The end of the module...

No blogging for quite some time as reading and research took over all the time I had available to devote to the EdD.

Since my last post, I have interviewed three participants, transcribed the interviews, analysed them using IPA and completed an 8,000 word assignment discussing both my theoretical perspectives and the research project. Well, 8,791 words to be precise, as we are permitted +/-10%. The first draft ended up being 11,003 words, so serious pruning was required. The finished assignment didn’t really have the depth I wanted in some areas, especially in relating my findings to wider literature, but 8,000 really wasn’t enough.

What have I learnt?

1.       I *loved* doing this assignment. From initial total confusion at entirely new concepts, to moments of clarity as when the fog shifts and you can see your destination before the fog closes back in to obscure your route again. There’s still a lot of fog, but with islands of clarity. I suppose I should wait and see what the feedback is before I consider how fog-bound I remain. 

2.       The more I read, the more I found that just about every area of research into transition has been done to death. It’s an area I’m still really interested in, but quite where the gap in the research is that I can make my own, I just don’t know. Around two weeks before submission I felt I had nothing to add. How on earth do you find that slight gap in the knowledge that you can add to, especially as there is a lag between research being completed and publishing?

3.       I was so lucky with my first interviewee – he could talk the hind leg off a donkey. My interviewees became progressively more reticent but that was good experience, of a sort.

4.       Immersion in the data is easy when you’re as slow at transcribing as me.

5.       Oh how I loved those ‘aha’ moments when I noticed something in the way an interviewee said something – not just what they said, but how they said it: repetition of a phrase such as “I know x, I know y, I know z, I’m ready…” or the change from the very personal ‘I’ to using ‘you’ when talking about how other people perceived one participant.

6.       Despite what some articles say, don’t try to arrange your themes into superordinate themes using pieces of paper. It’s so much easier to cut and paste and move things around on a PC.

And what did I find? Well, my reflexive thoughts prior to the research were that students from vocational backgrounds would feel at a disadvantage to students from the traditional A level route with regard to academic skills used at university. However, what I actually found was a group (albeit small and idiographic) of confident, self-motivated learners who felt more than ready for study at HE, and considered themselves better equipped with academic skills than their A level colleagues. I started to consider this in relation to Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital and habitus, but that is where my word count ran out.

With the new module starting tomorrow, I hope to explore this area of educational theory in more detail, and just keep looking, looking, looking for the novel angle through which I can take this topic through to the final thesis.

Stress and coping in first year undergraduates - Denovan and Macaskill

This paper is of interest because of the participants, as well as the methodology. I’ve also tried to look at their excerpts, to try to get a feel for analysing data. It’s hard but sometimes I managed to pick up something which wasn’t in the text (though was probably highlighted in their full analysis of the transcription). IPA is going to be a challenge – and I’m interviewing in three days’ time!

Denovan, A. Macaskill, A. (2013). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of stress and coping in first year undergraduates. British Educational Research Journal, 39(6), 1002-1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3019

Introduction

Against the background of increasing student numbers there also appears to be increasing levels of stress.

Stress

There is a discussion of models relating to stress, including the transactional model of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and the updated model (Folkman, 2008).

Transition to university

Transition to HE is stressful for a number of reasons – academic, financial and social. Stress can be reduced by coping mechanisms associated with focussing on problem solving rather than emotions.

Positive psychology

Quantitative studies indicate that optimistic students cope better with the stress of transition. Meijer (2007) suggests that stress felt by students is affected by the “perceived level of guidance from lecturers”. Pekrun et al. (2007) find that students who demonstrate high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to have higher levels of achievement motivation. This, in turn, increases their likelihood of feeling in control of academic tasks.

Qualitative research

Greenbank (2007) found that the transition to more independent study was perceived as stressful. There is some qualitative evidence that positive coping techniques aided transition. The authors identify the role of phenomenology in the in depth exploration of individuals experiencing stress. They go on to link IPA to the area to be explored.

Methods

Participants

Purposive sampling with the use of a homogeneous sample. The authors discuss the sample size as linked to Smith’s work. They provide a demographic breakdown of the students, to indicate how they relate to national statistics on UK undergraduates.

Interview schedule

Semi-structured and open-ended, non-directive questions to provide deep responses. Use of a ‘vignette’ to develop rapport and put the participant at ease. This is something to consider. The authors identify what the questions focus on. The authors perform a verbatim transcription.

Procedure

The authors considered the place, ethics, recording and length of the interview process.

Data analysis

The authors gained familiarity with the transcripts through the transcription process, reading and re-reading –immersing themselves in the text. On the left hand margin were written the thoughts, reflections and preliminary codes, with the preliminary themes being recorded on the right hand side. The authors discuss the iterative process the analysis went through. The themes were then grouped, and these were then validated by checking against the text, and these themes were supported with quotes. Each transcript was subjected to the same process, leading to the development of master themes. The themes were verified by the use of a colleague. The researchers do not mention the ‘bracketing’ of findings from prior interviews before starting on a new analysis, which might be considered a failing. There is also no mention of drawing attention to areas of divergence as well as those of convergence. Perhaps, therefore, some of the individuality of the interviews has been lost.

Quality

The authors mention several sets of criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research. They use Elliott et al.’s (1999) criteria as these are “…rooted within a phenomenological hermeneutic tradition”. I need to have a look at this and explore how it relates to Yardley’s criteria as they seem pretty similar. The criteria include ensuring that the researcher’s perspective is made clear, in depth discussion of the procedures, use of rich data as illustration of themes, the use of a colleague to assess the interpretation of themes, and use of a reflexive journal.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity aids transparency and demonstrates how the researcher’s work has been framed by prior experiences and by assumptions and preconceptions.

Results and discussion

Five main themes were drawn out by the authors. These are: all the change; expectations of university; academic focus; support network; difficulties.

Theme 1: All the change

This discusses transitions to independent living. Coping was better in those who planned and prepared for the transition to living away from home. The authors discuss their findings and then draw out the theory associated with the findings.

Homesickness is also discussed within this theme. There is a gradual adjustment and acceptance of the change in their life. Social support aided their adjustment.

I started to look at the excerpts used within this paper, and became interested in one excerpt, where the change in language is apparent. David starts off with the more impersonal ‘you’, talking about living with others, then moves to the personal ‘I’, admitting his struggles. The authors don’t mention this within the discussion, but I’m sure they must have picked up on it in the analysis.

Differences between post-compulsory education and university

Participants initially struggled with independent learning. Once they adjusted to the new methods, they became more confident. Lack of initial feedback was a concern. Greenbank (2007) found that there were increased levels of stress due to the emphasis on independent learning in HE. There is a difference in the level of independent learning required between FE and HE. With increasing student numbers, increased class sizes lead to a more difficult transition. This links to Meijer’s (2007) model where stress is linked to reduced tutor guidance. Research by Greenbank (2007) suggests that there should be greater focus on the development of independent learning skills in FE. Furthermore Urquhart and Pooley (2007) suggest key areas for support. The authors acknowledge that some support in provided in most HEIs.

Theme 2: Expectations

Realistic expectations of university life led to better adjustment to the new environment. More passive approaches or negative thoughts led to issues with transition. A key influence on transition is the information received beforehand, whether from official or unofficial sources. Positive expectations represent optimistic thinking, which aids transition.

