The selection of a phenomenological approach (IPA) for this project

Qualitative research is an umbrella term which covers the exploration of a social or human experience, within distinct traditions of inquiry (Willig, 2008; Larkin, Watts and Clifton, 2006; Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Qualitative inquiries can take a range of perspectives from realism to relativism (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). However these varied perspectives can create tangible tensions within the qualitative field of research; and at a more specific level, it becomes important to define the perspective adopted by each research inquiry. Although it is argued that the qualitative field of inquiry has ‘no theory or paradigm that is distinctly its own’

(Denzin and Lincoln 2005, p.6), most qualitative research enquiries stress the socially constructed nature of reality (relativism). Denzin and Lincoln (2005) argue that the reliance on ‘realism’ and dualistic epistemologies makes the positivistic/post positivistic position unfit to address complex research issues such as the one discussed here. The qualitative research stance is most suited to exploring lived experience, as it takes a naturalist and interpretative approach to the research topic, thus enabling an in-depth analysis of the meaning-making activity of research participants (Willig 2008; Larkin et al, 2006; Denzin and Lincoln 2005).

At the initial consultative stage of this research project, it was important to determine which qualitative methodology would be most suitable to address the proposed research questions. Within qualitative research inquiry several methodologies were explored, for example: Biography, Ethnography, Phenomenology, Grounded Theory, Case Study and Discourse Analysis (DA). Although there is a range of features which characterize each of these, Wetherell (2008) suggests that they all share the same defining focus on the quality and texture of the experience. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) put forward a range of defining features, which they indicate are mostly shared by these methodologies, for example: they share a similar concern with the richness of the description of the phenomenon; they use post-modern perspectives such as the notion of multiple versions of reality; there is post-modern sensitivity, which means that the researchers carry a sense of personal responsibility for sensitive ethical issues; they are concerned with participants’ (individuals’ or groups’) everyday social problems. This list of features was useful to inform my choice of qualitative methodology. As I considered the differences among these methodologies, I also found that assessing their central purpose or focus was useful to differentiate these qualitative traditions, as suggested by Cresswell (1998). Please refer to Appendix G for a brief consideration on these alternative methodologies.

In this study, I was interested in obtaining the insider’s perspective of a number of self-identified codependents, with shared experience of attending (or who had previously attended) a 12-step recovery group. I was looking for a methodology which addressed the detailed and specific narrative accounts of their experience of codependency, fostering an in-depth understanding of the complex and idiographic aspects of this experience. I was interested in finding out if there were some shared elements of this experience. A phenomenological position was considered most suitable to guide this exploration.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is an umbrella term for a philosophical movement and a range of research methods. This philosophical movement emerged with Husserl (1859- 1938), and focuses on the study of human experience (Smith et al, 2009). Langdridge (2007) describes phenomenology as the ‘study of things in their appearing’ (P.11). He explains that the concept of intentionality is fundamental to phenomenology, understood as a key feature of consciousness; in other words we become conscious of the world as we engage with it. Some constructs may not necessarily exist in themselves, but take a form of existence as we become conscious of them. Therefore the only way to access the phenomenon would be by asking the individual who experiences it. Phenomenological studies have their central focus on a determined phenomenon not only as it appears (noema) but also in the way it is experienced (noesis) by the person. So for example, in this study, codependency is the initial focus of experience (noema). The conscious awareness of codependency reveals how codependency is experienced (noesis). By focusing on the experience of codependency as it is lived by these self-identified codependents, I hoped to come to understand not only the experience, but the person who experiences it.

Within phenomenology there are many different stances, for example: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith et al, 2009), Hermeneutic Phenomenology (van Manen, 2007) and Descriptive Phenomenology (Giorgi, 1985, Giorgi & Giorgi, 2008), among others. However, they all share the same original philosophical perspectives and focus on the meaning of the individual’s experience. Descriptive Phenomenology attempts to apply some of Husserl’s early principles of ‘reduction’ to arrive at the ‘essence of the phenomenon’. It strives to apply systematic and scientific rigour to the research enquiry. The researcher stays ‘very’ close to the data, in order to attempt to describe the phenomenon as it appears, without any interpretation. On the other hand, hermeneutic phenomenology is inspired by some of the late Husserl’s thoughts and also by the further phenomenological developments brought by his disciples, Heidegger and Gadamer. The methodology focuses on the understanding of the meaning of the experience, from a variety of data sources, with greater interpretative engagement, moving away from the essentialist structures proposed by the Descriptive version. There is a reluctance to

apply any explicit method of data analysis, and a strong interest in the ‘hidden meanings’ of the experience.

