Researcher Perspective, Influence and Development

Managing the role distinction as a researcher as opposed to a therapist was difficult as the theoretical foundation of IPA and it’s interpretative, idiographic and psychological focus, mirrors the professional identity and application of counselling psychology within a therapy setting. Therefore, this required that I was continually aware of the purpose, ethics and boundaries of this research, whereby the focus was on gaining an insight into the experiences of the participants and answer the research question, as opposed to offering clinical treatment. Engaging in the pilot interview helped me to separate these role identities in order to research sensitively and therapeutically, whilst not providing therapy.

I offered prompts or probing questions in a tentative and sensitive manner, when I believed it was necessary to continue exploration, based on the emerging material from the client, despite deviation from the initial schedule or topic guide. It felt unauthentic and incongruent with the aims of the methodological approach and of my research if I did not utilise freedom with the interviewing approach. Thus, I believe this research experience enhanced my skills in conducting researcher to attend to the breadth of the participant’s narratives, whilst ensuring sensitivity throughout. Moreover, as a trained therapist, I used my intuitive nature and clinical experience to inform when to offer empathetic or validating responses, to ensure sensitivity and the provision of a person-centred approach.

Through the data analysis process, I began to hear the client’s voice as if they spoke about their experience and how they made sense of their own world. This experience enhanced my ability to use IPA. I engaged with the double hermeneutic stage as I interpreted how the participants made sense of their world, whilst interpreting how I made sense of their world, whilst being continuously aware of my prior experiences, biases and knowledge, to the best of my ability. Thus, I learnt how to conduct IPA when the research topic is highly related to my personal experience. Whilst I engaged with data analysis, I had several days where I simply reflected on the data. This proved to be extremely effectively in providing myself with an objective mind and separating the themes from other narratives or my individual story.

Overall, I believe I experienced double hermeneutics and parallel processing as I could easily identity with the experiences of many participants, connect with their narratives and understand the meaning they attributed to their experiences. Whilst doing so, I believe I remained aware of my ‘insider status’ of having personally experienced the death of my father to sudden death during my early adolescent period at 14 years of age. In order to aid

this objectivity and awareness of my personal experiences, I reflected in my personal and research journal, kept summary notes directly after each interview, and explored any difficulties that arose, with my research supervisors, particularly when I felt myself identifying with some aspects of the participants narratives or honing into the lived experiences of participants that were similar to my own when creating and utilising the interview schedule/topic guide, and analysing the data. Although I believe that the emerging themes and consequential suggestions for working with this client group were grounded in data, it is plausible that my own biases may have impacted data gathering, analysis or interpretation insofar that certain themes were prioritised over others. For example, as an Irish individual, I did not probe further when a participant stated “The Irish just get on with it”, as I felt as though I understood what was being communicated. On reflection, I can see that if a participant mentioned a culture different to mine, I would have likely probed further, thus showcasing the limitations of my ability to remain objective and the absence of the use of a double hermeneutic process here. However, the theme of culture did not arise, but further exploration and analysis of this participants’ culture would have shed more light on her nuanced experience. However, it was not necessary to focus on the questions on the topic guide, whereby culture and religious influences were not focused upon, nor did they naturally arise in the narratives of other participants.

Although I have the ability to communicate in a sensitive manner, partly due to my training as a therapist, it has never been for the purpose of research collation. Moreover, I have never previously utilised the core principles of being a therapist in a researcher role. It was initially difficult to anchor myself as a sensitive researcher as opposed to being a therapist. By using a pilot interview, it allowed me to develop this skill, prior to conducting the remaining interviews. I also developed my skills in deviating from my initial interview schedules and facilitating a predominant client-led interview, to ensure that the participant

was in control of how their experience was shared. I developed this skill initially to consciously ensure that I was not controlling the onset of information, due to my shared experience. This skill facilitated my ability to creatively respond to the demands of IPA implementation. I also consolidated my skills in coding and analysing data, whilst the findings from this research taught me the value of using qualitative data in order to gain such rich accounts of an individual’s experience that simply cannot be quantified.

By sharing my research at the BPS Division of Counselling Psychology Conference, presenting at the University of Wolverhampton Annual Progress Review (APR) Day, discussing my annual progression with APR examiners from the University, and by engaging in continuous research discussions with my research supervisors through this research process, my ability as a researcher has been greatly enhanced, particularly as a sensitive researcher.