Theme 3: Academic focus

The importance of self-discipline is discussed by the respondents, as well as the development of strategies to improve time management led to positive feelings. Goal focus improved motivation. Learning from experience was a theme within the major theme of academic focus: stress was caused by deadlines, especially missed ones caused, for example, by poor time management. Students appeared to learn from their mistakes and acknowledge this. There is a discussion of the role of self-control and self-efficacy.

Theme 4: Support network

Establishing a support network: the participants expressed anxiety over making new friends, and acknowledged isolation in those not making new friends as quickly or as easily as they expected. The findings of other research (Kantanis, 2000) indicated that nearly 50% of first year undergrads hadn’t established a friendship group by the end of the first semester.

Support for coping with the transition came from three sources: family, acting as reassurance; friends, especially those experiencing similar problems; university staff. However, the authors, despite saying that provision of rich data is important in supporting the quality of the themes, do not provide any evidence for this final support group.

Theme 5: Difficulties

Housemates were a major source of difficulties, causing high levels of stress which was ongoing and hard to avoid. A range of coping mechanisms were used. Financial stress was also of concern, with more students working at the same time as studying, and the work/study/life balance being difficult. Within the sub-theme of academic difficulties, the authors (and so, presumably, the students) focus primarily on presentations as stressors. Stress was also incited by exams, though this tends to be short-term.

Conclusions

Transition to HE involves change. This can cause stress. A range of coping mechanisms were used by the participants. Adaptive coping was more effective, leading to positive adjustment. The authors acknowledge limitations such as sample size (though this is appropriate for IPA), and using a single university.

They suggest several potential interventions, which are: interventions to promote autonomy; support networks; preparation classes; support from colleges and schools.

 

Possible references to explore:

Barter & Reynold (1999) The use of vignettes in qualitative research

Brown, Moerkamp, & Voncken (1999) Facilitating progression to higher education from vocational paths

Elliott, Fischer & Rennie (1999) Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields.

Golsworthy & Coyle (2001) Practitioners’ accounts of religious and spiritual dimensions in bereavement therapy – this looks at reflexivity and how the researcher’s perspective affects interpretation

Greenbank (2007) From foundation to honours degree: the student experience.

Henwood & Pidgeon (1992) Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. This is quality in QMs

Lyons & Coyle (2007) Analysing qualitative data in psychology – about IPA & sense making

Meijer (2007) Correlates of stress in secondary education.

Robotham & Julian (2006). Stress and the higher education student: a critical review of the literature.

Seguin & Ambrosio. (2002). Multicultural vignettes for teacher preparation.

Smith (2003) Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods

Smith & Eatough (2006). IPA in Breakwell et al.’s Research methods in psychology.

Tinto. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.

Urquhart & Pooley (2007). The transition experience of Australian students to university: the importance of social support.


 

Note to self - to bracket or not to bracket?

I need to get my head around whether one attempts Husserl's bracketing in IPA. The literature seems inconclusive. I think if I can write down in one place all of the literature I've found relating to the topic, then I can come to some sort of conclusion.

It does not seem clear in Smith et al.'s book on IPA where they sit. They do talk about bracketing but it appears to be a more limited way than espoused by Husserl.

I'll leave the rest of the thinking to another day. I know where my thoughts currently stand. We'll see how the literature guides me.

What makes good quality qualitative research for me?

The first readings I had to complete for my first EdD weekend all revolved around the concept of the validity of research. How do we measure (if indeed we can?) what “good” qualitative research is? There were a range of viewpoints, depending on the philosophical and methodological viewpoints of the authors. I could see that each made sense in its own context. However, I didn’t really have any background understanding to critique the ideas adequately, and nor did I then know which way my own research would take me.

Since then, I’ve made the decision to use IPA, and feel comfortable with the relationship between this and my own views on truth and knowledge. I’ve been thinking back as to how I can ensure the quality of the research I am about to undertake. In my quantitative research past, I’ve been concerned over methods, statistics, reproducibility etc. But now, as they say, for something completely different.

Smith and the other IPA stalwarts discuss quality, but in my limited timescale and support for this small scale research, use of other people to determine whether my interpretations are appropriate is not possible. I’ve seen several papers mention Yardley (2000) in relation to quality, so I’ve had a look at her paper. Her thoughts are interesting and relevant, and above all, achievable in my timescale.

Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15(2), 215-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440008400302

The suggested reason for the increase in the use of qualitative methodologies (QMs) in health psychology is that it provides a detailed exploration of the experiences of the participant. Yardley clearly identifies that these are true methodologies, with differing underlying assumptions, rather than just a proliferation of methods of data collection and analysis.

The author highlights the reason for the paper as to how to evaluate qualitative research. She suggests that there is a gap in the understanding of how to evaluate qualitative studies in accredited health psychology. Yardley identifies that qualitative research is defined as ‘not quantitative’, rather than the diverse range of qualitative methodologies having a unified definition. Even within a single tradition, such as phenomenology, there is diversity in its assumptions and approaches.

Yardley suggests that it is the very subjectivity allowed by qualitative work that leads to it being used so extensively. However, because meaning is constructed and negotiate between researcher and participant, the imposition of set criteria for truth would restrict the construction of knowledge and could prejudice particular groups who subscribe to alternative criteria for truth. Therefore, a standardised procedure for performing qualitative methodologies cannot be entertained.

There is a concern in the field of health psychology that QMs most closely resembling quantitative methodologies are gaining precedence over other methods because of familiarity in terms of quality and measurements/assessments of validity. Another concern is a tendency to be drawn towards those methodologies providing a framework within which to complete research, leading to isolated methodologies without the flexibility to understand the benefits of other approaches.

This is something which does niggle away at me. I’m not really fully sure why I chose IPA as a methodology. It seemed ‘right’ for the question I wanted to answer. However, I do wonder whether I am drawn to it because, compared to other methodologies, it seems to provide a ‘process’ through which to work. The guidelines are broad and inclusive, but nevertheless, perhaps I am clinging to the set procedures of quantitative research. Perhaps in later work I should explore some in more detail other areas of phenomenology such as van Manen.

Yardley discusses the issue of quality control, suggesting that we cannot apply quantitative standards of quality, such as representative sampling, reliability and replicability, to QMs. These would be unlikely to be achievable and may also not be desirable. She believes that structured coding and interpretation fashioned by rules means that there is a loss of nuance in the rich data provided by QMs. Nevertheless, a means of ascertaining the quality of qualitative research is needed, so that the work can be judged accordingly.

The author identifies what she believes are four characteristics of good quality research, along with some examples of how these can be achieved. The four characteristics are:

1.       Sensitivity to context;

2.       Commitment and rigour;

3.       Transparency and coherence;

4.       Impact and importance.

Yardley suggests these characteristics but stresses that they are not meant to be applied rigidly. Indeed in order to be useable in a range of QMs they must be flexible.

Sensitivity to context:

The author acknowledges the vital aspect of context within qualitative research. However, whilst it is important to have an understanding of related theories and relevant literature, this knowledge must not cloud the researcher’s interpretation of the data. Areas of divergence from theory must be sufficiently explored, as well as those data which do link the specific study to more abstract theories and generalisations discussed in previous research.

The social and cultural context of participants and researchers must also be considered. Contextualisation of findings can shed new light on meanings. The social context of the data gathering needs to be considered including the shared understandings and conversations between researcher and participant and consideration of the researcher’s position in relation to the participant is vital.

