Within the context of the present study, IPA (Smith, 1996; Smith et al., 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2003; 2008) was identified as the qualitative methodology of choice. The rationale for choosing IPA will be outlined with particular reference to the three theoretical and philosophical tenets which are central to IPA: phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography (Smith et al., 2009).
Firstly, IPA’s phenomenological aim of conducting an in-depth exploration to capture and articulate the personal meaning and sense-making in a particular context, for individuals who share a particular experience (Smith et al., 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2003) corresponds with the research question of the present study: What is the experience of individuals who undertake PBL as part of their doctoral Clinical Psychology training? Smith et al. (2009) assert that IPA subscribes to social constructionism, though to a lesser degree than Discourse Analysis (Edwards & Potter, 1992) and Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (Parker, 1992) in that it recognises that human experiences are necessarily and essentially informed and shaped by social processes. Thus, the qualitative framework which guides the present study is both phenomenological and social constructionist in nature, given that it conducts an in-depth exploration of individuals’ personal experiences and perceptions of PBL, whilst adopting a
‘critical psychology’ perspective (Smith & Osborn, 2003) from which to consider these experiences within the dynamic social context in which they occur.
Secondly, hermeneutics is concerned with “…the theory of interpretation” (Smith et al., 2009, p.21). IPA concedes that it is not possible for an individual’s inner world to be accessed directly and thus interpretative activity is a necessity. The process by which the researcher is trying to make sense of the participant, who is trying to make sense of their world, is known as a double hermeneutic (Smith et al., 2009). It is acknowledged that this process of co- construction will inevitably be influenced by my own values, beliefs, and opinions (Giddens, 1987; Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). Consequently, reflexivity is considered to be fundamental in facilitating transparency and in turn, increasing the validity of the research (Elliott, Fischer & Rennie, 1999).
Thirdly, IPA is committed to understanding how individuals within a particular context understand particular experiential phenomena with which they find themselves faced. Smith et al. (2009) suggest that this focus on the particular moves us closer to the universal because it gives us insight into the very ‘essence’ of human experience. Whilst IPA can be used for single case studies to achieve this aim, it can also be used to capture and articulate in detail the perceptions and meaning-making of a small group of people, rather than making general claims about the wider population (Smith, 1996; Smith et al., 2009). Therefore, as analysis includes an examination of the convergences and divergences in themes emerging from the transcripts of individuals with a shared experience, when IPA’s idiographic emphasis is upheld it can be used to generate a thematic analysis of relatively homogenous small groups. This aim corresponds with the intention of the present study; that is, to utilise a Social Constructionist framework (see 4.2), to conduct a detailed exploration of individuals’ personal experiences and the meaning that they make.
The detailed guidance outlining the process of conducting IPA studies (for example, Smith et al., 2009) is both appealing and helpful to a relatively novice qualitative researcher like myself. Further distinct advantages of IPA include its inductive nature; the way in which it lends itself to exploring the complexity of individuals’ experiences; and the freedom to not simply fit the individual’s experience into a framework of existing knowledge, as analysis allows unanticipated themes to emerge (Smith & Osborn, 2008).
For the purposes of the present study IPA was deemed to be the most suitable approach. For example, Smith et al. (2009) note that language is viewed as a key resource in the process of meaning-making by both Discourse Analysis and IPA approaches. However, these approaches diverge with regards to the significance bestowed upon the chain of connection between cognition and the experience of body and self (Crossley, 2000a; Smith et al., 2009). In discursive approaches the chain of connection between language and the experiencing self is ‘bracketed out’, thus directing emphasis away from how individuals think, feel or give meaning to the phenomenon being explored (Abraham & Hampson, 1996; Denzin, 1995; Eatough & Smith, 2006). Eatough and Smith (2006) declare that, “…lived life with its vicissitudes is much more than historically situated linguistic interactions between people” (p.485). As it was imperative to me to explore how the individuals in my study make sense of and indeed feel about their experiences, Discourse Analysis was considered to be less fitting than IPA due to its emphasis upon the role of language in construing social reality, as opposed to focusing on understanding personal experience (Willig, 2003).
A further option that was considered was a Narrative analytical approach (Crossley, 2000a) for its emphasis upon the lived experience of individuals, especially in the context of identity re-negotiation (Collie, Bottorff & Long, 2006). Although sharing many epistemological features with IPA, narrative analysis is more interested in the content and structure of the stories that individuals tell rather than what these stories may reveal about the meaning- making attached to subjective experience. Furthermore, as opposed to IPA’s very purpose of capturing the personal meaning and sense-making attributed to lived experiences, the core task of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) is to construct theoretical explanations of psychological phenomena. As one of the reasons for implementing a qualitative rather than quantitative approach was to conduct novel research into the experiences of individuals who undertake PBL as part of their doctoral Clinical Psychology training in the UK, I chose to bypass the need to fit human experiences into existing categories or theoretical literature (Dey, 1999) and thus Grounded Theory was discarded. However, Smith et al. (2009) note that it is feasible and indeed desirable, for an IPA researcher to conduct sufficient analysis for the development of group-level themes to emerge, thus moving beyond a simple description of the data obtained.
Finally, Harper (2008) states that, “…for clinical psychologists, their preferences for epistemological frameworks will probably be related to their preferred theoretical orientation” (p.433). He speculates that those who identify themselves as cognitive- behavioural will probably find a good fit in the epistemology of evidence-based practice derived from more quantitative methods. As I write this, I am currently undertaking final- year Clinical Psychology training specialist placements using systemic (children and families) and psychodynamic (adult) models. My preference for looking at wider systems and facilitating clients’ meaning-making processes therefore highlights a good fit with qualitative methodologies.