Loss, Grief and Growth: An Interpretative Phenomenological ...
Interpretative phenomenological analysis · Kate Hefferonand Elena Gil-Rodriguezdiscuss...
4
756 vol 24 no 10 october 2011 developing the research aims and questions. The project is then shoehorned into the methodology, with students failing to understand that they have effectively engaged in the research process in reverse. Students are then also unable to comprehend why or how this might generate problems in executing the research project (Barker et al., 2002; Punch, 2006). There is also an apparent lack of understanding in both students and supervisors that IPA is primarily an interpretive approach. This misconception, accompanied by a lack of confidence in raising the level of interpretation in analyses, results in broadly descriptive IPA that lacks depth and therefore demonstrates little difference to a standard thematic analysis. This does not represent good IPA (Smith, 2010). Given these issues, good-quality supervisory input is clearly paramount. Unfortunately, attendance patterns and numbers in the London Regional Group, along with frequent private requests from students for supplementary research supervision, suggest that it is not always forthcoming. We now turn to common misconceptions in the ‘supervisory space’ between student and supervisor, which in our experience appear to create multiple difficulties in producing good IPA. More is not always more Students consistently appear to experience pressure to include too many participants, seemingly in order to placate research boards and supervisors in line with the quantitative monopoly within academic research. This necessarily de- emphasises IPA’s commitment to idiography. As first suggested by Reid et al. (2005) less is more in IPA: fewer participants examined at a greater depth is always preferable to a broader, shallow and simply descriptive analysis of many individuals, as commonly seen in thematic analysis, grounded theory or poor IPA. Smith et al. (2009) highlight I f you study, research or teach within the applied psychologies, you will no doubt have heard of the fashionable qualitative method interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA: Smith et al., 1999; Smith & Osborn, 2003). Indeed, between the years 1996 and 2008, there were 294 empirical papers published, indicating the increasing popularity of this methodology (Smith, 2010). Conceptualised in the mid-1990s (Smith, 1996), this methodology could be argued to have already assumed a dominant position in qualitative research (Smith, 2010; Willig, 2008). Ultimately, this rise in popularity will have some effect on the quality of published IPA studies and student work alike. There is a clearly visible community associated with IPA (www.ipa.bbk.ac.uk) that includes a website and discussion forum, regional IPA groups, an annual conference and a range of training workshops from basics to advanced to training for trainers. With this in mind, and drawing on our varied experience conducting and supervising IPA research as well as facilitating regional IPA research groups in both Scotland and London, this article will tackle a number of pertinent issues that have developed due to this rise in popularity. These issues will be relevant for researchers, supervisors and examiners of IPA. We are addressing a perhaps surprisingly wide audience here. Despite the early emphasis on health psychology, we have noticed an increase in the diversity of the student population attending the London Regional Group that has now branched out into other applied psychologies, primarily clinical, counselling, educational and occupational (Smith et al., 2009). This is reflected in recent publications such as Todd et al. (2010), Rizq & Target (2008) and Millward (2006). Interestingly, there is a conspicuous absence of peer-reviewed educational psychology articles. IPA also appears to have become the ‘default’ option for many students at many levels. This tends to result in poorly constructed, primarily descriptive projects that do not reflect good-quality IPA. Why are so many students ‘defaulting’ to IPA? We suspect that for postgraduate students in the applied fields of health, clinical and counselling, IPA’s focus on subjective lived experience is something that intuitively appeals. For undergraduates, we would suggest that an apparent lack of training in a broad variety of qualitative research methods creates a situation in which IPA becomes the default option. In addition, there appears to be a general misapprehension that IPA is simply a form of thematic analysis with little emphasis on interpretation and is therefore, dare we say it, the easy option (see Braun & Clarke, 2006, for an excellent overview of thematic analysis). Amongst students, we have seen distinct and persistent issues emerge over the years that relate to the planning and conducting of IPA research. Students tend to choose the methodology in advance of Barker, C., Pistrang, N. & Elliott, R. (2002). Research methods in clinical and counselling psychology (2nd edn). New York: Wiley. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Chapman, E. et al. (2007). Psychosocial issues for patients with ventricular assist devices. American Journal of Critical Care, 16, 72–81. Dickson, A., Knussen, C. & Flowers, P. (2008). ‘That was my old life; it’s almost like a past-life now’: Identity crisis, loss and adjustment amongst people living with chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychology and Health, 23, 459–476. Eatough, V. & Smith, J.A. (2006). I feel like a scrambled egg in my head: An idiographic case study of meaning making and anger using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 79, 115–135. Elliott, R., Fischer, C. & Rennie, D. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229. Hanley, T. & Lennie, C. (2008). Setting up a student research group. The Psychologist, 21, 129. Millward, L.J. (2006). The transition to motherhood in an organizational context. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 79, 315–333. Punch, K.F. (2006). Developing effective research proposals (2nd edn). London: Sage. references METHODS Interpretative phenomenological analysis Kate Hefferon and Elena Gil-Rodriguez discuss implications of the rise in popularity of IPA for both teachers and students
Transcript of Interpretative phenomenological analysis · Kate Hefferonand Elena Gil-Rodriguezdiscuss...
