Interpretative phenomenological analysis

The qualitative methodology considered to be most appropriate for this study is Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), as it provides an opportunity for understanding personal experience. The research questions for the present study emphasise a desire to explore participants’ understandings of their unique experiences in relation to giftedness and socioeconomic circumstances. IPA involves the detailed investigation of lived experience and how individuals make meaning of these

experiences (Eatough & Smith, 2008). The participant is seen as the “experiential expert” (Smith & Osborn, 2008, p. 57) and the researcher is attempting to gain an

‘inside perspective’ of the participant’s lifeworld. IPA is suitable for examining processes of development and change over time (Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Smith & Dunworth, 2003) and this fits well with the aim of the present study, to capture how giftedness and socioeconomic circumstances have impacted on participants over time rather than simply providing a ‘snapshot’ of one period. Another intention was that this study would in part be a celebration of the participants’ exceptional

achievements. IPA allows participants to be heard regarding their strengths and readily translates into effective practices (Reid, Flowers, & Larkin, 2005), and this may result in the findings of the present study being translated into supportive interventions for the identification and nurturing of gifted individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

There are five central characteristics of IPA; phenomenology, interpretation,

idiography, cognition, and the individual case (Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Reid, et al., 2005). IPA is largely a phenomenological approach, but it also shares some of the theoretical underpinnings of symbolic interactionism (Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Denzin, 1995). Phenomenological research is concerned with clarifying situations as they are directly experienced by individuals in the contexts of their lives (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2008). Symbolic interactionism focuses on how meanings are constructed through the activities and interactions within the social and personal worlds of individuals (Henwood & Pidgeon, 2006). Put simply, individuals interpret and understand their worlds in ways that make sense to them.

The interpretative aspect of IPA is paramount throughout the entire research process. The aim is to attempt to understand content and complexity (Smith & Osborn, 2008) through the participants’ individual accounts. This is reliant on how participants articulate their experiencesand how the investigator analyses this information. A double hermeneutic is involved, where participants are attempting to make sense of their world, and the researcher is “trying to make sense of the participants trying to

make sense of their world” (Smith & Osborn, 2008, p. 53). The final analysis is not merely a categorisation of data, but a detailed interpretative analysis of themes that has come about through careful interviewing and investigation of the participants’ perceptions (Brocki & Wearden, 2006).

IPA is idiographic and typically deals with small sample sizes (Reid, et al., 2005; Smith & Osborn, 2008). Using larger data sets can sometimes lead to the loss of subtle inflections of meaning (Smith, 2003), and it is important that cases are analysed in such a way as to find patterns across these while still preserving the distinctive features of the individual cases. The development of theory is not necessarily a desired outcome in IPA research, but rather a rich description of the phenomenon under investigation and how it occurs within the personal and social worlds of participants is sought (Smith & Dunworth, 2003). According to these researchers, the skill of using this methodology is to provide insight into the generic themes across participants’ accounts, but also to uphold the individual voices of participants who have shared their stories.

A connection between the participants’ stories and underlying cognition is central to IPA, and there is an emphasis on the beliefs, attitudes, and thought processes

associated with experiences rather than just the factors of the experience itself (Smith & Osborn, 2008). This addresses calls in the existing risk and resilience literature for researchers to move beyond the consideration of risk and protective factors, to the examination of processes that move developmental trajectories away from less favourable personal outcomes (e.g., Luthar, 2006; Masten & Powell, 2003; Rutter, 2007). Cognition is interpreted differently within the boundaries of IPA; rather than functioning separately, it is seen as an aspect that contributes to an individual’s view of the world, and what participants disclose gives insight into their cognitions and emotions (Eatough & Smith, 2008). The participant and the researcher both attempt

to make sense of these experiences rather than the participant simply providing a descriptive account.

Where IPA is distinctive as a methodology is in the importance given to the individual case (Smith, 2004). Full attention is given to an individual case before moving on to the next case or attempting to analyse across cases. Eatough and Smith (2008) outline two advantages of this approach: the first advantage is that it allows the researcher to learn much more about that particular individual and their lived experiences, which in turn gives more insight into universal or general themes; second, the focus on the individual case enables the researcher to give more attention to understanding the connections between emotions, cognitions, and behaviour, and this provides a more holistic picture of the participant’s ‘lifeworld’ (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003). Smith (2004) even goes so far as to suggest that future IPA studies could be undertaken with the analysis of just a single case.

Willig (2001) outlines some conceptual and practical limitations of IPA. First, the words participants use to communicate an experience construct a version of the experience rather than an ‘accurate’ representation. An interview transcript tells us more about the way a participant articulates an experience than about the experience itself. The present study is concerned with the perceptions of participants and it was considered that using a range of detailed sources of information may assist with a more complete depiction of their experiences. Another potential shortcoming associated with IPA is that some participants may be unable to articulate their experiences adequately, and this might limit the scope of this methodology. Willig also contends that access to the personal world of the participant can be complicated by the researcher’s own conceptions. Smith and Dunworth (2003) concur, but state that these conceptions are also what the researcher draws on to interpret and make sense of the participants’ personal worlds.

Semi-structured interviewing is the most common form of data gathering in IPA, as “real-time interaction” (Eatough & Smith, 2008, p.187) with participants allows the researcher to more easily facilitate the exploration of lived experiences. Semi-

structured interviews use open-ended questions and language that participants will be familiar with to elicit more detailed responses. An advantage of using semi-

structured interviews is that it allows the researcher to explore unplanned areas of interest that emerge during the conversation, and this tends to result in richer data (Smith & Osborn, 2008). This also allows the participant some control over where the interview leads, so that they ‘tell a story’ rather than simply responding to ordered questions. Eatough and Smith (2008) propose that the skill of being able to move away from the interview script to follow the participant into the unfolding of their personal experiences is “at the heart of doing IPA well” (p.189). However, Smith and Osborn also note that this may reduce the control the researcher has over the interview itself. As well, the interviews can take longer to carry out than more structured interviews and they may be more difficult to analyse.