Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
(IPA)
Dr Dario W Pellegrini
M5- Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
Aims
• To outline the theoretical bases of IPA
• To describe the main differences between IPA
and other qualitative methods of data analysis
• To reflect on some of the critiques of IPA
• To describe the steps in IPA data analysis
• To watch a video clip describing IPA text analysis
and discuss
• To carry out a short IPA data analysis activity
• To describe the expectations for an IPA study
• To reflect on issues of trustworthiness and
validity in IPA based research
Theoretical bases of IPA
• Phenomenology
• Hermeneutics
• Idiography
Phenomenology
Study of experience. Contributions to IPA are:
• Reflection on experience/ bracketing: Husserl:
• Dasein (there-being): Heidegger
• Embodiment: Merleau-Ponty
Hermeneutics
Theory of interpretation of texts. Contributions to IPA
are:
•Fore-structures/ bracketing: Heidegger
•Hermeneutics of empathy and hermeneutics of
suspicion: Ricoeur
•Larkin et al (2006); Smith (2004) and Smith et al
(2009) : propose hermeneutics of meaning /
recollection (descriptive and interpretative)
Idiography
• Concern with the specific, the detail and the
understanding of individual experience
• No claims about whole populations but focus
on individual experience and proposes
theoretical generalisation
IPA and other qualitative methods
of data analysis
• IPA vs. Grounded Theory
• IPA vs. Thematic Analysis
• IPA vs. Discourse Analysis
Critiquing IPA
• IPA and language: language as a tool/ role of
language in constructing experience
• Role of context in IPA
• Role of cognition in IPA
Steps in IPA data analysis
Transcript is read and re-read
Initial notes are made in the transcript
Emergent themes are created from initial notes
Emergent themes are clustered into sub-ordinate
themes
The same process is repeated for all individual transcripts
Sub-ordinate themes for all individual transcripts are
clustered into super-ordinate themes
Super-ordinate themes are clustered into overarching
concepts for the sample
IPA text analysis: Michael Larkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPzRefe
mw8
Activity
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dewey
One of six participants
Middle aged
Man
EP for over 5 years
FT for over 2 years
OVERARCHING
CONCEPTS
THE SELF IN
TIME
SUPER ORDINATE THEMES
SUBORDINATE THEMES
REFLECTING ON THE SELF BEFORE FT
TRAINING
Wish for change
Understanding of FT prior to training
Inspirations and first encounters
Process
Context
Techniques
Reflecting on the self
Professional labelling
Enabling
Potential for conflict
Self reflections on difference
Others’ reflections on difference
REFLECTING ON THE SELF POST FT TRAINING
A DIFFERENT SELF
MULTI AGENCY
THE SELF AND
THE OTHER
ENABLING
HINDERING
DIFFERENCES FROM OTHER NON FT TRAINED
PROFESSIONALS
PEOPLE IN / OUT
SERVICE
SYSTEMIC SUPERVISION
PERSONAL
BELIEF SYSTEMS
TIME
PERSONAL
LACK OF SYSTEMIC SUPERVISION
SERVICE
Table 5: visual map of results
Trustworthiness
• QUAL-QUANT methodologies have different
criteria to establish trustworthiness of research
• Trustworthiness needs to come from ‘within’
rather than ‘without’ factors (Morse, Barrett,
Mayan, Olson & Spiers, 2002)
• Elliott, Fisher, Rennie (1999); Robson (2002;
2009); Yardley (2000; 2008) some strategies to
ensure trustworthiness of Qualitative Research.
• Yardley (2008) has developed a set of four
criteria, relevant to Qualitative Research.
Yardley (2008)
• Sensitivity to context
• Commitment and rigour
• Coherence and transparency
• Impact and importance
Trustworthiness of IPA research
What makes a good IPA study? (Smith, 2011)
• Clear focus rather than broad reconnaissance
• Strong data obtained by a purposive sample typically small.
• Gives measure of prevalence for a theme: evidence base
should be drawn from a large proportion of participants, but
beware ‘THEMOLATRY’ (Dario’s neologism: Theme –
idolatry) (Chamberlain, 2011; Smith, 2011)
• Sufficient elaboration of a theme
• Interpretative commentary, not just descriptions (difference
between papers and theses)
• Show convergence and divergence between different
participants, without losing the uniqueness of individual
experience
• Well written
Aims
• To outline the theoretical bases of IPA
• To describe the main differences between IPA
and other qualitative methods of data analysis
• To reflect on some of the critiques of IPA
• To describe the steps in IPA data analysis
• To watch a video clip describing IPA text analysis
and discuss
• To carry out a short IPA data analysis activity
• To describe the expectations for an IPA study
• To reflect on issues of trustworthiness and
validity in IPA based research
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Burr, V. (2002). The person in social psychology. Hove: Psychology Press
Chamberlain, K. (2011). Troubling methodology. Health Psychology Review, 5 (1) 4854.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C.T. and Rennie, D.L. (1999) ‘Evolving guidelines for publication of
qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields’, British Journal of
Clinical Psychology 38: 215-29.
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification
strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2), 13-22
Nightingale, D.J., and Cromby, J. (1999) (Eds.). Social constructionist psychology: A
critical analysis of theory and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Smith, J.A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological
analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 1, 39-54.
Willig, C. (2008).
Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2nd Ed.).
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press
Yardley, L. (2000) ‘Dilemmas in qualitative health research’, Psychology and Health
15: 215-28.
Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In. J.A.Smith
(ed.). Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods. (2nd ed.).
London: SAGE, 235-251.