Please see below, an extract from my reflexive journal which demonstrates my journey of understanding and decision making as I considered both methodologies:

Reflective Account (May 2012).

I noticed that both methodologies were representing two distinct poles within phenomenology: from one side, it appeared that there was a scientifically rigorous methodical approach and from another there was a loose, flexible interpretative approach. I soon concluded that Descriptive phenomenology was not congruent with my view that, as we attempt to make sense of the experience, both the research participants and myself add a degree of interpretation and subjectivity to the research. On the other hand, the Hermeneutic Phenomenology appeared to be too flexible, without a clear framework about how to analyse the data, leaving too many open endings and perhaps room for oversights from my part. A pure phenomenological or descriptive approach did not have enough room for interpretation and a totally hermeneutic approach had too much. I felt that as a novice phenomenological researcher, I needed a methodology which would allow room for the interpretative stance of the research, as well as providing a malleable structure in which it could be investigated. At the time, I read Smith’s (2011) article, where he stated: ‘experience cannot be plucked straight forward from the heads of participants, it requires a process of engagement and interpretation on the part of the researcher…IPA involves the detailed analytic treatment of each case, followed the search for patterns across the cases…(p.10)’. The choice of the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis appeared ideal; I had found a methodology that sat in the middle, providing a balance, between the hermeneutic and descriptive stances, and providing also a structure for the research analysis’.

This reflective account reveals why Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methodology was considered to be most suitable for this study (Smith et al, 2009). This choice will be further explained below.

Interpretative phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

The IPA methodology has become widely used in health and social care research (Smith, 2007; Knight, Wykes and Hayward, 2007; Bolas, Wersch and Flynn, 2006). The methodology is ‘committed to the examination of how people make sense of their major life experiences’ (Smith et al 2009, p.1). IPA is concerned with the personal lived experience, and the meanings attributed by the participants. In IPA the researcher aims to get as close to the experience as possible (Hefferon and Gil- Rodriguez, 2011); however IPA also adopts a hermeneutic approach to phenomenology. It offers a more interpretative approach to the analysis than descriptive approaches to phenomenology (Reynolds, 2003; Larkin, et al 2006). This interpretative component situates the IPA analysis within an interpretative cycle, involving the perspectives of both the participant and the researcher (Smith, 2004). IPA is formed by three key theoretical underpinnings: phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography (Smith et al, 2009); these are discussed below.

Theoretical foundations of IPA and Reflexivity

IPA was shaped by the ideas of many phenomenological philosophers: Husserl, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer and Heidegger (Langdridge, 2007; Smith et al, 2009). There are different complementary perspectives within phenomenology, and IPA draws from several of these perspectives together.

Husserl (1970) defended the examination of the experience in its essence. His famous statement: ‘go back to the things themselves’ is key to phenomenology (Smith et al, 2009:12), and inspired the initial ideas of this research project (see reflective extract under section 1). Husserl introduced the idea of transcended reduction, a particular attitude developed when the researcher aims to describe the conscious experience (Langdridge, 2007). The method involves bracketing off (epoché) all past and present knowledge or interpretation about the experience. The phenomenological researcher aims to put aside the natural world and the world of interpretation, also called the ‘natural attitude’ (Finlay, 2003, 2008, p.1), in order to see the phenomenon in its essence. Moving away further from a descriptive and transcendent perspective, existentialist philosophers such as Heidegger and Sartre argued that the individual is immersed in an ever-expanding context of objects, relationships, language and projects (Larkin et al, 2006). Heidegger (1978) introduced the concept of intersubjectivity - a shared, overlapping and relational

position of our engagement in the world. He advocated that a completely detached analysis is unachievable, as the researcher will always have a perspective on the experience. He argued that the best that a researcher can aim for is to manage their own interpretations.

There is a clear and established debate in phenomenology about the possibility of the researcher setting aside all their understanding and interpretations (Van Manen, 2007; Finlay, 2008, 2009, 2012; Giorgi and Giorgi 2009). Phenomenological authors proposed a valuable solution for this tension, by introducing the concept of a flexible ‘phenomenological attitude’, comprising openness, and sensitivity towards pre- understandings, thus attempting to see the information with a clear perspective (Finlay, 2008, p.1; Langdridge 2007). The process involves the researcher moving beyond the natural attitude and adopting an open, non-judgemental approach to the information, whilst attempting to separate their past knowledge and assumptions.

