My Research Methodology

3.1 Why a Qualitative Methodology?

The majority of studies identified in the systematic review adopted quantitative methodologies whereby they measured and manipulated variables and aimed to specify relationships between interventions and emotional literacy skills. Whilst this approach can demonstrate validity and reliability, used alone it may not be an adequate means of fully evaluating an intervention as its focus is more on

outcomes than processes (Weeks, Hill, & Owen, 2017). Across the studies, there was a lack of consultation with participants involved in the interventions to gain a richer understanding of, for example, their experiences of the intervention, their understanding of emotional literacy, the process of the intervention and the perceived impact they personally felt the intervention had on them. A number of researchers argue that quantitative measures cannot capture the complexity and essence of human experience, relationships, feelings, perceptions, attitudes and the many different backgrounds and contexts of interventions and individuals

taking part in them (Coppock, 2007; Haddon et al., 2005; Steiner, 2003; Weeks et al., 2017).

Quantitative research is just one approach to understanding the world (Henwood, 2008). By adopting a qualitative research framework, it may be possible to explore in more depth, how individuals make sense of their experiences of the ELSA intervention. A qualitative methodology would look beyond questionnaire scores and provide a different perspective into understanding emotional literacy

interventions. It is not concerned with establishing cause and effect relationships between the ELSA intervention and pre-defined variables but to understand what is going on for people and between people and to describe, to understand and to explain phenomenon (Willig, 2012).

3.2 Why Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis?

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis is a type of qualitative methodology. Silverman (2006) suggests that methodology refers to a general approach to studying research topics, whereas the method refers to specific research

techniques. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is considered to be a methodology rather than a method as there is no prescribed way of doing IPA. Rather, IPA is considered to be a set of principles or a stance that can be applied flexibly by researchers (Larkin, Watts, & Clifton, 2006; Smith, Larkin, & Flowers, 2009).

My epistemological stance influenced my choice of IPA as a methodology. IPA aims to explore phenomenon on its own terms (e.g. not according to any preconceived set of assumptions and expectations). IPA accepts that it is not possible to gain direct access to the participant’s world but it aims to explore the participant’s world from his/her own perspective. During the process of

exploration, IPA recognises that a researcher will bring his/her own view of the world to the research and acknowledges the nature of the interaction between them and the participant (Willig, 2013). Therefore, IPA has an epistemic commitment to identify and involve the researcher as an inclusive part of the phenomenon they are researching (Larkin et al., 2006, p. 108; Willig, 2013). In this sense, IPA is described as having a double hermeneutic; each participant is

trying to make sense of their personal and social world, whilst the researcher is trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense (Smith, 2004). As a result, the phenomenological analysis produced by the researcher is always an interpretation of the participant’s experience (Willig, 2013). In my view, these assertions appear compatible with a critical realist ontology.

I was also interested in employing IPA within my research as it is considered to be participant-centred research (Smith, Flowers, & Osborn, 1997). It puts people’s perspectives and experiences at the forefront of the study and reinforces that personal phenomena are of value within psychological research (Larkin et al., 2006). This is consistent with with my values about how I practice as an

educational psychologist. During consultations I strive to create a space to listen to others’ views, perspectives and opinions and encourage them to explore and reflect on their experiences with me (Wagner, 2008).

I also considered other qualitative methodologies such as grounded theory and discourse analysis. Starks and Brown Trinidad (2007) and Willig (2008) suggest that there are similarities across each of these methodologies and they can all explore questions of meaning and understanding. However, the aims of each methodology are different. Discourse analysis aims to explore how knowledge, meaning, identities and social phenomena are negotiated and constructed through language and conversation (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). As an approach, it would not be concerned with understanding an individual’s

experience. Instead, it would focus on how the language, words and terminology individuals use when talking about a social process or phenomenon like ELSA, can shed light on a particular area of interest. Grounded theory provides

guidelines on how to identify, link and establish relationships between categories, with the aim of developing an explanatory theory of social processes (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007; Willig, 2008).The role of the researcher is also different in an IPA and a grounded theory methodology. Within a grounded theory

methodology the researcher’s identity, assumptions and standpoints must remain secondary and are not involved within the analysis (Willig, 2008). Within IPA however, the researcher is actively engaged and involved throughout the whole research process, including the analysis. IPA’s philosophical underpinning asserts

that the researcher’s knowledge and assumptions cannot be detached from the research process. Therefore, grounded theory did not fit with the philosophical assumptions underpinning this research. IPA is concerned with understanding individuals’ perspectives and experiences rather than the social context, causes or consequences surrounding it, which a grounded theory methodology would offer (Willig, 2008). As my research question is concerned with exploring individuals’ experiences of the ELSA intervention, IPA was chosen as the appropriate qualitative methodology.