Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is concerned with ‘detailed examinations of human lived experience’ (Smith et al, 2010, p.32). It sets out to conduct this examination in a manner which allows that experience to be expressed in its own terms, rather than according to a pre-defined category system (Smith, 2004). IPA is influenced by the works of Husserl

81 | P a g e and Heidegger. Husserl’s work has helped IPA researchers to focus centrally on the process of reflection in the examination of the phenomenon under investigation and the importance of bracketing assumptions. Whilst Husserl was interested in establishing the essence of

experience, IPA attempts to capture specific experiences as experienced by particular individuals (Smith at al, 2010). Heidegger’s argument that individuals are ‘thrown into’ a world of objects, relationships and language helps IPA researchers to focus on experience and perception. By adopting an IPA approach, a research project would attempt to understand that individuals’ relationships to the world are essentially interpretative (Pringle et al, 2011). The focus would be on individuals’ attempts to make meaning out of their activities (Smith at al, 2010). IPA is used to explore lived experiences. Although IPA is more of a philosophical stance rather than a prescriptive method (Larkin et al, 2006) a number of conventions have developed. For example, thematically analysed semi-structured interviews are the most frequently used mode of enquiry. Through identification of themes within a participant’s account, the researcher aims to gain insight into how the world appears to them (Smith, 2004).

IPA is also underpinned by hermeneutics (Smith, 2004). Heidegger was a hermeneutic phenomenologist (Smith et al, 2010) and, as such, he was interested in the way in which a phenomenon emerges into the light. Hermeneutics offers an important theoretical insight for IPA researchers. IPA is an interpretative phenomenological approach and, in following Heidegger’s direction, it is concerned with examining how a phenomenon appears. In addition, there is importance afforded to the researcher in making sense of this appearance. IPA is also influenced by idiography (Smith et al, 2010) as it is concerned with the

‘particular’. IPA’s commitment to the particular is seen on two levels (Smith, 2004). Firstly, there is the commitment to the particular regarding ‘detail’ and the high level of analysis;

82 | P a g e secondly, IPA is committed to understanding how particular experiential phenomena (event, process or relationship) have been understood from the perspective of specific individuals in specific contexts. In the case of the study being reported here the specific individuals are mature undergraduate students undertaking a programme of academic study and the specific context is an institute of Higher Education (HE) in Ireland.

A characteristic of IPA is that it is inductive. This component is shared with most qualitative research inasmuch as semi-structured interviews are used (Finlay, 2011). This method necessitates that the interview stays relevant to the broad area of research. Nonetheless, IPA holds sufficient flexibility to allow for unanticipated insights to be ascertained. By

maintaining an inductive position, the IPA researcher is guided by reasonably broad research questions rather than adhering to exacting hypotheses. Although the aim is to be inductive, it is recognised that, just like objectivity, a pure inductive approach is not realistic. In reality, the research process entails an interplay between induction and deduction, but the former is foregrounded. Individuals’ experiences and interpretations of such experiences are not independent of context (e.g. Smith, 1999). In this study participants are interviewed in their place of study by a researcher who, although does not work with the students, is identified as a member of staff of that institution. As discussed earlier, I acknowledge this subjectivity as part of the process of understanding and attributing meaning. Therefore, reflexivity is a crucial part of the analytic process (Finlay, 2011). Reflexivity invites researchers to engage with how our own reactions to the context of our research allows us to hold particular insights and understandings as well as having emotional responses to interviewees’ behaviours

(Willig, 2008). I needed to be cognisant that I needed to reflect on my role in the research process, and how the research process and findings may alter my way of thinking about the subject matter.

83 | P a g e IPA utilises small, purposively selected and carefully situated samples, and this approach often makes use of single case analyses, with the number of participants usually between four and eight (e.g. Smith, 1999; Smith and Osborn, 2007). A large data set confounds the goal of the idiographic approach, as detail is lost. As such, it is not helpful to think in terms of

representativeness with so few cases. Sampling is purposeful with the aim of finding a homogenous group connected by a shared experience as opposed to a representative group of participants. When analysing a data set of transcribed interviews IPA guidelines suggest taking one transcript at a time and analysing the narrative in its totality into an idiographic, thematic form before moving on to the next (Smith, 1999). As much as practicable, the researcher should approach each transcript on its own merit. Only when each participant’s data have been analysed should comparisons and contrasts be made to identify a common set of themes. This approach to idiographic analysis serves to respect and represent both the individual and the group (Smith and Osborn, 2007).