A concern for the perceived power imbalance between researcher and participant is required. Whilst some QMs seek the viewpoint of the participants on the researcher’s interpretations to determine the ‘truth’ of the interpretation (perhaps an example of this is the Patricia Hill Collins reading from week 1), it must be remembered that the opinions of the participant should not over-ride the academic independence of the researcher.

Commitment:

Commitment is suggested through the longer-term involvement of the researcher with the topic being researched, as well as an appropriate ability in the methodology of research and immersion within the data.

Rigour:

This is, Yardley suggests, indicated by the completeness of the data analysis and a sufficient amount of data collection. This will vary depending on the chosen methodology – grounded theory will require more participants than IPA. Within phenomenological research, there should be sufficient depth of interpretation, not just surface level analysis.

Transparency and coherence:

This explores the persuasiveness of the research in constructing a reality. Another area to consider to provide coherence is whether the research question and the philosophical underpinnings of the research are appropriate.

Transparency is achieved through thorough documentation of the process of data collection and analysis and provision of rich data, that is, extensive excerpts. Within IPA, it’s my understanding that this is at least in part provided by the tables of themes and annotated transcripts produced as part of the analysis process. Reflexivity is also needed to demonstrate transparency – identifying the experiences and motivations which underlie the research.

Impact and importance:

The impact of the research is a key factor in determining its value. The value may be theoretical but may also have a wider impact within other fields. There may also be a socio-cultural impact to the research. Yardley suggests that an advantage for QMs in health research is their close link to practice. This would, presumably, be similar within educational research.

Yardley concludes by stressing the importance of integrity in QM, whilst taking into account the diversity of these methodologies.

Further reading?

Stern (1997) Strategies for overcoming the rage of rejection. In Morse (ed.), Completing a qualitative project: details and dialogue (pp. 135-145). This covers how to get over editors rejecting work for publication. Its relevance is, perhaps, stressing that you need to clearly demonstrate to the reviewer/reader how you expect your research to be measured against concepts of quality. If you're explicit, there's less room for misunderstanding.

An interesting discussion on different phenomenological methods - Finlay (2009)

This text is handy as it gives an analysis of several types of phenomenology within one paper. It has helped situate me more clearly within hermeneutic phenomenology. I need to take a bit of time to read Giorgi, however, so that I can understand and engage with his objections to IPA (and most other forms of phenomenology, it seems...)


Finlay, L. (2009). Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology and Practice, 3(1), 6-25.

Introduction

There is great diversity in phenomenological research,however, all phenomenological researcher wish to gain rich description of lived experience. There is much debate over different methods, some of which appears unduly critical. The author highlights six questions to discuss in this paper, in order to help develop dialogue rather than diatribe between different approaches.

What counts as phenomenology?

There area great any methods and techniques described as phenomenological. Psychological phenomenology, according to Giorgi (1989) has four core characteristics:

1. the research is descriptive
2. it uses phenomenological reductions
3. explores the intentional relationship between persons and situations
4. discloses the essences of meaning in human experience

However, there are a range of variations: open lifeworld approach of Dahlberg et al., van Manen's lived experience human science enquiry based on University of Utrecht tradition, Hallig et al.'s dialogic approach, the Dallas approach (Garza, 2007), Todres' embodied lifeworld approach and Ashworth's lifeworld approach.

Other phenomenological methods do not explicitly use Husserlian techniques such as eidetic variation, such as Smith's IPA. Smith, whilst claiming the method to be phenomenological, also identifies with hermeneutics, recognising the essential role of the researcher. This author suggests that Smith (2004) does not advocate the use of bracketing.

The discussion/argument over what qualifies as phenomenological frequently stems from disagreement over whether it follows the Husserlian viewpoint or not. Further, confusion is compounded when there is a mixing of philosophies and viewpoints, for example using Husserlian philosophy but perhaps being Heideggerian in acknowledging the role of the researcher's own experience, rather then reduction.

Finlay's definition of phenomenological research is work that provides rich description of experience, where the researcher adopts an open phenomenological attitude, setting aside judgements and initially avoiding theoretical frameworks. She also requires that the researcher follows a consistent philosophy/methodology.

General description or idiographic analysis?

There is disagreement over the focus of phenomenological research. Those of the Husserlian tradition, such as Giorgi seek the universal 'essences' of a phenomenon. Idiographic details are of no importance once analysis has been completed. For other researchers, idiographic meanings are of importance, whether or not they lead to generalisations. Smith (from other reading) believes that IPA must concentrate on the individual - generalisations may be made, but not at the loss of view of the individual. Halling (2008) follows the middle ground, suggesting that idiographic experiences can also illuminate more general structures of experience. Halling suggests following three levels of analysis: firstly looking at one person's experience of a phenomenon; secondly they explore those themes common to the phenomenon. Finally, they explore the philosophical and universal experiences of the phenomenon, moving between experience and abstraction as the researcher analyses the data.

Description or interpretation?

Phenomenological research starts through a description of a person's experiences. The researcher then analyses these data to identify themes, drawing out implicit meanings as well as those that are explicit. The area of discussing implicit meanings in the data is where the researcher can move from description to interpretation.

There is frequently a delineation between descriptive phenomenology and interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenology. Husserlian (descriptive) phenomenology stays close to the text and only make assertions that can be intuitively clearly drawn from the data. The users of interpretive phenomenology argue that interpretation cannot be separated from the description, it is an integral part of our 'being-in-the-world'. The data are already interpreted through the participant, and then through the researcher.

Finlay argues that there is a continuum between description and interpretation, upon which phenomenological research all sits. van Manen (1990) discusses that there is a greater level of interpretation in studies where nonverbal aspects are of greater importance, as well as when using other types of data such as artwork. van Manen finds it important to clarify the difference between interpretation that draws attention to a concept and interpretation that imposes an external framework on the description, developing Gadamer's ideas. Wertz (2005) suggests that interpretation is valid, so as to place the ideas within the whole, but the interpretation must remain grounded within the data.

Researcher subjectivity

All phenomenological research is characterised by the connections between the researcher and the researched. However, there are differences in how this subjectivity is acknowledged. Whichever form of phenomenology one use, it is vital to be open to the "other" and retain an open attitude.

The key difference between phenomenologists is whether the subjective experiences of the researcher are brought to the foreground and explored. Those following the Husserlian tradition seek to perform reduction, to reduce the influence the researcher has on the phenomenon. Researchers must bracket their preconceptions and past knowledge on the phenomenon.  This "setting aside"  must take place throughout the research, not just at the beginning.

Hermeneutic phenomenologists suggest that it is not possible to bracket one's experiences, but instead it is important to acknowledge one's pre-existing beliefs, and question them if new evidence comes to light. Within this field, subjectivity is placed in the foreground, so that one can recognise biases, whilst being open to the 'other' (Gadamer, 1975). In reality, this means the researcher must shift between a focus on personal assumptions and then returning to theparticipant's experiences with fresh eyes. However, navel-gazing must be avoided - it is the participant's experience which should be privileged, not the researcher's. Finlay discusses Merleau-Ponty's (1968) idea of a co-creation of data through the dialogic encounter of the interview.

Science or art?

Giorgi posits phenomenology as a human science, being systematic, methodological, general, and critical. However, others suggest that it can have close links with art as well as science. There is disagreement over the relative importance of the two elements.