756 vol 24 no 10 october 2011
developing the research aims andquestions. The project is then shoehornedinto the methodology, with studentsfailing to understand that they haveeffectively engaged in the research processin reverse. Students are then also unableto comprehend why or how this mightgenerate problems in executing theresearch project (Barker et al., 2002;Punch, 2006).
There is also an apparent lack ofunderstanding in both students andsupervisors that IPA is primarily aninterpretive approach. Thismisconception, accompanied by a lack of confidence in raising the level ofinterpretation in analyses, results inbroadly descriptive IPA that lacks depthand therefore demonstrates littledifference to a standard thematic analysis.This does not represent good IPA (Smith,2010).
Given these issues, good-qualitysupervisory input is clearly paramount.Unfortunately, attendance patterns andnumbers in the London Regional Group,along with frequent private requests fromstudents for supplementary researchsupervision, suggest that it is not alwaysforthcoming. We now turn to commonmisconceptions in the ‘supervisory space’between student and supervisor, which inour experience appear to create multipledifficulties in producing good IPA.
More is not always moreStudents consistently appear toexperience pressure to include too manyparticipants, seemingly in order to placateresearch boards and supervisors in linewith the quantitative monopoly withinacademic research. This necessarily de-emphasises IPA’s commitment toidiography. As first suggested by Reid etal. (2005) less is more in IPA: fewerparticipants examined at a greater depthis always preferable to a broader, shallowand simply descriptive analysis of manyindividuals, as commonly seen inthematic analysis, grounded theory orpoor IPA. Smith et al. (2009) highlight
If you study, research or teach withinthe applied psychologies, you will nodoubt have heard of the fashionable
qualitative method interpretativephenomenological analysis (IPA: Smith etal., 1999; Smith & Osborn, 2003). Indeed,between the years 1996 and 2008, therewere 294 empirical papers published,indicating the increasing popularity of this methodology (Smith, 2010).
Conceptualised in the mid-1990s(Smith, 1996), this methodology could be argued to have already assumed adominant position in qualitative research(Smith, 2010; Willig, 2008). Ultimately,this rise in popularity will have someeffect on the quality of published IPAstudies and student work alike. There is a clearly visible community associatedwith IPA (www.ipa.bbk.ac.uk) thatincludes a website and discussion forum,regional IPA groups, an annual conferenceand a range of training workshops frombasics to advanced to training for trainers.
With this in mind, and drawing onour varied experience conducting andsupervising IPA research as well asfacilitating regional IPA research groups in both Scotland and London, this articlewill tackle a number of pertinent issuesthat have developed due to this rise inpopularity. These issues will be relevantfor researchers, supervisors and examinersof IPA.
We are addressing a perhapssurprisingly wide audience here. Despitethe early emphasis on health psychology,we have noticed an increase in the
diversity of the student populationattending the London Regional Groupthat has now branched out into otherapplied psychologies, primarily clinical,counselling, educational and occupational(Smith et al., 2009). This is reflected inrecent publications such as Todd et al.(2010), Rizq & Target (2008) andMillward (2006). Interestingly, there is a conspicuous absence of peer-reviewededucational psychology articles.
