).

In relation to other phenomenological approaches, IPA interprets belief, affirming the words of participants and accepting their stories. IPA is an idiographic form of inquiry that pays rigorous attention to subjectivity, hot cognition and in particular to variation in data, keeping a close focus on meaning and at the same time moving to a general nuanced account of similarities and differences in cases, capturing instances of convergence and divergence at the same time (Smith et al., 2009). Interestingly, Halling (2008) argues that idiographic form of inquiry can also be general in the sense that it may focus on general structure of experience by looking at a specific experience of o e i di idual s sto i the fi st i sta e, se o dl e plo i g the es o o to the phenomenon being studied and finally by being concerned with philosophical and more universal aspect of being alive. The art is to move back and forth between experience and abstraction – between experience and reflection – all at various levels. Thus, the goal of this research is to explore life-world of each individual, who are sectioned and treated on a closed ward (by focusing on the explication of individual differences) and at the same time strive to move towards exploring the more general essence of the lived experience of being in a closed ward under section.

The small sample being characteristic of a qualitative design allows for a richer depth of interpretation/analysis. However, it means that it is not possible to make any conclusions or generalise findings to a larger population. IPA does not seek to find a single answer or truth; rather it aims to present a rich, coherent and legitimate a ou t of pa ti ipa ts sto ies. Pa ti ipa ts i the IPA studies are recruited by common experiences (homogenous sampling), and the objective is to demonstrate how the phenomenon is understood in a given context, in interaction with the environment, as well as from a shared perspective (Smith, 1989).

2.5.1 Rationale for IPA Methodology

In terms of complementarities and contradictions with other approaches, IPA affinities with grounded theory and discourse psychology, as well as it is informed by symbolic

interactionism (whereby meanings are constructed both on social and personal level)

(Blumer, 1969; Smith, 1996). Thus, IPA positions a person as a cognitive, linguistic, physical and affective entity (Smith et al., 1999). Additionally, IPA endorses social constructionism views on social and historical processes in experiencing and making sense of our lives (Eatough and Smith, 2008). Nevertheless, IPA has, distinctly, adopted a psychological approach (Willig, 2001), particularly when compared with other methodologies, such as grounded theory (Willig, 2001) or narrative analysis (Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2009), and since it is not concerned with the role of language either (which would be of interest to discourse analysis ), it seems best suited for psychological studies such as this one, where the detailed quality of individual experiences is being addressed; after all, IPA has a strong connection to psychology (Willig, 2001). In addition, in contrast with certain approaches such as Thematic Analysis, IPA is theoretically bound to the pre-existing theoretical framework and therefore possesses the phenomenological, epistemological and ontological coherence, dedication and consistency that are deemed pivotal by the researcher (Larking et al. 2006; Joffe, 2011).

The pertinence of hermeneutics in IPA and the fact that the research is a two-stage interpretation is also often highlighted. It is a dynamic process, which depends on and is o pli ated esea he s own conceptions. It, therefore, involves the researcher, striving to make sense of the participant personal world through interpretative activity, which is known as a double hermeneutic; such inter-subjective interconnectedness between researcher and researched characterises phenomenology and IPA (Reid et al., 2005; Smith et al., 1999). Furthermore, IPA is not merely about describing and packaging the pa ti ipa ts state e ts; instead, it is an art of interpretative activity, however at the same time staying in touch with the text (Smith, 2004; Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2009). Thus IPA has ee de eloped

specifically in order to allow the researcher to produce a theoretical framework, which is based upon, but which may transcend or exceed, the participants own terminology a d o eptualizatio s (Smith, 2004, quoted in Larkin, Watts and Clifton, 2006,

p.113-114). For this reason, IPA is the most useful method to elucidate former patie ts e pe ie e of ei g in a closed psychiatric ward under section.

Furthermore, IPA, as having its roots in psychology, is also distinguished from other phenomenological perspectives by acknowledging the central role of the a al st/ esea he . Phe o e olog a epts all aspe ts asso iated ith esea he s subjectivity as inevitable. As a matter of fact, such inter-subjective interconnectedness between the researcher and the researched forms a distinct and characteristic feature of phenomenology. While some authors argue that certain presuppositions should be

IPA for instance), believe that such endeavours are not only fruitless but also undesirable; therefore, the possibility of bracketing esea he s e pe ie es a d understanding is denied (Finley, 2009). Smith (2004) argues that IPA is an inductive and idiographic method, which is phenomenological through its emphasis on i di iduals li ed e pe ie es a d pe eptio s. Hence, distinctively, IPA has a dual focus as it places emphasis on the unique characteristics of each individual participant (the idiographic emphasis) as well as on patterning of meaning across the accounts (Larking et al. 2006; Joffe, 2011). IPA is also more strongly identifiable with hermeneutic tradition, which does not adhere to the use of bracketing. Adherence to such hermeneutic (and interpretive) tradition has greatly influenced the selection of IPA as the most appropriate method fo the u e t p oje t due to esea he s own perspectives and interest in the research topic, as well as in the broader issues related to psychiatry. Thus, pla i g esea he s su je ti it , self-awareness and self- reflection at the core of the process, the aim is to separate what belongs to the researcher and what is to the researched. It is, therefore, a very important step towards openness and bias recognition (Colaizzi, 1973; Gadamer, 1975). On the other hand, IPA has been criticised for not having clear guidelines, in relation to the i o po atio a d utilisatio of esea he s reflexivity. However, this lack of rigidity may be viewed as a strength, rather than a limitation (Smith and Osborn, 2008). ‘esea he s efle i it is the efo e o side ed u ial. However, it has to be pointed out that as such it cannot take the focus away from the research participants and the appearing phenomenon (Finlay, 2009).

It is also argued that IPA has flexibility to deal with complexities of human experience, which combined with a rigorous framework and clarity of method, enables to account for context and needs of the researcher and the research (Smith and Osborn, 2008). Such constitutes as yet another asset that makes IPA a methodology of choice for this esea h. What is o e, IPA is e tai l o e o g ue t ith the esea he s personal reasoning, understanding as well as attitudes on qualitative inquiries. Finally, compared to other approaches, IPA carries more freedom and creativity and is of particular value in psychological and health care research, especially when unusual groups or situations are being taken into consideration, or in order to reach views of individuals that are not easily accessible and which often escape the perceptual field of professionals (Biggerstaff and Thompson, 2008; Willig, 2001). IPA is regarded as possessing the flexibility to deal with complexities of human experience,which combined with a rigorous framework and clarity of methods, allows for consideration of thecontext as well as the needs of the researcher and the research itself (Smith et al. 2009; Joffe, 2011; Yardley, 2008).