Giorgi (2008) stresses the importance of maintaining scientific rigour, through systematic processes deeply based on the data. Other phenomenologists look to more artistic interpretations such as literary prose, art and poetry. Finlay tells us to  look to our audience and determine how our argument can best be made.

Modern or postmodern paradigms?

Finlay discusses the confusion over which paradigm phenomenology sits within. These paradigms don't seem to be in accord with those we've looked at. Giorgi suggests that his phenomenology comes from a grounded critical realist tradition, but with its roots in Husserlian phenomenology, it could be argues that his views sit within a naturalistic paradigm.

This discussion of where phenomenology sits is confused not least by the differing definitions of postmodernism.

Conclusion

Phenomenology is adaptable.

Further reading

Gadamer (1975) Truth and method

Giorgi (1989) One type of analysis of descriptive data: procedures involved in following a phenomenological method.

Giorgi (1997) The theory, practice and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure

Giorgi (2008) Concerning a serious misunderstanding of the essence of the phenomenological method in psychology

Halling (2008) Intimacy, transcendence and psychology: closeness and openness in everyday life

van Manen (1990) Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.

Wertz (2005) Phenomenological research methods for counselling psychology

Use of IPA in education: Cooper, Fleischer and Cotton (2012)

This paper uses IPA to explore how students experience the learning of qualitative research techniques. It has some useful information on quality control, and talks through the process of undertaking IPA. I've not gone into details of the theory surrounding the topic, as it doesn't relate to my interests, although the use of IPA in an education setting does. The researchers do not discuss the philosophical underpinnings of their research, but the use of IPA relating to the lives experience is mentioned, so it appears an appropriate method.

Cooper, R., Fleischer, A., & Cotton, F. A. (2012). Building connections: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of qualitative research students' learning experiences. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 1-16.

This research, according to the authors differs from previous research by looking at students from a range of academic fields, learning a range of different qualitative techniques rather than concentrating on one academic field or one type of qualitative research.

Methods

Research design

The authors used a qualitative method to gather rich data, from which to draw themes and theoretical structures. The research centred around how students make sense of their experiences in learning qualitative research.

Sampling

Purposive (though they use 'purposeful'). Six respondents, with data saturation claimed at that point.

Data collection

Semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews.

Data analysis

Transcription followed by reading and re-reading. Initial noting, including descriptive, linguistic and conceptual comments. Then analysis across respondents, once individual respondents were exhausted.

QC

The researchers bracketed their biases and prior knowledge - through bracketing interviews, the maintenance of a research journal to identify and bracket biases. The authors use a quote from Hein & Austin (2001, p. 5) about setting aside biases. However, I've also read an acknowledgement that this can't be done in reality and that this isn't what Husserl meant - I'll have to check where I read that.
They also discuss ethics within this section.

Results

Findings reflect the lived experience and meaning of the process of learning qualitative research processes. They also discuss the use of double hermeneutic approach. The researchers identified five themes through their analysis: emotions, active learning,  pivotal experience, the role of story, impact of prior experience and knowledge. The authors mention that the focus in phenomenology is on the common elements of the phenomenon rather than on the individual.. However, this is at odds with the stress that Smith lays on the story and experiences of the individual in IPA, whose story should not be subsumed within the generalisations to come to wider essences. The sentence here tends to sound more like Husserl's phenomenology that Smith's IPA.

Theme 1: The experience of learning qualitative research inspires a range of emotions

I can identify with the feelings of the students - perhaps these are universal essences! Panic, elation.

Theme 2: Learning qualitative research requires active learning

Learning by doing.

Theme 3: A pivotal experience plays a role in motivating students to learn qualitative research

A pivotal experience served as a catalyst in their learning methods; often this was a moment of connection - with a method, with a person.

Theme 4: Story plays a central role in the experience of learning qualitative research

Listening to stories shared during interviews, memories of learning from stories as a child.

Theme 5: Students make meaning of their experience of learning qualitative research by relating it to their prior research knowledge and experience

Summary of results: Building connections

Learning qualitative research is a process of building connections, broadening understanding and opening up new vistas.

Discussion

Support of previous findings, whilst identifying new ones. Discussion of  limitations: study participants all have prior experience of qualitative methods, all from a single university.

Development of IPA - Smith (2004)

This paper has been referred to in a couple of papers I've read. Seeing as it was Smith who originally developed IPA, it's probably important for me to get a thorough understanding of his viewpoints. I'll also need to gain an understanding of some of the criticisms levelled at Smith and his technique - Giorgi seems to lead on this.

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(1), 39-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088704qp004oa

Introduction

IPA is has become well established in qualitative psychology, especially within the UK. IPA is composed of three broad elements: an epistemological position, a set of guidelines for conducting research and as a description of a corpus of empirical research.

The theoretical position of IPA is to explore in detail the lived experience of individuals and how the individual makes sense of the personal experience. IPA is phenomenological because it concentrates on individuals' perception of experiences, but further than this, the researcher has a key role in interpreting the lived experience, as relates to the hermeneutic tradition. Indeed, Smith suggests the use of a double hermeneutic - the participant attempts to make sense of the experience and the researcher seeks to make sense of the participant as they attempt to make sense of their world. Smith acknowledges that IPA a distinctive epistemological or methodological position, suggesting that it is closely allied to a range of similar approaches, such as those of Ashworth (1999), Benner (1994), Giorgi (1985), Halling (1994), Moustakas (1994) and van Manen (2002). Smith says that there will be a discussion of IPA in relation to these other approaches in a subsequent paper. There is then a discussion of its role in cognitive psychology, and indeed, a discussion of what is meant by cognitive psychology.

The characteristic features of IPA

1. Idiographic
IPA begins with the detailed examination of one case until further meaning cannot be gained, before moving on to another Only after full analysis of individual cases is complete are they analysed as a group, to develop themes for convergence and divergence between cases.

Only a small number of individuals are used, as the process is detailed - see Smith & Osborn (2003) for a discussion of the sampling rationale. The key process of IPA is to write the analysis in a way that allows the reader to parse it in two different ways:

a. For the themes which have emerged and which the participants share (but illustrate in particular ways)
b. For the individual's own account, through the linking of data from that individual through the write-up.

This allows the reader to develop an understanding both of more general themes and those pertinent to one individual's experiences. This is in contrast to nomothetic qualitative research, where group level claims are explored.

Smith does suggest the possibility of using IPA to explore an individual, as a case study, if the data are sufficiently rich. Smith suggests that a deep exploration of an individual can lead us to more universal truths, linking the idiography of IPA to Husserlian phenomenology, seeking a more general human 'essence' of an experience.

2. Inductive

IPA techniques are flexible, to allow for the development of emerging themes within the data collection and analysis. Broad research questions are constructed, to allow for this, and may become modified during the research process.

3. Interrogative
Unlike much phenomenological research, analysis of the case studies is followed by a discussion of the findings in relation to other relevant literature, for example discussing theories which may relate to the data.

Levels of interpretation

IPA operates at a level which is clearly grounded in the text but which also moves beyond the text to a more interpretative level. However, different levels of interpretation are possible. Smith gives a useful example of this in relation to a women talking about chronic back pain. The different levels are identified by him as:
1. Social comparison
2. Use of metaphor as self-image
3. Struggle over the development of a new self, as indicated by changes in tense during the extract

Smith argues that within the bounds of IPA other forms of analysis should not be overlayed, for example psychodynamic theory. This is unlikely to be something I would do! If one does draw on a more theoretical account to assist the analysis, it is important to couch the discussion in more speculative language because of the distance between the text and the interpretation. Links to more formal theories can be suggested, but after the close textual analysis and guided by the emerging analysis.

