Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) “aims to explore in detail participants’

personal lived experience and how participants make sense of that personal experience”

(Smith, 2004:40) and is closely aligned with meaning-making (Bruner, 1990). IPA is entirely complimentary to BNIM and CNA, as all three methods have emerged from within

phenomenological research. Whereas BNIM studies mainly sit within the fields of social policy (e.g. Suarez-Ortega, 2013) and social work (e.g. Chamberlayne, 2004), IPA studies reside within phenomenological psychology (e.g. Smith et al 2011). IPA differs from

mainstream methodologies in psychology in its in-depth qualitative approach. IPA has also been connected with positive psychology, since participants, through the interview process are given the opportunity to express their views about strength, wellness and quality of life (Reid, Flowers and Larkin 2005:21).

IPA has two important characteristics. Firstly, it is idiographic in its approach, by examining one case in detail before moving on to other cases. In this sense, IPA takes up the analysis where BNIM interviewing ends. It is only when all cases have been examined separately that a cross-case analysis can occur. Secondly, IPA is inductive. It is an approach that allows themes to emerge from the data, as opposed to verifying pre-determined hypotheses.

IPA is strongly tied to the hermeneutic tradition by recognising that the researcher aims to make sense of the individual making sense of their experience – a “double hermeneutic”

(Smith, 2004:40). In IPA, the role of the researcher is more active than in BNIM. The researcher tries to balance ‘emic’ (phenomenological insider) and ‘etic’ (interpretative outsider) positions (Reid et al, 2005) in order to try and understand the meanings of an individual’s experience.

IPA acknowledges that researchers are not context-free and that their interpretations will be consciously or sub-consciously guided by their own experiences and knowledge, or as Polkinghorne puts it their “prejudices” (2007:482). Researcher reflexivity is therefore paramount in IPA research, often through use of a reflexive research diary (Smith et al, 2011). However, the reflexive approach that was adopted in the present study went much further than drawing on a research diary to critically self-reflect. This is discussed in section 3.9. As Smith et al explain, researcher subjectivity is foregrounded in IPA research:

“IPA permits the researcher to interpret, based on their own experiences and knowledge, the participant’s account.” (2010:10)

Like BNIM, IPA is suited to a small number of cases given the depth and intensity of the analysis that takes place. As Smith advises:

“It is only possible to do the detailed, nuanced analysis associated with IPA on a small sample. Many studies have samples of 5 to 10.” (2004:42)

IPA was applied to the analysis of the witness interviews in the present study since there is no exemplar case in BNIM studies for the treatment of third party material that follows a conventional semi-structured interview format (Bryman, 2012).

Unlike BNIM, IPA does not have a prescribed approach for working with the interview data. I did, however, refer to Smith et al (2009) to ensure the analysis in the present study was approached systematically and rigorously. These authors set out six steps in the analytic process. I followed IPA’s idiographic approach by analysing each of the witness interviews separately and in turn. Consequently, I did not begin analysis on the second witness

interview until I had completed the first four steps on the first and so on. A brief description of each of these steps relating to the analysis of each of the witness interviews now follows.

Step 1: Reading and re-reading

This stage comprised reading the interview transcript in full, followed by a second reading, which was accompanied with the audio recording of the interview. On the third reading, I also looked back over my field notes and I began to make notes by hand on the transcript. These notes included observations about the transcript, initial ideas about the structure and tone of the interview and the narrative passages that struck me as significant in the witness account.

Step 2: Initial noting

This stage involved making hand-written notes on interview content to begin to identify the ways in which particular words were used to convey the witness experience (e.g. key words or phrases). At this stage, the notes were both descriptive and interpretative. The descriptive comments included the particular areas of concern for the witness and the interpretative comments were my initial explanations of why the witness may have interpreted their experience in a certain way. During this stage, I noted any metaphors or conceptual comments that appeared; and made notes of any areas of repetition, emphasis or

contradiction. Finally, I paid particular attention to any segments where the witness either withheld or displayed emotion. By focusing on the emotionality (or lack of emotionality) in the witness transcript, I believed that this would shed light on deeper levels of experience.

Step 3: Developing emergent themes

In this step, I created a three column table in Microsoft Word. In the middle column, I copied and pasted the interview transcript. In the left-hand column I transferred my hand-written descriptive notes from the earlier stages of analysis and in the right-hand column I

transferred my hand-written interpretative notes from earlier stages (see Appendix P). I then built on these notes with additional typed observations, comments and interpretations. At this

stage, I also began to identify emergent themes by highlighting key words or phrases which I believed encapsulated the essence of the witness experience. I then created a separate Word document and listed each of the emergent themes in chronological order (i.e. in the order in which they came up in the transcript) along with illustrative quotes for each of these themes (see Appendix Q).

Step 4: Searching for connections across themes

This stage involved mapping connections between emergent themes. However, given this is a narrative study, instead of breaking up the text, it was important to maintain the narrative flow of the interview; therefore I kept the emergent themes in chronological order and searched for connections between these themes in the order in which they emerged. This was done in the belief that the structure of talk reflects the essence of the teller. To help make sense of the emergent themes I also looked at their numeration (i.e. the number of illustrative quotes pertaining to a particular theme), their function (i.e. the purpose of each theme) and any polarisation (i.e. where themes had opposite relationships, such as compassionate/uncompassionate responses).

Step 5: Moving to the next case

When I had completed steps 1 – 4 on the first witness transcript, I repeated these steps on the second witness transcript and repeated the process again on the third witness transcript.

In order to meet IPA’s idiographic approach to analysis, I left a gap of approximately one week between my analyses of each of the witness transcripts.

Step 6: Looking for patterns across cases

I did not move to a level of abstraction to identify super-ordinate themes until I had completed the analytic process on each witness transcript.