In IPA the researcher situates participants in their specific contexts whilst exploring their particular, subjective perspectives. This process starts with a detailed examination of each case before moving on to more general claims (Smith et al, 2010). A challenge for IPA researchers is to translate the insights of phenomenological philosophy in to a practical, but coherent, approach to the collection and analysis of third-person data (Smith, 2004; Smith et al, 2010).

In the study reported here, students’ lived experiences have meanings impressed upon them by the students themselves – what is the meaning behind their experiences in a specific context? The students’ experiences are embodied; and Smith et al (2010, p. 36) argue that individuals ‘reflect cognitively on this embodiment’. Students are also concerned with ‘every

84 | P a g e day arrangements’ and the choices that they make. For example, some may worry that some of the choices that they make may affect family members. These are all existential issues. IPA is always interpretative (Smith, 2004), but there are different levels of interpretation. Smith et al (2010) stress that analysis typically involves ‘progressive’ movement through these levels, culminating in a deeper analysis of the phenomenon. An example, taken from Smith et al (2010) would be the following: first level –main emerging substantive themes generated in the participants’ transcribed texts would be identified; second level – a closer look at metaphors would be carried out; third level – a detailed reading of the temporal construction of the participants’ accounts would be conducted. This example illustrates that there is a gradual deepening of the analysis and interpretation of the participants’ accounts, whilst staying close to the participants’ texts. The research is, in essence, an interpretative process, with a two-stage process of interpretation (or double hermeneutic) at play. The researcher is trying to interpret a participant’s interpretation of the world (Smith, 2004). This position is articulated by Smith and Eatough (2007, p.30) when they note that ‘In one sense the researcher is the same as the participant, drawing on mental faculties they share. At the same time the researcher is different to the participant, always engaging in second-order sense-making of someone else’s experience’.

Thus, the researcher’s viewpoint is not considered a bias that needs to be eliminated, but as an essential precondition in understanding another’s experience (Willig, 2008). The concept of the hermeneutic cycle, or double hermeneutic, underpins the interpretative element of IPA. Smith and Eatough (2007) recognise that IPA has a theoretical alliance with cognitive

psychology inasmuch as there is a connection between an individual’s narrative and their thinking. The IPA method is most closely allied to Bruner’s (1990) view of cognitive psychology (Smith and Eatough, 2007) as meaning and meaning-making are central aspects

85 | P a g e of cognitive psychology research. IPA differs from cognitive research as it employs

qualitative methods to devise ideas about cognitions, beliefs and feelings. Despite these differences, IPA is still cognitive in character as the subject exploration is essentially the mental constructs held by the participants.

Smith (2004) states that the primary criterion for deciding if IPA should be chosen as the method is the commitment to inspecting the personal and lived experiences of participants and how they obtain meaning from these experiences. Thus, if the research question is consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of IPA, it is suitable to adopt the method. This method is considered to be particularly useful to the study of ‘questions of considerable importance to the participant either on an ongoing basis or at a particular juncture’ (Smith and Eatough, 2007, p.38). These issues are frequently transformative (e.g. Smith and Osborn, 2007) and are often about identity and a sense of self (Smith, 1999). This is why IPA is particularly suited to examining a mature student’s experiences of undergraduate education. In choosing IPA for my research methodology, I endeavoured to explore, describe, interpret and situate the ways in which students make sense of their experiences. In order to carry out such a project I needed to access rich and detailed personal accounts from individuals who were able and willing to provide a view of the phenomenon under investigation. Smith et al (2010, p.46) highlight that researchers need to identify, describe and understand two related aspects of the participants’ accounts: firstly, the ‘key objects of concern’ in their world; and secondly, the ‘experiential claims’ made in order to develop a phenomenological account. In summary, in IPA research the focus is on individuals’ experiences and understandings of a particular phenomenon. Research questions are grounded in an epistemological position – researchers assume that data will provide them with ‘relevant’ information. Questions focus on individuals’ understanding of their experiences and questions are exploratory, not

86 | P a g e explanatory. As IPA research is concerned with detailed accounts of lived experiences, questions neither set out to ascertain information in order to make ‘grand’ assumptions or generalisations, nor to ascertain what is right or wrong.