Generally beginning researchers would be expected to be working at level 1 or occasionally level 2 analysis

Checking boundaries: domains, topics and constructs

Smith declares emphatically that IPA is not just suitable for health psychology. He goes into some detail of its history in this field. In general, IPA is used to explore existential issues of participants which are of import to the researcher. Many studies can be identified as linking to the super-ordinate theme of identity.

Expanding horizons: type of participant, type of data collection

Most IPA studies have been conducted within individual, semi-structured interviews with English speaking adults. Smith speculates how this can be developed to include those for whom English is not their first language, children and people with learning disabilities. This may require gentle probing, in addition to the semi-structured questions, as well as perhaps getting to know the participants prior to the interview.

Smith counters the critique of others that IPA (and qualitative methods in general) require a level of articulacy more common in the middle classes.

There then follows a discussion of methods of data collection. whilst the individual semi-structured interview is most common, this is not the only means of gathering data. Written records such as diaries can be used. Smith discusses the potential use of focus groups but stresses the further analysis required to ensure that the individual's voice is heard, due to the ideographic basis of IPA.

Concluding comments on future developments in IPA

Smiths draws together key thoughts from the paper:

1. IPA has an ideographic commitment to the individual; he suggests that a single case study can be done. There is the possibility of developing the microtextual analysis of small excerpts of text, which will inform the emerging analysis of the study as a whole.
2. The use of IPA can be developed both in the methods of data collection and the populations studied.
3. As IPA is sued more widely, Smith suggests a consideration of the patterns which emerge, to determine whether there is the development of core constructs.
4. It is important to critically discuss IPA in relation to other phenomenological methods, to determine similarities and differences, and how these influence the nature of studies and their analysis.

Further reading:

Ashworth (1999) Bracketing in phenomenology: renouncing assumptions in hearing about student cheating
Benner (1994) (Ed.) Interpretative phenomenology

Giorgi (1985) Phenomenology and psychological research

Halling (1994) Embracing human fallibility: on forgiving oneself and forgiving others

Moustakas (1994) Phenomenological research methods

Smith & Osborn (2003) IPA in Smith's Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods - see for sampling rationale.

van Manen (2002) Writing in the dark:  phenomenological studies in interpretive enquiry

 

IPA insights: Callary, Rathwell & Young

To be honest, reading the papers I have done so far, I'm quite surprised at the sorts of papers that get published. I seem to have hit a seam of research papers analysing how they have done research. This is a bit weird or me, with my science background. It does make me somewhat concerned - if so many people feel they need to write papers explaining how they completed a research process, then maybe it's going to be rather difficult to do for a first assignment due to be handed in by early March.

Then again, maybe there are a lot of qualitative journals out there, looking for material to fill them, and a lot of researchers out there looking to get papers published.

Anyway, this paper was worth reviewing because it looks specifically at IPA rather than other forms of phenomenology. I suppose my key concern from this paper is that they talk about bracketing. I'm going to have to look more closely about how bracketing does or does not fit into IPA. My understanding was that it isn't done. Perhaps their use of language here is imprecise, as they also talk about writing reflexively on their own experiences of the topic. This sounds more like the reflexivity required of interpretative phenomenology rather than transcendental. Perhaps this is the point that the authors of the previous paper I read were trying to make - unless the author is explicit on the theoretical underpinnings of their work, confusion can reign. I will need to explore Smith's work on IPA to see where I stand with regard to bracketing.

There are some useful examples within this paper of how they have tried to attain rigour (trustworthiness?) through use of group discussion of the themes drawn out and their analysis. Not something I will be able to do, but it gives an indication of the sorts of process I should put myself through to increase trustworthiness.

Callary, B., Rathwell, S., & Young, B. W. (2015). Insights on the process of using interpretative phenomenological analysis in a sport coaching research project. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 63-75.

Using IPA

IPA is informed by three key positions: phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2013). Phenomenology describes the 'what' and 'how' of individuals' experienced phenomena, describes the essences of an experience but does not analyse - according to Cresswell (2013). However, what if we're looking at interpretative phenomenology? Hermeneutics seeks to interpret the spoken  or written word to identify the meaning of the speaker. Idiography pertains to small scale research relatable to one or a few people rather than generalising the findings to a larger population.

Smith (2004) links the four key characteristics of IPA to these three positions:

1. IPA is idiographic because a detailed analysis is made of one case before moving on to the next
2. IPA is inductive - research questions are broadly constructed to allow for unanticipated themes to emerge.
3. Results are discussed in relation to existing literature
4. IPA researchers are influenced by their own lived experience and interpret data through their own lens.

IPA includes a double hermeneutic - the researcher attempts to make sense of the participant, who is attempting to make sense of their own experience (Smith, 2004).

Smith's guidelines for good quality IPA studies include having a clear focus, having both a descriptive and interpretative analysis with both convergent and divergent themes notes.

IPA in sport studies

A range of studies in sport science have been completed using IPA but papers based on the research do not always indicate how the study was performed. Giorgi (2011) complains that because IPA does not follow fixed methods, it is impossible to replicate IPA studies. OK, so, I know I'm only a beginner in all of this, and I haven't read much of Smith's books yet, but I thought that qualitative work wasn't so hung up on replicability. I'll have to read both Giorgi and SMith and see what's going on here. Not much love lost, for sure.

The paper continues with an overview of previous sport science studies and identifies the gap in the literature which this study seeks to add to: a sharing of methodology.

Preparing the IPA study

A discussion of how the discovering of IPA as a methodology caused a change in the team's research question, to concentrate on lived experiences is followed by an explanation of how data were gathered: numbers, development of interview questions, and (confusingly) bracketing.

Collecting rich and personal data on participants' lived experiences

The team explain how interviewing did not go to plan and the interviewer had to think on their feet to get the personal experiences required rather than more general thoughts. This is something I will need to be aware of as I would imagine it is easy to fall into. Methods to avoid this include funnelling (Smith & Osborn, 2003): a three step approach - personalising the statement, understanding the meaning and acquiring the lived experience. They also prompted the participants ahead of the interview that they were interested in the interviewee's own experiences.

Individual level analysis

Each interview is analysed separately to discover emerging themes. These can then be examined across the interviews. Read the interview as a whole, then line by line analysis of the transcript to code the experiences. These allow patterns in the text to be seen - the development of inductive themes. In this study, each team member did it separately.

Group level analysis

List all themes in each transcript, examine the operational definitions to find similarities across all participants and combine similar themes under 4 or 5 broad higher order themes.

Challenges and strategies in IPA data analysis

It is key to lay to one side the coding from previous transcripts, so that convergences and divergences in the data are respected. Through reflexion of emerging themes, this can be done (though this paper again talks about bracketing). Rigour in the process was supported by the group discussions throughout the process - team members' challenging coding and interpretation meant that each stage was rigorously discussed and agreed upon.