IPA also appears to have become the‘default’ option for many students at manylevels. This tends to result in poorlyconstructed, primarily descriptive projectsthat do not reflect good-quality IPA. Whyare so many students ‘defaulting’ to IPA?We suspect that for postgraduate studentsin the applied fields of health, clinical andcounselling, IPA’s focus on subjective livedexperience is something that intuitivelyappeals. For undergraduates, we wouldsuggest that an apparent lack of trainingin a broad variety of qualitative researchmethods creates a situation in which IPAbecomes the default option. In addition,there appears to be a generalmisapprehension that IPA is simply a formof thematic analysis with little emphasison interpretation and is therefore, dare we say it, the easy option (see Braun &Clarke, 2006, for an excellent overview of thematic analysis).
Amongst students, we have seendistinct and persistent issues emerge overthe years that relate to the planning andconducting of IPA research. Students tendto choose the methodology in advance of
Barker, C., Pistrang, N. & Elliott, R.(2002). Research methods in clinicaland counselling psychology (2nd edn).New York: Wiley.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Usingthematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,77–101.
Chapman, E. et al. (2007). Psychosocialissues for patients with ventricularassist devices. American Journal of
Critical Care, 16, 72–81.Dickson, A., Knussen, C. & Flowers, P.
(2008). ‘That was my old life; it’salmost like a past-life now’: Identitycrisis, loss and adjustment amongstpeople living with chronic fatiguesyndrome. Psychology and Health, 23,459–476.
Eatough, V. & Smith, J.A. (2006). I feel likea scrambled egg in my head: Anidiographic case study of meaning
making and anger usinginterpretative phenomenologicalanalysis. Psychology andPsychotherapy: Theory, Research andPractice, 79, 115–135.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C. & Rennie, D. (1999).Evolving guidelines for publication ofqualitative research studies inpsychology and related fields. BritishJournal of Clinical Psychology, 38,215–229.
Hanley, T. & Lennie, C. (2008). Setting upa student research group. ThePsychologist, 21, 129.
Millward, L.J. (2006). The transition tomotherhood in an organizationalcontext. Journal of Occupational &Organizational Psychology, 79,315–333.
Punch, K.F. (2006). Developing effectiveresearch proposals (2nd edn). London:Sage.
refe
renc
esM
ETHO
DS
Interpretativephenomenological analysisKate Hefferon and Elena Gil-Rodriguez discuss implications of the rise inpopularity of IPA for both teachers and students
psy 10_11 p756_759 methods_Layout 1 20/09/2011 15:44 Page 756
Reid, K., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2005).Exploring the lived experience. ThePsychologist, 18, 20–23.
Rizq, R. & Target, M. (2008). The power ofbeing seen. British Journal ofGuidance & Counselling, 36, 131–153.
Smith, J.A. (1996). Beyond the dividebetween cognition and discourse.Psychology & Health, 11, 261–271.
Smith, J.A. (2004). Reflecting on thedevelopment of interpretative
phenomenological analysis and itscontribution to qualitative psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1,39–54.
Smith, J.A. (2010, September). Evaluatingthe contribution of interpretativephenomenological analysis to healthpsychology. Keynote addresspresented at BPS Health PsychologyAnnual Conference, Aston, UK.
Smith, J.A. (2011). Evaluating the
contribution of interpretativephenomenological analysis. HealthPsychology Review, 5(1), 9–27.
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M.(2009). Interpretative phenomenologicalanalysis: Theory, method and research.London: Sage.
Smith, J., Jarman, M. & Osborn, M.(1999). Doing interpretivephenomenological analysis. In M.Murray & K. Chamberlain (Eds.)
Qualitative health psychology. London:Sage.
Smith, J. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretivephenomenological analysis. In J.A.Smith (Ed.) Qualitative psychology: Apractical guide to research methods(pp.51-80). London: Sage.
Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2007). Pain asan assault on the self: Aninterpretative phenomenologicalanalysis of the psychological impact
the fact that sample size is contextual andmust be considered on a study-by-studybasis. However, as a rough guide theysuggest between three and six participantsfor an undergraduate or master’s level IPA study and from four to ten datapoints for professional doctorates, withrecommendations for PhD becoming less easy to explicate. Following on fromthese guidelines, and our experience ofstudent difficulties in this area, thereappears to be a clear need for supervisorsor academic boards to embrace IPA’sidiographic commitment in terms ofsmaller sample sizes, perhaps focusingmore on the adage that ‘less is more’ in IPA.
‘Where’s your control group?’It is a common misconception that it is desirable for a novice to comparegroups using IPA, and that this would be reflective of good practice. Making a comparison within an IPA study isactually quite difficult to achieve withinthe confines of most student IPA as itrequires greater numbers of participantsand therefore tends to result in studies
that are primarily descriptive and lackdepth. Smith et al. (2009) encourage a less ambitious project for beginners,focusing on perhaps comparing onedimension in a single group, thusmaintaining a deeper level of analysiswith a more interpretative focus. IPA’sfocus on convergence and divergencewithin a participant group’s experience of a phenomenon naturally requirescomparisons at the individual level(comparing case to case). Participants are purposively recruited to present a homogeneous sample in terms of the particular research topic.
Too many questionsA problem which students continuallybring to the Regional Group is difficultyconstructing a good quality semi-structured interview schedule. Studentstend to produce schedules that are toolong, overly extensive and detailed, andtherefore constraining. This appears toarise from an erroneous belief and fearthat topic areas of interest to theresearcher will not be covered. In ourexperience however, on the whole,
these fears areunfounded as these areas can beaddressed later onin the interviewprocess once theparticipant hasexpressed theirinterpretation oftheir livedexperience.Gathering good-quality data for IPAasks for a moreopen-endedinterviewmaintaining acareful balancebetween guidingand being led.Thus, interview
schedules should beshort, starting with
broad, general questions that allow theparticipant to set the parameters of thetopic, not the other way around. This isso that the researcher does not imposetheir understanding of the phenomenonon the participant’s narrative (Smith et al.,2009).
Simply describing is not enoughAs mentioned above, it is evident thatstudents and supervisors tend to fail to develop the analysis to a sufficientinterpretative level. Alongside this there is an inclination for students to presenttoo large a number of descriptivesuperordinate and subordinate themeswith insufficient data extracts presentedto support each theme. At the other endof the scale, students may present a largenumber of short descriptive quotes in anattempt to demonstrate good frequencyfor a theme. However, once again, thistends to result in a lack of depth that doesnot represent good IPA.
A tip here is that there is no hard-and-fast rule for how many themes areappropriate for what size of project, butthat a smaller number of themes tends torepresent a more thorough andsynthesised analysis. There are a numberof theoretical papers that demonstratehow higher levels of interpretation mightbe achieved (e.g. Smith, 2004), alongwith a number of examples of good-quality published empirical IPA thatdemonstrate a depth of analysis with agood level of interpretation (e.g.Chapman et al., 2007; Dickson et al.,2008; Eatough & Smith, 2006; Smith &Osborn, 2007).
Deeper reflection on quality inIPAEvaluating quality in qualitative researchis a bone of contention within academiain general. This is clearly reflected in anapparent lack of understanding of how to demonstrate validity in an IPA researchproject. We would suggest that Yardley(2000, 2008) and Elliott et al. (1999)
read discuss contribute at www.thepsychologist.org.uk 757
methods
Less can be more
psy 10_11 p756_759 methods_Layout 1 20/09/2011 15:45 Page 757
themes in the analysis. In observing thesesimple guidelines researchers shouldachieve more depth in their IPA.
