IPA has been informed by the following three key underpinning philosophical concepts: phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography (Smith et al., 2009). The underlying principles and corresponding criticisms that require consideration during the implementation of this study are discussed next.
3.5.1 Phenomenology
Phenomenology has philosophical roots and is concerned with examining and understanding the lived experience in its own terms and in its own right. The philosopher Husserl encourages us to ‘go back to’ the essence of ‘the things themselves’ (Smith et al., 2009). Phenomenology as a lifeworld epistemology posits that each individual will respond to a stimulus differently, claiming the lived and experienced world is more than the world itself, and more than the subject itself (Dahlberg, Dhalberg, & Nyström, 2007).
Heidegger, initially a student of Husserl, viewed the person as always within a context or ‘being-in-the-world’ and so challenged the possibility of any knowledge or
meaning-making outside of an interpretative stance (Smith et al., 2009, pp. 17–18). Philosopher Merleau-Ponty added that our embodied nature is our means of communicating with and central to our experience of the world and so therefore we can never entirely share the experience of the other (Smith et al., 2009). Another philosopher, Sartre, extends this further to state that we are better able to make sense of our experiences when they are seen within an interpersonal context (Smith et al., 2009).
Smith et al. (2009) summarise that our ‘being-in-the-world’ is personal to each of us, but is simultaneously a property of our relationships to the world and others. Therefore our attempts to understand other people’s meaning-making is necessarily interpretative. This is in contrast to discourse analysts who look to find out about how participants construct accounts rather than how they make sense of their experiences (Smith, 2011a).
3.5.2 Hermeneutics
“Hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 21) originating from the interpretation of texts. The interpretative element of IPA distinguishes itself from other phenomenological approaches that maintain a descriptive focus (Shinebourne, 2011). A writer on hermeneutics, Schleiermacher, argues that interpretation involves intuition with an aim to understand the writer as well as the text that goes beyond the explicit claims made by the writer (or in this case the participants). Phenomenology is concerned with understanding the phenomenon as
it appears to show itself to us (Smith, 2011a). As we all have prior experiences that relate to a phenomenon, Smith et al. (2011a) propose that we can only partially bracket those pre-conceptions and must maintain an open and reflexive stance. They add to this that interpretation is determined by the moment in time at which it is made, so the past is seen in light of the present (Smith et al., 2009).
The hermeneutic circle is a dynamic relationship where “the part is interpreted in relation to the whole; the whole is interpreted in relation to the part” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 92). In IPA, a researcher moves backwards and forwards between the two offering a different perspective with each move, and calls for a cyclical approach to reflexivity (Smith et al., 2009).
IPA involves a double hermeneutic (Smith, 2004). This is where the researcher is using his own “experientially-informed lens” to make sense of the participant’s reporting of how they make sense of the phenomenon resulting in a “second-order” meaning- making (Smith et al., 2009, p. 36). IPA acknowledges that the researcher and the participants will view the phenomenon from different perspectives and that there is a tension within this (Wagstaff et al., 2014). In the findings section, I intend for the reader to be able to hear the voice of the participants and my interpretation to remain clear and distinct from this. By being explicit, this aids comprehensiveness and respectfulness to both perspectives (Wagstaff et al., 2014). I also recognise that an additional triple hermeneutic is created when researching lived experience, that of the reader’s interpretation of this study (van Manen, 1997).
As a final point on hermeneutics, IPA adopts both the hermeneutics of empathy and suspicion where the researcher tries to understand what it is like as best as possible, but also analyses, questions and puzzles over what is reported (Smith et al., 2009). As Smith et al. (2009, p. 37) conclude, “without the phenomenology, there would be nothing to interpret; without the hermeneutics, the phenomenon would not be seen”.
3.5.3 Idiography
Idiography is concerned with attention to the particular, depth and detail of analysis (Smith et al., 2009). IPA’s idiographic focus distinguishes itself from other phenomenological approaches (Shinebourne, 2011). IPA differs from grounded theory approaches in its focus on personal experiences rather than social processes and is suited to complexity (Brocki & Wearden, 2006). Whilst each experience is of a particular perspective, uniquely embodied and in a particular context, it is also related to the world and can simultaneously bring us closer to the general or the universal (Smith et al., 2009). Therefore IPA moves to look at similarities and differences across cases, looking at both divergence and convergence, maintaining the individuality of each voice, as Schleiermacher quotes, “everyone carries a minimum of everyone else within himself” (Shleiermacher, 1998 cited in Smith et al., 2009, p.38).
3.5.4 A critique of IPA
Having explained my rationale and the underlying principles of IPA, some criticisms of IPA as an approach need to be noted. Giorgi (2010) criticises Smith et al.’s (2009) proposed IPA approach around their contradiction in suggesting steps to follow yet allowing unlimited flexibility for a researcher to move away from these as they see appropriate. Giorgi also adds that scientific methods require consistency and inter- subjectivity rather than the personal approach Smith et al. (2009) imply. Giorgi argues that a method personalised by each researcher leaves room for potential selectivity and bias that goes against the purpose of scientific procedures. For this reason, it is important to demonstrate reflexivity and offer transparency so a reader is able to then make their own judgements about any potential selectivity and biases. Giorgi goes further to suggest that the IPA Smith et al. (2009) propose would be more accurately named if it was called “Individualistic Experiential Analysis” (Giorgi, 2010, p. 10) due to the wide variability in the process and the descriptions between individual researchers. The dualistic tension between maintaining the idiographic focus and seeing connections between themes across participants is a prevalent dilemma in the literature around this approach (Wagstaff et al., 2014).
Smith et al. (2009) argue that IPA is an approach that is easy to do badly and difficult to do well. The value of any novice IPA researcher having supervision or close communication with other researchers that are familiar with the approach is emphasised. Finlay (2009) also encourages that given the adaptability of a
phenomenological researcher, researchers need to decide whether they are going to treat phenomenology as a science, or as an art, or as I would agree with, both.