Conclusions for researchers interested in using IPA

IPA produces rich data allowing for in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Further reading:

Cresswell (2013) Qualitative enquiry and research design

Giorgi (2011) IPA and science: A response to Jonathan Smith

Smith (2004) Reflecting on the development of IPA

Smith, Flowers, & Larkin (2013). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research.

Smith & Osborn (2003) IPA in JA Smith (Ed) qualitative psychology: a practical guide to methods

Doing Heideggerian hermeneutic research: A discussion paper

Smythe, E. A., Ironside, P. M., Sims, S. L., Swenson, M. M., & Spence, D. G. (2008). Doing Heideggerian hermeneutic research: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1389-1397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.09.005

This was quite a difficult paper to read. In summary, it is one main researcher, in discussion with colleagues, going through the thought processes that lead them to hermeneutic analysis of their work. It goes into some depth on Heidegger's Dasein, etc. There are a few useful points which I could use in my assignment.

Within this sort of work, rigour is often renamed trustworthiness (needs a citation). The authors stress that they do not link to Husserl or his followers such as Colazzi and Giorgi. They choose to stay close to the experience itself (ontologic) rather than try to articulate a more generalised analysis of essence (ontic).

1. At the heart

"In the midst" of a specific situating that is constantly in flux". Specific knowing can only come in the moment. Gadamer spoke of the rom to "play" - some room to explore within a structure (e.g. wheels on a bike needing some 'pay' to allow for their free movement).

Phronensis: a key part of Heideggerian hermeneutics - the "wisdom in action" that knows in the moment and finds the way, day by day. Researchers in  phenomenology are  never outside their research - they are always in the midst, making choices and living with possibilities.

2. Our quest

There is an understanding that their research cannot produce objective, scientific concepts of truth. Heidegger (in Harman, 2007) refers to truth as 'unconcealment' yet what we seek will move in and out of concealment as we try to seek it. "Thinking is not a 'working out' but a 'letting come' (Dunne, 1993).

3. Translation to method

3.1 The phenomenological conversation
Within phenomenology, the method must, at times, make way for 'Dasein' - being in the moment. Each conversation is unique, even when an interview framework is used. "What matters most is openness to what 'is' - to the play of conversation" (p. 1392).

3.2. Working with the data
Heidegger suggests that our understanding is always already there and cannot nor should be divorced from our thinking. "We are called by a particular story, just as one 'stops' in front of a particular painting in an art gallery". One can never teach another how to think because meditative thinking, as described by Heidegger (1992) is an experience of being-lost-in-thought. The  minute one tries to 'describe' how one thinks, one moves from being-in-thought to a more ontic process that is different.

Van Manen (1990, p. 79) 2Grasping and formulating a thematic understanding is not a rule-bound process but a free act of 'seeing'  meaning". What we call themes are not necessarily the same thing said again and again but rather an understanding we have seen something that matters significantly, something that we wish to point the reader towards.

They suggest that themes aren't 'findings' removed from the data but to indicate what the researcher senses within the text and to indicate to the reader that this will be analysed further.

3.3. Offering
Reliability is not important but what provokes the researcher to wonder.

3.4. Inviting
Heideggerian phenomenology invites the reader to make their own journey.

4. The 'experience'

4.1. At the beginning, the research question is not important and is not fixed. "The focus of the research is held but the questions we bring to that focus will grow and change as our understanding builds."

4.2. Captured by a thought
Insights

4.3. Enjoying
Letting the ideas jump out.

4.4. Working
Listen for the ideas that jump out.

4.5. Listening and responding
Must have an openness to the thinking that emerges and respond to those insights with  more questions.

4.6. The unutterable circle of writing

4.7. Openness
writing as thinking rather than writing as reporting. Be open to the unexpected.

4.8. Always an impression
Findings of hermeneutic phenomenological research is the impression gained. It seeks to engage others in their own thinking experience.

4.9. Discerning trust
The researcher has a responsibility to listen in a way that seeks to understand the meaning of what is said, and to respond with thinking that provokes and engages. Resonance - the hallmark of trustworthiness.

4.10. 'Graced moments'
A hallmark of phenomenological research is the act of 'graced moments' (Heidegger) - a shared sense of belonging to the insight that seems to go beyond what was said, yet is felt and understood as being true.

4.11. Being self
Let thinking come, as it comes. 'Being there' in the midst of what is.

4.12. Conclusion
The paper sought to provide words for the unutterable process of phenomenological research. Phenomenological researchers listen to the participants' story of their lived experiences, trusting that new understandings come through the data. Writing hermeneutically is thinking.

Overall, this paper shines through with the joy that the researchers seem to feel as they engage with the process of research and particularly with the process of analysis of the text.


Further reading:

Dunne (1993) Back to the rough ground.

Harman (2007) Heidegger explained. From object to phenomenon.

Heidegger (1992) What calls for thinking?

Heidegger (1995) Being and time.

Van Manen (1990). Researching lived experience.

Deep swimming and murky waters: Phenomenological interviewing

This paper is a useful one to consider and review just prior to interviewing. It goes through the process and its difficulties, for an early stage researcher. The key point to keep in mind seems to be that you need to make sure you use questions appropriately to probe deeply enough to get answers to the research question.

King, D. (2014). Deep swimming and murky waters: Phenomenological interviewing - reflections from the field. Education Journal, 3(3), 170-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140303.18

Abstract: A reflection on the merits and caveats of phenomenological interviewing as an educational research tool.

1. Introduction: Phenomenology - issues in educational research

1.1. Phenomenology - what it is.
"The difficulties of stating point-blank what phenomenology is are notorious" (Wimpenny & Gass, 2000). There are disagreements about differing approaches to phenomenology and even disagreement over whether it is an approach or a method (Wilkes 1991 - can't find online at the moment). There is a discussion of the primacy of subjective consciousness; awareness that this consciousness bestows meaning and that this meaning can be accounted for through reflexivity. Polit, Beck & Hungler (2001) suggest that the approach is of use when studying a phenomenon that is not well described.

1.2. Why it is valued in educational research
Human experience is revealed through rich descriptions from the people being studied. It preserves the integrity of the situation where it is used (Cohen, Mannion & Morrison, 2007). This leads to insight and awareness of participants' inner worlds. The phenomenological researcher uses their "intuition, imagination and universal structures to obtain a picture" (Cresswell, 1998) of the experience under study. The subjective judgement of the researcher is a key part of the phenomenological approach (Polit & Hungler, 1991).

1.3. Bracketing
The author discusses the role of bracketing as vital in Husserlian/transcendental phenomenology. He then discusses Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology where we cannot separate our own 'being in the world' (dasein?). Attempts to bridge the gap between Husserl's and Heidegger's views on bracketing have led to the suggestion that the researcher acknowledges the subjective views that describe individual realities. These views include those of the researcher. The author suggests self reflection as a tool to define the researcher's concerns and explain their world view. Open acknowledgement  of the researcher's viewpoint is made explicit to the reader. The philosophical viewpoint of the researcher should be made clear, to provide methodological transparency. Rigour and trustworthiness rest on the researcher clearly demonstrating their preconceptions and contribution to the interview process (Lowes & Prowse, 2001).

The researcher  is the primary instrument of research therefore we need to begin by examining, identifying and acknowledging values, experiences and expectations in relation to the research, and why we are interested in the topic. This can be done through a researcher as instrument statement.

2. Framing the research question.

Framing the initial research question is the first step in the research process (Wellington, 2011). At the bottom of page 172 - some (possibly) good information on how to come up with a research question, by working through the author's own thought processes.

