Rationale for using IPA

I have no affinity to any specific approach, no agenda or bias. I simply wanted an approach that would offer a reflexive, adaptable way of working. However, I had to be realistic. My time was limited and as a novice researcher, being able to gain some sort of mastery of one method of analysis was going to prove challenging, let alone having to master multiple approaches, or a “pluralistic approach” (Frost et al., 2010).

Narrative research asks one or more individuals to provide stories about their lives (Riessman, 2008). Narrative research appealed to the storyteller in me, with its emphasis on exploring stories, examining them for content, form and function, and gaining insight into a person’s understanding of the meaning of events in their lives (Frost et al., 2010). Further, as Riessman and Quinney (2005, p.392) note:

“Although narrative may have some roots in phenomenology (Ricoeur, 1991), applications now extend beyond lived experience and worlds

‘behind’ the author. A central area of narrative study is human interaction in relationships – the daily stuff of social work.”

However, a narrative approach presented issues. In terms of a narrative approach, there are a range of definitions, often linked to discipline. At one end of the continuum, narrative can refer to an entire life story. At the other, a story could refer to an answer to a single question (Riessman and Quinney, 2005). In terms of my research, I had specific questions I wanted to explore in my analysis. I needed an approach that would not only allow me to draw out the narratives in the data, but would allow me to examine other concepts such as the voice of the young people and the themes of their discussions.

Riessman and Quinney (2005, p.393) note that “Storytelling is only one genre, which humans employ to accomplish certain effects. Other forms of discourse besides narrative include chronicles, reports, arguments and question and answer exchanges, to name a few.” It should be noted, however, that during the one-to-one interviews, some of the young people drew me into their stories. Perhaps a next step might actually be exploring the life stories of these particular young people, using a narrative approach (Wengraf, 2001).

Having decided on a group approach, I was unsure whether individual narratives would be lost among the group dynamic. Narrative interviewing would have involved undertaking long interviews, with the young people asked to give a detailed account of their story rather than answer a predetermined list of questions. I was conscious the young people might feel placed “on the spot” with such an approach, and would perhaps need more structure throughout the sessions. It would have generated considerable data, likely far too much for me to

analyse. From an ethical point of view, I was unsure whether these young people were ready to share their life stories (Butler, 2002).

Phenomenological research comprises a variety of approaches including Ethnography, Grounded Theory and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). While these approaches have some similarities, each offers its own method of obtaining understanding (Barker et al., 2002 in Bailey, 2011). My study adopts IPA in terms of an approach to analysis (discussed in detail in chapter seven), and it is an overarching theory that will be returned to throughout my thesis.

Much like Flowers et al. (2001), I adopted IPA in my own research for numerous reasons:

“First, in contrast to many other qualitative approaches, it centres explicitly on the links between participants’ talk, cognition and behaviour (Smith, 1996). This stands in contrast to discourse analysis, which rejects the very notion of cognition (Potter & Wetherell, 1987) or indeed grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which only implicitly theorizes the role of cognition” (p.182).

IPA is supported by an ever-growing theoretical foundation and a set of detailed practical, procedural guidelines (for example, Palmer et al., 2010; Tomkins and Eatough, 2010). A key element of the approach that appealed was its flexibility and adaptability (Frost et al., 2010).

Nyawira Githaiga (2014) notes, “IPA’s flexibility is evident in the application of its techniques with various methods, including individual interviews, postal questionnaires, electronic e-mail dialogue, observational methods, and focus groups (Brocki and Wearden 2006; Smith et al. 2010). IPA’s flexibility also accords researchers the freedom to work with various emphases, for example, experiential and contextual aspects (Palmer et al. 2010)” (p.401). This was something of particular importance to myself. There were various

concepts I wanted to examine in the analysis, such as the young people's use of language, the group interaction, the narratives they told, and the development of their voice. IPA, and in particular, the protocol developed by Palmer et al. (2010), allowed me to incorporate these

“various emphases”. As well as deepening my understanding of these young people, and getting as close the their experiences as possible, these analytic emphases enabled me to build a new set of representations for these young people. Further, while an inductive nature is a feature of a qualitative methodology, rather than being unique to IPA, the approach is described as “flexible enough to allow unanticipated topics or themes to emerge during analysis” (Smith, 2004, p.43).”

Drawing on phenomenology and hermeneutics – traditions of particular resonance with myself – IPA offers a framework for research (Bailey, 2011). It is phenomenological, concerned with an individual's subjective experience, and interpretive, recognising that research is a dynamic process, and analysis is informed by the reflections of both the participant and the researcher (Brocki and Wearden, 2006). For the young people in my study, this was an opportunity to reflect on the fictional depictions of looked-after characters and their lives, and enter into a space to challenge deficits in the depictions they were witnessing.

These subjective lived experiences are investigated through detailed interpretation of transcripts of participant accounts. Interpretations are therefore dependent on an individual's ability to to articulate their experiences and a researcher’s ability to analyse these accounts (Bailey, 2011). Although IPA aims to access a participant's perspective, the researcher's own perceptions will always complicate this endeavor. However, it is an interpretative process and the

researcher’s perceptions are required, in order to make sense of the participant's experiences (Larkin et al., 2006; Charles, 2012).

A willingness to explore our self and our relationship with the research in IPA is of clear importance: “Through making ourselves aware of our own feelings about and expectations of the research, we can begin to fully appreciate the nature of our investigation, its relationship to us personally and professionally, and our relationship as a researcher and experiencer in the world to those with whom we wish to gather experiential data” (Shaw, 2010, p.235 in Charles, 2012, p.60). With this in mind, I came to realise I wanted these young people, who had experienced difficulties in their lives, to go on and succeed, in spite of these experiences. At a personal level, I wanted to show I could succeed myself, as someone who identified strongly with these young people.

I was aware I brought a range of preconceptions to the process of analysis, drawn from my personal and professional experience. As stated, I felt these young people being misrepresented, with the focus often falling on the ill effects of the care system, rather than highlighting successes, which I had seen myself. My social work career had also given me prior knowledge of some of the research participants. However, while my own experiences would enable me to make sense of some of the young people's accounts, they would also influence how I collected and analysed the data. Therefore, in order to give my research as much transparency as possible, I adopted a methodological stance that recognised this (Charles, 2012). It is worth reiterating, that while I brought my own experiences to the research, I was very open-minded and willing to have my preconceptions challenged. I wanted these young people to influence me as much as I was influencing them (Freire, 1970). However, I was also concerned

that the research would become about myself, and that was something I guarded against fiercely. While I was integral to the work, it was the voices of these young people I really wanted to capture and share, and hopefully I have maintained a balance in this respect throughout my thesis.

Chapter 5