A model of a Regional GroupThe London Regional Group was foundedat Birkbeck, University of London byVirginia Eatough in 2005, and it has gonefrom strength to strength. We assumedfacilitation of the group in March 2009.In its present format we meet every othermonth to cover a range of activitiesincluding troubleshooting variousproblems and queries relating to researchdesign, interview schedules, the analyticalprocess, reflexivity, epistemological issuesand debates, recent research, and validitychecks on emergent themes and analyses.Occasionally, we also pre-read and discusstheoretical papers relating to IPA,phenomenology and qualitative inquiry ingeneral. On the whole, we find attendeesrange from undergraduate andpostgraduate through to academics. Inaddition, the group has attracted research-active professionals from disciplines asdiverse as architecture and commercialmarket research.
In line with Hanley and Lennie(2008), we believe that group membersvalue practical tips and the supportprovided by those in a similar situation to themselves. The group demystifies theprocess of conducting IPA research andcan help consolidate currentunderstanding of the theoretical andpractical issues involved. This group can provide an excellent model for theprovision of an additional supportnetwork during what can be a veryisolating time when conducting andwriting up research. In addition to this,IPA groups can also provide theopportunity for theoretical and
represent useful frameworks within whichto evaluate and demonstrate the validityof IPA research. We recommend that bothstudents and supervisors familiarisethemselves with these guidelines and usethem to explicate the validity of their IPA(Smith, 2010). Quality in published IPA isaddressed specifically in Jonathan Smith’s2010 keynote at the British PsychologicalSociety’s annual Health PsychologyConference at Aston University andrecent article in Health Psychology Review(Smith, 2011). This issue is alsocomprehensively addressed in Smith et al. (2009), drawing on Lucy Yardley’sframework for validity in qualitativeresearch (Yardley, 2000, 2008). Thisinvolves attention to four broadprinciples: sensitivity to context;commitment and rigour; transparencyand coherence; and impact andimportance.
We also recommend reflecting on twoof the publications we mentioned abovefor guidance and clarity regarding whatconstitutes good-quality presentation ofIPA research. In their study of identitycrisis, loss and adjustment amongstpeople living with chronic fatigue,Dickson and colleagues (2008) present a manageable number of master themes(three) demonstratingreduction and engagementwith the data. We learn thenuances of Anne,Bartholomew and the othersvia the author’s inclusion ofmultiple illustrations fromthe same participant (e.gp.464 ‘And later on…’).Furthermore, no quote is leftto itself – it is embedded in the personsaccount and discussed with interpretationby the researcher. The researcher alsoattempts to demonstrate both theindividual’s and the group’s experienceintertwining each person’s account withthe others (e.g. p.468 ‘Or for Angie…’).Smith and Osborn (2007) offer a similarin-depth window into the lives of sixpatients with chronic benign lower-backpain. Using Helen and her experience as
an example of thecommon thread betweenthe group and thephenomenon (p.522), theauthors carefully weave inthe other five participants’quotes (e.g. Kevin, p.523)thereby giving the patientsa voice, whilst still makingtheir interpretative voiceclear and distinct (e.g.‘Notice how…’ p.526).
The desire togeneralise In our experience, there is an apparent expectationfrom both students andsupervisors, in line withtraditional scientificpsychology, that generalisability is theultimate goal of any research. Within IPA,and the qualitative paradigm in general,there is more of a focus on the possibletransferability of findings from group togroup rather than generalisation. Smith et al. (2009) also argue for ‘theoreticalgeneralisability’, where the reader may beable to ‘assess the evidence in relation totheir existing professional and
experiential knowledge’(p.4). Thus it can be arguedthat idiographic qualitativeresearch such as IPA hasmuch to contribute to ourunderstanding ofphenomena, as it cancomplement actuarial
claims derived fromquantitative studies through a
focus on the particular which can helpilluminate the universal (Warnock, 1987).
In conclusion, the overarching themethat appears to emerge from ourinterpretation of teaching, supervisingand undertaking IPA, is again that ‘less is more’. Our advice to students andsupervisors is to include fewerparticipants in the sample; fewerquestions in the interview schedule, andfewer superordinate and subordinate
758 vol 24 no 10 october 2011
methods
of chronic back pain. Psychology andHealth, 22, 517–534.
Todd, D., Simpson, J. & Murray, C. (2010).An interpretative phenomenologicalanalysis of delusions in people withParkinson’s disease. DisabilityRehabilitation, 32, 1291–1299
Warnock, M. (1987). Memory. London:Faber.