IPA is not without criticism and challenges. The role of language can be problematic in IPA. Social constructionists argue that language constructs rather than describes reality. Thus, it can be argued that an interview transcript communicates more about the way in which an individual speaks about a specific experience, within a specific context, than about the experience itself (Willig, 2001). IPA acknowledges that experience is never fully accessible to researchers. Eatough & Smith (2006) appreciate the action oriented nature of language, but also dispute the constricted notion that individuals are only discursive agents. For example, in IPA it is acknowledged that there is a chain of connections among embodied experiences, how a person speaks about those experiences, and how the individual makes sense of, and has an emotional reaction to, those experiences (Smith, 2011). It is recognised, however, that the ability of the individual to articulate the detailed features of experience adequately is

questionable. Individuals may labour to use language in such a fashion that they convey the subtleties and nuances of their experience (Willig, 2001). Smith and Osborn (2008) recognise that individuals frequently have difficulties in communicating what they are feeling, but suggest that an individual’s emotional state should be interpreted by the researcher by analysing what the individual is saying.

Chamberlain (2011) draws attention to the increased codification and legitimisation of IPA, and argues that, in respect of the value in research studies, this has brought about an

unreflective and uncritical implementation of the method. Moreover, the increased use of codes may lead to constructing overarching themes and subthemes, which suggest that the researcher’s task (i.e. the analysis) is completed when higher-order themes are categorised

87 | P a g e and described from the data. There is also the suggestion that this emphasis on themes could have the impact of producing an analysis that is undifferentiated from a thematic analysis (Chamberlain, 2011). Smith (2011), in reply to this observation, asserts that the researcher needs to be confident in their presentation of the analysis. He further articulates that IPA guidelines are not expected to be prescriptive, but rather the researcher is encouraged to be flexible and adapt the guidelines to best fit their research project.

It is recognised that Chamberlain (2011) asks important questions about the methodological underpinnings of IPA, and these questions have been attended to in a number of published articles, which have utilised an IPA approach to research. Examples of research that have demonstrated how detailed analysis and rich levels of interpretation might be attained are: Dickson et al, (2008); Eatough and Smith (2006); and Smith and Osborn (2008). Smith and Osborn (2008) stress that IPA is an approach rather than a rigid method, which permits the researcher to adapt the approach to address the needs of the research project.

Giorgi (2010) also provides a critique of IPA when he directs attention to a lack of rigorous scientific method, particularly so in the absence of replicability. If a researcher cannot repeat findings, how can they claim validity or reliability for the research? Smith and Osborn (2008, p.67) respond to this assertion by stating that ‘this lack of replicability is unavoidable’ and comes about through IPA’s non-specific method as researchers have their own way of

conducting their projects. As discussed earlier, qualitative research rejects positivist scientific principles, so the notion that a researcher cannot repeat participants’ interpretations and experiences is a strength as the philosophical underpinning is informed by subjectivity (Finlay, 2009). Moreover, a researcher cannot expect not to bring some of themselves to the process as the research is concerned with human interaction within a lived context. The research is not about testing hypotheses or examining variables. As discussed earlier IPA is a

88 | P a g e two stage interpretation process or double hermeneutic (Smith and Osborn, 2007) as the participant is trying to make sense of their world and the researcher is trying to make sense of the world of the participant. In my deliberations about IPA being the most appropriate

method for the current research, I recognise the subjective and interpretative stance of the researcher and participants. The research reported here is an idiographic study of the experiences of a small number of mature undergraduate students within one institution of Higher Education.