This is achieved only through a process of ongoing reflexivity. Reflexivity has been defined as ‘the process of continually reflecting upon our interpretations of both our experience and the phenomena being studied so as to move beyond the partiality of our previous understandings and our investment in particular research outcomes’ (Finlay 2003a, p.108). Reflexivity has been an important and ongoing activity across the various stages of this project. Phenomenologists contend that the researcher’s subjectivity is inevitably involved in the research process (Smith et al, 2009; Finlay, 2006, 2009, 2012; Osborn and Smith, 1998). They suggest that ‘it is the realisation of the intersubjective interconnectedness between the researcher and the researched that characterises phenomenology’ (Finlay 2009, p.6). This interconnectedness creates the research process (Smith et al, 2009; Osborn and Smith, 1998).

Through reflexivity, I became critically aware of my position as a researcher, and reflected on how my personal experience, thoughts, beliefs, opinions and interpretations, influenced the research process and outcome (Finlay, 2008). In order to organise this process and to ensure the transparency of this activity, I kept a reflective diary, and a folder, where I documented my reflexive process throughout the PhD period (Smith et al 2009; Hollway and Jefferson, 2005), some of which was also discussed at meetings with the PhD supervisors. Extracts of this material are used throughout this document, with the intention to illustrate my personal involvement with the research process and decision-making processes. Heidegger’s

perspective of phenomenology as an interpretative activity highlighted the importance of hermeneutics in IPA. Hermeneutics is mostly concerned with methods and purposes of interpretation, aiming to uncover the intentions and original meaning of the author (Hefferon and Gil-Rodriguez, 2011; Smith et al 2009). In IPA the researcher engages in an interpretative cycle, ‘a dynamic relationship between the part and the whole at a series of levels’ (Smith et al 2009, p.28). Phenomenological researchers accept that in order to understand the ‘part’ sometimes there is a need to look at the ‘whole’ and vice-versa. Please see below a sample of my reflexive journal which exemplifies this.

Reflective Account July 2013

‘I am finishing the analyses of each case; now I need to organise the themes. My intention is to group each theme under higher order themes, and create a table of themes for each participant…I have cut each theme with respective quotes on small pieces of paper and spread them across the floor. As I looked for similarities across the themes, like magic, I could note that some overlapped, some took a higher order and some were just secondary subthemes. I could see the hermeneutic cycle here, as I looked at some individual themes, belonging to higher order themes, which in turn were grouped under a master table of themes, giving me an overview of the whole picture. However, as I look and group these themes together, there is also some struggle as this interpretation is challenging, creating an uncomfortable sense of ambiguity’

The IPA researcher also engages in double hermeneutics considering both participant’s and researcher’s perspectives when analysing the phenomenon. In this case, the researcher is attempting to ‘make sense’ of the participant’s ‘making sense’ of the experience (Langdridge, 2007). This analytical process will nonetheless be influenced by the researcher’s own views and experiences even when attempts are made through reflexivity to minimise such influences. Similarly this process is subjected to participants’ own views and interpretation. Therefore IPA accepts that it is not possible to realistically reach the complete essence of the experience, as it is always influenced by these two stances.

‘Timothy interview analysis 14.03.13.

As I analyse Timothy’s interview, I find myself reflecting on his needs. He comes across as someone who is emotionally deprived and who focuses on people to fulfil his emotional needs. As I am always reading and thinking, I found myself reading some articles on attachment (Daire et al 2012), and relating this to his experience. I am taking notes of some of my ideas, and reflecting on these; however I need to park this interpretative reflexion aside, for a little while, as I progress with the analysis…’

The final characteristic of IPA is a valuing of idiography. Attention to the particular gives the methodology a unique identity. IPA is concerned with the detailed examination of each participant’s experience, which contrasts with nomothetic approaches concerned with more general claims about a population or group (Smith et al, 2009). Smith explains that this idiographic aspect carries a twofold influence. First of all, it helps the researcher to focus on a detailed analysis of the experience of each person in the sample. Secondly, it assists with the understanding of the experience from the point of view of individuals in specific contexts. IPA carries out a case by case, in-depth systematic analysis (Langdridge, 2007), capturing the fine detail of their experience.