Willig, C. (2008). Interpretivephenomenology. In C. Willig (Ed.)
Introducing qualitative research inpsychology (2nd edn, pp.50–69).Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitativehealth research. Psychology andHealth, 15, 215–228.
Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity inqualitative psychology. In J.A. Smith(Ed.) Qualitative psychology: A practicalguide to methods (2nd edn,pp.235–251). London: Sage
The London Regional Group was founded at Birkbeck,University of London
“IPA is still amisunderstood and misappliedmethodology”
psy 10_11 p756_759 methods_Layout 1 20/09/2011 15:45 Page 758
philosophical advancement. Weencourage all to attend: researchers andsupervisors, students and academics alike.Use the IPA community to develop as anIPA researcher, by:I using the resources and information
available at www.psyc.bbk.ac.uk/ipa/I attending your Regional IPA Group or
setting one up in your area if it doesnot already exist (check the website for details of your local group)
I engaging with the internet discussionforum (details of how to join can befound on the IPA website)
I attending training sessions at variousuniversities across the UK and Ireland,ranging from introductory to advancedlevels, and more recently offeringtraining for trainers/supervisors
I attending the annual IPA conference.(keep an eye on the forum and websitefor details)
I presenting your work as much aspossible to Regional Groups andconferences.
Other ideas for the future facilitation of teaching and learning in IPA mightinclude more one-off teaching events at
specific key moments in the researchprocess. For example, this could includepreparatory workshops prior to datagathering, ‘analysis clinics’ where studentswork on their own data in small groupsthat are facilitated by tutors, and writingup seminars during the final stages.Currently, there is a great demand foronline courses from international andhome students alike. Courses such asthese might offer students increasedaccess to good-quality teaching and IPAexpertise as and when is convenient forthem in their studies. As yet, this type ofonline option has not materialised;however, we believe that it would be veryuseful in facilitating self-directed learningfrom any location around the world.
Misunderstood and misappliedIn our experience, undergraduate teachingof research methods tends to emphasisethe quantitative over and above thequalitative paradigm, leaving studentspoorly versed in qualitative methods suchas IPA. While this imbalance appears tobe changing, there is no doubt thatundergraduates might find useful an
archive of previous qualitative projectsconducted at this level that they can drawon to guide their research.
Ultimately, and in conclusion, weargue that IPA is still a misunderstoodand misapplied methodology. We believethat a better understanding from bothsides of the research coin (i.e. supervisorand supervisee) of the commonmisconceptions as described above canfacilitate the production of high-qualityIPA. As demonstrated, there are numeroussupport systems in place for researchersusing IPA; nonetheless, it is still apparentthat there is great demand for furtherinnovative and easily accessible IPAteaching and learning opportunities forstudents across all levels.
read discuss contribute at www.thepsychologist.org.uk 759
methods
I Kate Hefferon is a Chartered Psychologistand Senior Lecturer and Acting ProgrammeLeader for the MSc in Applied PositivePsychology at the University of East London [email protected]
I Elena Gil-Rodriguez is a CharteredPsychologist and a Lecturer in CounsellingPsychology at the University of [email protected]
Make a difference. Ashridge Masters in Organisational Change
www.ashridge.org.uk/amoc
To find out more and book your place please contact +44 (0)1442 841386 or email: [email protected]
mna cuyoniotbuirntocatsrednr uuon yepeeD
retase MgdirhsAe a dkaM
kea ms anoitasinagrf og ondina
aonitaisnagrn Os irecnereffie a d
e hd tns a
e gnahl Ca. e
yo
P yrrogrramme opopen dayProgramme open dayProgramme open day1111 Noveember 002 111 November 20111
or 1111 J1 January 22012.or 11 January 2012.
Challenge assumptions and of
fer new perspectivesns and offf
fer new perspectives on organisations
ug.ro.edgihrsa.www
ogramme starts on 22 February 2012.Pr
cmoa//aku
ogramme starts on 22 February 2012.
psy 10_11 p756_759 methods_Layout 1 20/09/2011 15:45 Page 759
