Using theory in IPA

Smith (2004) discussed how theory is used in IPA and how it may be applied in several ways.

First, there is the overall theoretical paradigm, which is psychology in the case of a standard IPA

method. This is the theoretical lens. Smith explained that it is the general psychological interest that is first applied to the field texts to generate a level of abstraction beyond the descriptions and actual words of the participant. As is described in more detail below, the IPA method first annotates the content of the field texts and then highlights themes at a more conceptual level. It is the underlying theoretical lens that informs the way that the initial themes are identified. Themes are then explored further using the theoretical lens to build greater depth in the conceptual analysis (Smith, 2004; Smith et al., 2009: 91).

Smith (2004) explained that there is another option used occasionally, where a further level of analysis may be introduced by applying a particular extant theory to the participant’s accounts.

This goes beyond a general theoretical lens so that the analysis is influenced by a “specific pre-existing formal theoretical position”. A theoretical model or framework is therefore applied during the analysis stage.

IPA researchers “do not attempt to verify or negate specific hypothesis established on the basis of extant literature; rather they construct broader research questions” (Smith, 2004). IPA is not used to test theory by developing hypotheses (Smith & Osborn, 2008; Smith & Eatough, 2012).

However, it may apply theory towards understanding the research questions and in doing so, the analysis may engage with a specific theory, model or framework (Smith et al., 2009: 48).

The use of theory in the analysis is explained further by Smith et al. (2009: 47-48), who said that the primary research question in IPA research deliberately avoids imposing predefined theoretical constructs but does situate the question within a specific context. However, theory may be introduced at a later stage so the analysis may “use the data as a lever to evaluate existing theories and models”. They explained that this involves engaging with an extant theory but does not mean actually testing it; and while the analysis in this study has been organised and structured by theory, it does not introduce hypotheses.

Finally, once the detailed analysis had been completed of each participant’s account as well as the cross-case analysis, only then were the fieldwork outcomes considered in relation to the extant literature in order to identify connections and issues for further discussion.

4.12.5.1Declaring how theory is used in the research analysis

IPA engages with theory towards create an understanding of the research questions and in doing so, the analysis may engage with a specific theory, model or framework (Smith et al., 2009: 48).

This research was exploratory. While the question is open-ended, it is bounded by the theoretical lens, which is communicative, and this is declared as a means to frame the primary research question. However, no predefined theory was tested, and no hypotheses were established to direct the research.

However, as the IPA literature makes clear, it is possible to introduce an existing model or framework at the analysis stage of the research and this was done during this research with the

use of the framework of cross-sector partnership (XSP) value. The conceptual framework of XSP value was applied in the analysis of the field texts.

The conceptual framework was used to organise the research analysis in a systematic manner. It also structured the analysis so that the experience of the phenomenon for each participant was explored and a cross-case analysis could be undertaken. In this way, the analysis facilitated two levels of analysis. The first was to assess areas of similarity and difference between the conceptual framework and the individual participant accounts from the fieldwork. The second was the cross-case analysis in which the findings of each participant were compared against other participants.

The outcome of the analysis concluded on areas of similarity and difference, including differences by omission. It was where areas of difference were found that there was an opportunity to refine the existing conceptual framework and these refinements could either be adaptions or extensions as described by Crane et al. (2016) .

4.12.5.2Avoiding selective bias

What is important here is how the disciplinary lens and the conceptual framework were used so that concerns about the risk of selective bias could be avoided. The IPA method addresses this risk directly.

In the case of the disciplinary lens, this research is no different from any other in that at this level, the lens frames the research and demarcates the broad theoretical thinking. It is the disciplinary lens that directs the design of the fieldwork rather than specific findings. So for example, it means that rather than ask interview questions on governance structures, in this research, interview questions were directed toward relationships and collaborative interactions.

In using an existing conceptual framework, the IPA method does not simply seek consensus with existing ideas, but instead considers areas of similarity and difference. It seeks a balanced view.

Yardley (2008) said that the search for disconfirming evidence gives reassurance to the reader that the researcher has not selected outcomes arbitrarily or been selectively biased and it lends credibility and plausibility to the research process and the outcomes. The IPA method provides a means to systematically identify areas of difference, including areas of omission.

A key control over selective bias is the cross-case analysis so that none of the individual cases is seen in isolation. In particular, areas of difference are carefully scrutinised to find further corroborating evidence or alternatively, to confirm that the evidence supports the assessment of a unique perspective. The comparison allows areas of similarity to be assessed, differences to be scrutinised and omissions to be highlighted.

In addition, to ensure that the analysis process is rigorous and upholds quality requirements, the IPA audit trail ensures transparency by making the process open to scrutiny.

4.12.6 Researcher note: Reflecting on the theoretical lens¹⁴