3. Interviews as research instruments

The role of interviewing as a means of data collection is to gather knowledge as generated between humans, often through conversations. Interviews allow subjects to provide their personal views and interpretations of the world. Interviews are multi-sensory, with both verbal and non-verbal communication. There is co-construction of the interview between the interviewer and interviewee (Walford, 2001). "A tacit tension exists between the need for an interviewing framework and the essential naivety required for phenomenological interviewing" (p. 175). The author's suggestion here is that, especially for the beginning researcher, questions do need to be outlined prior to the interview. However, the researcher should have the courage and intuition to follow up areas of interest that relate specifically to the research question, even if they haven't been considered during the planning process.

3.2. Phenomenological interviewing and the interview framework
Seidman (1991) suggests that the researcher needs to have an interest in the stories of others. e need to remain open to emergent experiences. Interview schedules are developed to identify the experience and its meaning for the participants.

4. Sampling and conducting the interview

Use of purposive sampling - selecting appropriate information from sources to explain meanings. We need to make a conscious decision on the site of choice for interviewing as this can affect interviewee response.

5. Ethical considerations

We have a moral obligation to conduct research ethically and to take all necessary precautions to avoid harm. Must seek approval from the ethics committee. BERA require voluntary informed consent. A participant information sheet and consent form are provided. Clear and accurate records of the research procedures followed. Secure data storage.

6. IPA of interview transcripts

The author suggests approaching the data with two aims:
1. To try to understand the participants' world and describe 'what it is like';
2. To develop a more overtly interpretative analysis, positioning the initial description in a wider social, cultural and theoretical context  (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006 - have already read this - go back to!) The novice is therefore using a proven framework.

6.1. Phenomenological reduction
There should be bracketing of the researcher's personal views and assumptions during analysis. It is an analysis of the experience 'as lived' rather than allowing personal/theoretical concepts to get in the way of the rigour with which the description was being analysed. Need to read the transcripts 'naively' several times to get a sense of the whole (consider the hermeneutic circle here - exploration of the part/the whole and back to the part?)

6.2. First order constructs
Hycner (1985) recommends that the researcher delineates units of general meaning through scrutiny of verbal and non-verbal responses, to distil the meaning of the participant, using rich data from the participants themselves.  "Construct" = an abstract or general idea extracted from specific instances by systematically arranging ideas or terms to create a mental framework. First order constructs are units of participant statements kept in their original verbatim form.

6.3. Second order constructs
This is where we interpret meaning from the verbatim text to illuminate the phenomenon in approachable terms (Van Manen, 1990). We look for convergence and divergence by interpreting the narrative and describing and arranging themes into categories - second order constructs.
Taber (1991) describes first order constructs s how the participant conceptualises the phenomenon of interest and second order constructs as how the researcher makes sense of the phenomenon through interpretation.

6.4. Clustering of themes
The second order constructs are grouped into themes. During this phase the researcher moves between the parts and the whole (hermeneutic circle), and clusters the themes into a meaningful relation - structural synthesis of the core elements of the described experience.

7. Discussion of findings

The direct story of the participant recounted that mentoring was a good, helpful experience. The researcher then positioned the participant's interpretation of 'goodness' and 'helpfulness' within a theoretical framework to gain a full picture of what the mentoring experience meant. The researcher clustered the themes under three key constructs defined in relation to the pupil's interpretation of her mentoring experience: mentor constructs, pupil constructs and impact constructs.

8. Conclusion - reflections on phenomenological interviewing

Trustworthiness of the data is an issue  the participants may feel they have to provide the 'true' answer. This would depend on any power relationship between interviewer and participant. The researcher found that he needed more detailed responses to answer the research question - see my comments at the beginning. This is something I must try to get right!

Further reading:

Cohen, Mannion & Morrison, 2007 Research methods in education (6th ed.).

Cresswell (1998) Qualitative enquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions.

Larkin Watts & Clifton 2006. Giving voice and making sense in IPA

Lowes & Prowse (2001). Standing outside the interview process? The illusion of objectivity in phenomenological data generation.

Polit, Beck & Hungler (2001). Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisals and utilisation.

Polit & Hungler (1991) Nursing research: principles, methods (3rd ed.).

Taber (1991) Triangulating job attitudes.....

Seidman (1991) Interviewing as qualitative research

Van Manen (1990) Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy

Walford (2001). Doing qualitative educational research: a personal guide to the research process.

Wellington, 2011. Educational research: contemporary issues and practical approaches.

Wilkes (1991). Phenomenology: A window to the nursing world. In G. Gray & R. Pratt, Towards a discipline of nursing (pp. 229-246). Melbourne, Australia: Churchill Livingstone.

Wimpenny & Gass (2000) Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: Is there a difference?

On the right track!

I had a meeting with the module tutor today, about my proposed research for the Research Methods module To say I was nervous was an understatement! I sort of expected to be quizzed on my ontological and epistemological standpoint and be questioned on my choice (seemingly random) of methodology.

But no. Hurrah! I gave an overview of my background and interest and then of my research question. The tutor started off by saying it was a widely studied area, so my immediate concern was that there would be no further area to study. The tutor reeled off list after list of reports surrounding the area of vocational qualifications and their perception in relation to A levels. These I'll have to acquaint/reacquaint myself with:

- Higginson report on A levels in 1988
- Tomlinson report which was quashed by the Blair/Brown government in the run up to the 2010 election
He suggested that I tap into the long history on the topic of vocational qualifications and their role in equipping young people to become career-ready, for example Leitch's Review of Skills

He also suggested I read up on Michael Young: A Curriculum for the 21st Century? Towards a New Basis for Overcoming Academic/Vocational Divisions (can't currently access this online anywhere).

We also discussed (well, I listened...) Foucault's discursive practices relating to policy, with the suggestion that policies speak into existence the behaviours and understandings of us all. Policies inform practice and there is a sovereignty of academic qualifications over vocational qualifications; students come to believe in this 'truth' through socialisation.

With regard to the use of IPA, the tutor was happy for me to use this methodology. He stressed the importance of location of my self within the research, and suggested that I ensure disclosure of my background, in the introduction, to identify the lens through which I view and interpret the research. This will be discussed in relation to the theory of reflexivity My own thought is that I need to mention bracketing, if only to explain why I discount it. Furthermore, something I haven't mentioned previously, is that I am the first generation of the family to go to university. This is something worth mentioning. Currently, I remain the only member of my side of t he family to do so.

SO, where am I? In a happier place about my thoughts about how to go about this assignment and research project.

What do I need to do now?
- Reconsider my assignment plan to incorporate policies/discursive practices
- Consider adding info on the various reports highlighted
- Develop my location of self
- Get cracking on the ethics side of things! This is what may well hold me up.

More IPA - still no idea why I'm keen

I've read a little more about the 'nitty gritty' of IPA, as well as some more background on its history and theory. Daunting, but still I haven't come across a reason why I shouldn't pursue this path. My main concern, I suppose, is that a lot of the literature relates to its use in psychology/health psychology rather than in education. If you search, there is a range of material out these using it in education, albeit relatively recent. I've not got a real idea on the quality of the material either.

