Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)

IPA is an approach to qualitative, experiential and psychological research which has been growing in popularity since it was first introduced (Smith, 1996; Smith et al., 2009). It has been used extensively in health psychology, clinical and counselling psychology, as well as social and educational psychology. Various studies have been used to give participants a voice that may otherwise have gone unheard (Knight, Wykes & Hayward, 2003; Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006; Marriott & Thompson, 2008; Smith, et al., 2009; Fox & Diab, 2015).

IPA has been described both as a methodology (Smith, 1996, 2009; Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008; Hefferon & Gil-Rodriguez, 2011)

and method (Knight et al., 2003; Larkin et al., 2006) due to boundaries or terminology used becoming blurred or interchangeable. Although IPA is phenomenological and concerned with detailed examination of the lived human experience, it is based upon and draws concepts from three key areas of the philosophy of knowledge (Smith et al., 2009). These are phenomenology and hermeneutics as previously discussed and idiography.

Idiography is concerned with the detailed study of a particular phenomenon using thorough and systematic analysis. Edmund Husserl was known for encouraging phenomenologists, ‘to go back to the things themselves’ and IPA research is similar in this regard (Smith et al., 2009:1). IPA studies seek to gain detailed knowledge about what the experience is like for this person and what sense this person is making of what is happening to them, in a particular context (Smith et al., 2009). As a consequence, IPA studies usually have small, purposive, homogenous samples which do not seek to make generalisations.

As previously noted, there has been some criticism of qualitative approaches as they do not have a hypothesis to support or challenge, are not generalisable (Rawson, 1999), and one researcher may analyse or interpret data differently than another (Silverman, 2006). Furthermore, when only brief extracts of participant transcripts are chosen by the researcher for inclusion in the write-up, this does not allow sufficient information for the reader to make up their own mind on the subject under discussion (Silverman, 2006) and could have the potential for bias.

IPA has received some criticism and questions have been raised about the approaches authenticity and reliability. Criticism has been in regard to its focus being on how people experience a phenomenon, rather than a focus on why they experience it (Willig, 2008). It has been argued that IPA has limitations with regard to its role of language, suitability of accounts, explanation versus description, and genuineness as a phenomenological method (Willig, 2008). Furthermore, as language is constructed to describe an experience rather than informing a

researcher about the actual experience, participant accounts may be constrained by their ability to express and articulate their thoughts, emotions and behaviours in detail (Willig, 2008).

The practice of Husserlian ‘bracketing’ within interpretation, which could be seen as controversial, has also been questioned (Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008). Bracketing involves suspending any pre-suppositions or judgements that a researcher may have, to focus solely on data obtained from the research. Heidegger questioned the possibility of knowledge outside an interpretative stance (Heidegger, 1962). Within phenomenological research, bracketing usually relates to the researcher examining their own prejudices to allow them to include the views of their participants (Dowling, 2007). One method might include the researcher writing memos throughout the data collection and analysis process, in order to examine and reflect upon their engagement with the data (Cutcliffe, 2003). Although not differentiating between descriptive and interpretive phenomenology (Dowling, 2007), Donalek (2004:516) argued, ‘research is not truly phenomenological unless the researcher’s beliefs are incorporated into the data analysis’. To prevent resurfacing of buried emotions or experience (Drew, 2004), various authors have argued the case for the bracketing process to be explicit, clear and honest (Beech, 1999; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Others have questioned the need for researchers to set aside any assumptions or experience within an interpretative approach and suggested initial bracketing in IPA is superseded, with the inclusion of the researcher’s own reflexivity as the analysis continues (Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008).

Carl Rogers encouraged therapists engaging in client centred/person centred therapy to offer their clients ‘unconditional positive regard’ (Rogers, 1957; 1961). Although crediting Standal (1954) for coining the term, Rogers defined it by individually explaining its key elements (Haugh, 2001). He defined unconditional as ‘having no conditions of acceptance’; positive as ‘a warm and caring acceptance of a person’; and regard as ‘having regard for each aspect of the client’s experience as being part of that client’ (Rogers, 1957:95-103). A therapist offering

unconditional positive regard, in some respects similar to Husserl’s concept of bracketing, attempts to set aside prior pre-conceptions, assumptions and attitudes that may filter their perceptions and help create meaning. This practice helps the therapist accept their client’s unique experience without judgement and gives ‘permission’ for them to voice their own feelings and experience.

Coming from a humanistic background as a person centred counsellor, the researcher believes the researcher’s role reflects this within IPA. When seeking to gain detailed knowledge from participants about their own subjective experience, the initial process of trying to set aside prior pre-conceptions, assumptions or attitudes, enables the participant’s voice to be heard. This echoes Rogers (1957) definition of regard and respects participants own feelings and experiences. However, the possibility of knowledge outside an interpretative stance has been questioned (Heidegger, 1962). Within this study, to enhance self-awareness, understanding, aid the analytical process and develop research ideas, the researcher kept reflective memos to record details of ideas and thoughts as they emerged.