The appropriateness of the IPA methodology to explore the lived experience of codependency.

The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methodology is founded on accessing key phenomenological understandings of the lived experience as context dependent; related to the person’s social, historical and cultural spheres, closely intertwined with language and discourse (Larkin, Eatough and Osborn 2011; Larkin, Watts, Clifton, 2006). IPA has roots in cognitive psychology and hence assumes that much of our experience of self and world is mediated by language (Smith et al 2009). It also supports the social constructionist view that social-cultural and historical processes are key to how the person experiences and interprets his or her life experiences (Eatough and Smith 2008). IPA researchers use language and discourse as an arena for understanding the lived experience, understanding the person as ‘embedded in a world of things and relationships’ and cannot be meaningfully detached from it (Smith et al 2009: 29). Within this perspective, language is a paramount aspect of this activity, as Smith et al (2009:194) state: ‘interpretations of the experience are always shaped, limited and enabled by, language’.

Although IPA does not appear to draw from any particular model of personhood, it carries a philosophical root in the phenomenological works of Heidegger (1962/1927) and Husserl (1927), understanding people as ‘sense making creatures’, ‘physical and psychological entities’, who are immersed in the world and whose ‘actions have meaningful and existential consequences’ (Smith et al 2009: 33,34). Informed by the sociological perspective of symbolic interactionism (Mead 1934, Blumer 1969), IPA theorists understand people as creative agents in their contexts (Smith 1996, Eatough and Smith 2008, Shinebourne and Smith 2009). As creative agents, people attribute significance to things and act based on the meaning that things have for them. This happens through an ongoing intersubjective interpretative activity, associated with both the social and personal world of the person. IPA researchers look closely to the context-dependent lifeworld of the person, bringing an unique interpretative element to this activity, through the Heideggarian concept of double hermeneutics (Smith et al 2009, Smith 2011, Larkin et al 2006). Language and discourse are integral and central components of the double hermeneutic process, being key media by which the person makes sense or interprets his or her lived experience and by which researchers interpret these experiences (Larkin et al 2006, Eatough and Smith 2008). This sense-making activity is a core phenomenological process that both the researcher and participant share. In IPA, the researcher engages in an intense interpretative activity with the personal verbal material obtained from the participant aiming to obtain a rich, in- depth account of their personal experience (Smith et al 2009, Smith 2011).

As attention to language forms an important aspect of the IPA process, the methodology shares some ground with other discourse-based methodologies such as discourse analysis (Potter and Wetherell 1987; Potter, 2001; 2003a; Wiggins and Potter 2008). Frost, Holt, Shinebourne et al (2011) explain that in relation to their focus on language, these methodologies could be considered as being ranged along a continuum, from the experiential (IPA) to a more descriptive discursive focus (Discourse Analysis); highlighting the overlaps on their shared focus on the language, searching for ‘linguistic meanings within textual material’ (Madhill 2000:1).

Discourse-based methodologies place emphasis on the particular textual elements of language and discourse formation or interactions, as the main focus (Drew 2008, Willig, 2003). For example, discourse analysts such as those who use Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) are concerned with the way language is applied to construct a particular situation or event. They seek to map and analyse the ‘subject

– object’ positions, interactions within the text to understand the power dynamics, the subjective experiences and the perfomative elements of language (Willing 2008, Frost et al 2011).

IPA, on the other hand, suggests that the lived experience carries much more meaning than the textual or contextual situated linguistic features found within the text. Differing from these methodologies, IPA seeks a more in-depth kind of knowledge (Shinebourne and Smith 2009). In IPA, the researcher is systematically analysing the text using a structured layered process, reading between the lines, searching for deeper meanings, brought to the text by the linguistic features used by the participant, so to capture an in-depth lived experience of a person who is embedded in a context (Frost, 2009, Milward 2006, Smith 1996). The IPA researcher is searching for deeper and hidden meanings in the text, which will reveal the phenomenon under investigation. For example, in his study about the experience of pain Smith (2011:9) highlighted the key role played by particular language extracts - identified as ‘the gem’, which in spite of its small size, could be valuable in revealing important aspects of the experience under analysis (e.g. ‘I was

a nice person, and now I am a cow’ revealing the participant’s struggles with a

positive and a negative sense of self caused by the severity of his pain). In this study, Smith explains the root of IPA as a phenomenological approach, adopting a dynamic, interactive hermeneutic process, where the researcher is constantly of