Incidentally, while I'm making some notes about assignment 1 (and potential dissertation thoughts), I've come across some reference to Tinto's student retention/departure models, which merit further investigation. (Also, Austin's theory on student involvement - not looked into this at all at the moment). These could be of use, depending on what my research finds. I need to keep them in mind. However, I'm not sure, if I use IPA, whether I should be 'free' of theories until after I have done my first lot of analysis - I may potentially organise my questions to support the theories I'm considering aligning my thoughts to.

Anyway, enough navel-gazing. My most recent reading (usual caveats apply - I'll need to paraphrase before use):

Larkin, M., Watts, S., & Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 102-120.

Abstract

IPA involves the phenomenological requirement to understand and give voice to the concerns of participants. The interpretative requirement to contextualise and 'make sense' of the claims and concerns. The paper looks to explore the relationship between the phenomenological and interpretative aspects of IPA. It covers the epistemological range of IPAs interpretative focus and its relationship to the more descriptive features of phenomenological analysis. Drawing upon concepts from Heideggerian phenomenology the paper situates its conclusions within a contextualist position.

Introduction: IPA

There is a belief that IPA is 'simply descriptive'. However, it is only seen as this as it is a flexible, accessible and applicable tool. This is not to say that it is without vigour. To be done correctly the novice researcher must be aware that its inherent flexibility may make other,  more prescriptive, methods 'safer'. The authors believe that IPA is a powerful method when carried out correctly.

The idea that IPA is 'simple' may stem from Conrad's use of the words "insider's perspective" and is invariably used to describe others' work with IPA. To be able to gain an "insider's perspective" requires thought. Some IPA research, particularly in health psychology, has avoided interpretation of data and the formation of concepts. This oversimplification can make IPA seem superficial.

IPA research is ideographic - it focuses on the individual. That is not to say that findings from IPA studies cannot be applied more widely, but that this wider application is not very generalizable (??? - my own thoughts - need to clarify and then support!)

IPA studies, methodologically, produce an intensive and detailed analysis of a relatively small number of participants. A range of methods can be used to gather data, including semi-structured interviews. Findings are reported thematically. The process is flexible and similar to other qualitative methods.

There is a phenomenological emphasis on the lived experience of the participants. The IPA researcher must seek to understand the world of the participant and to describe it. However, our experience of the participant's world can only ever be partial - the account is constructed by both participant and researcher. Nevertheless, the researcher's aim is to reproduce a view as close as possible to that of the participant. The second stage (double hermeneutics) is to perform an interpretative analysis. Here, the researcher takes into account the wider social, cultural and theoretical context when revisiting the description. The interpretation "aims to provide a critical and conceptual commentary upon the participants' personal 'sense-making' activities'" (p. 104). The researchers can consider 'what it means for the participant to have made these claims and expressed themselves within this situation. within this, the researcher may draw upon existing theoretical constructs'. So here, I've answered my question about whether/when to draw on existing theory such as Tinto, Bourdieu (if they are relevant!).

The paper expands on the phenomenological and interpretative aspects of IPA. The background is drawn from Heidegger and hermeneutics. There follows a discussion on the role of IPA in qualitative psychology.

Husserl, Heidegger and phenomenology as the study of persons-in-context

I'm going to have to review other papers on Husserl vs Heidegger, as I don't really understand this. Husserl made human consciousness central to his analyses. He also believed in the role of bracketing.
Heidegger was concerned that a person is always a 'person-in-context': "We are a fundamental part of a meaningful world and the meaningful world is a fundamental part of us". We can only be understood as a function of our involvement within the world and the world can only be understood as a function of our interactions with it.

Heidegger rejects Cartesian dualism of separate subject and object. He develops the concept of 'Dasein' ('there being'/'being there') - by nature we are 'there', i.e. somewhere, always located within a specific context.

Ontological and epistemological bases for investigating the person-in-context

It is not possible to remove ourselves, our thoughts, our meaning systems, from the world 2to find out an objective truth". However, this is not to say that we  live within a relativistic kedgeree of thought. "What is real is not dependent upon us, but questions about the nature of their reality can only occur because we ask the question". "Things" cannot be revealed unless they are brought meaningfully into the context of human life. Any discoveries we make are just a function of the relationship between researcher and subject. The 'reality' which emerges from the work depends upon how it is constructed by the researcher.

To gain answers of value, we need to reflexively consider the most appropriate questions to ask. A key concept of IPA is using 'sensitivity and responsiveness' to provide useful outcomes. Sensitivity and responsiveness are key to the phenomenological context of this method/stance. This allows the participant to show themselves as themselves and reveal any subject matter on their own terms.

The paper discusses the "empathetic" treatment of the subject, but consider this against the paper on hermeneutic listening - an inappropriate word?

IPA and persons-in-context

IPA is interested in how a particular person experiences and understands the idea of interest. Our interest is in their perception of the subject rather than the subject itself. This is a really important idea to remember. This is what makes it such an interesting method/stance. We know that we can't get to the truth, so we seek a truth, as seen by the participant. We need to consider their truth in light of historical/social etc contexts - the interpretative part of IPA. "An account can be used to reveal something about a person, but only that person's current positioning in relation to the world of objects which have come to constitute the subject in their experience, culture and locale". The analyst must therefore focus on the person-in-context (a particular person in a particular context) and that person's relatedness to the 'phenomena at hand' is the topic we are interested in. "That is, we are interested in how they understand and make sense of their experiences in terms of their relatedness to, and their engagement with, those phenomena."

An account produced by a participant can be used thematically to reveal something real about the object we are studying. "In choosing IPA for a research project, we commit ourselves to exploring, describing, interpreting, and situating the means by which our participants make sense of their experiences" (p. 110). This is contextualism (Madill et al., 2000).

Giving voice: The 'phenomenological goal' demonstrated

Heideggerian phenomenology requires us to identify, describe and understand the 'objects of concern' in the participant's world and the 'experiential claims' made by the participant. These are the key feature of the first order, descriptive, coding in IPA. The authors give an example - Nigel. They study him in order to capture something "of what is important" to him in this context and with this topic at hand. The key element for Nigel is money - it permeates his words.

Making sense - the 'interpretative repertoire' revisited

IPA wants to go further than description; not least because it is hard to identify where description ends and interpretation begins. IPA goes beyond description as it focuses on sense-making activities and our 'involvement in the world'. Interpreting what it means for the participant to have such concerns, within their specific context.

Hermeneutics does not subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth. It assumes that any interpretation involving a hermeneutic circle in which the interpreter's perspective and understanding initially shape their interpretation, but that interpretation, as it reacts with the phenomena of interest, is open to revision and elaboration as the perspective and understanding of the interpreter, including their biases and blind spots, are revealed and evaluated.

P. 114: IPA has been developed to allow the researcher to produce a theoretical framework based upon, but capable of exceeding, the participant's own terminology and conceptualisations. The approach seeks to generate an 'insider's perspective' but no single theoretical assumption about how that perspective may be interpreted.

A range of analytical strategies can be used during interpretation. Anything used needs: carefully formulated research questions and subsequent analysis; a willingness to reflect on the process of data collection and analysis; a contextualised account.

Summary

IPA has developed as a set of core ideas (idiographic, phenomenological, interpretative analysis, with first person accounts as data, etc.). Some areas are flexible, e.g. epistemology procedure. It combines rich description of a phenomenological 'core' (aiming to capture something of the 'person-in-context'), with more speculative development of an interpretative account - the meaning of the claims and concerns.