Elizabeth Clifton

Bio: Elizabeth Clifton is an academic researcher from Northampton Community College. The author has contributed to research in topics: Interpretative phenomenological analysis & Mental Health Act. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 1726 citations. Previous affiliations of Elizabeth Clifton include University of Northampton.

Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis

Abstract: In this paper, we discuss two complementary commitments of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): the phenomenological requirement to understand and ‘give voice’ to the concerns of participants; and the interpretative requirement to contextualize and ‘make sense’ of these claims and concerns from a psychological perspective. The methodological and conceptual bases for the relationship between these phenomenological and interpretative aspects of IPA appear to be underdeveloped in the literature. We, therefore, offer some thoughts on the basis of this relationship, and on its context within qualitative psychology. We discuss the epistemological range of IPA's interpretative focus, and its relationship to the more descriptive features of phenomenological analysis. In order to situate our conclusions within a contextualist position, we draw upon concepts from Heideggerian phenomenology. The argument is illustrated by excerpts from our own research on relationship break-up. We conclude by encouraging ...

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Abstract: The aim of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is to explore in detail how participants are making sense of their personal and social world, and the main currency for an IPA study is the meanings particular experiences, events, states hold for participants. The approach is phenomenological (see Chapter 3) in that it involves detailed examination of the participant’s lifeworld; it attempts to explore personal experience and is concerned with an individual’s personal perception or account of an object or event, as opposed to an attempt to produce an objective statement of the object or event itself. At the same time, IPA also emphasizes that the research exercise is a dynamic process with an active role for the researcher in that process. One is trying to get close to the participant’s personal world, to take, in Conrad’s (1987) words, an ‘insider’s perspective’, but one cannot do this directly or completely. Access depends on, and is complicated by, the researcher’s own conceptions; indeed, these are required in order to make sense of that other personal world through a process of interpretative activity. Thus, a two-stage interpretation process, or a double hermeneutic, is involved. The participants are trying to make sense of their world; the researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their world. IPA is therefore intellectually connected to hermeneutics and theories of interpretation (Packer and Addison, 1989; Palmer, 1969; Smith, in press; see also Chapter 2 this volume). Different interpretative stances are possible, and IPA combines an empathic hermeneutics with a questioning hermeneutics. Thus, consistent with its phenomenological origins, IPA is concerned with trying to understand what it is like, from the point of view of the participants, to take their side. At the same time, a detailed IPA analysis can also involve asking critical questions of the texts from participants, such as the following: What is the person trying to achieve here? Is something leaking out here that wasn’t intended? Do I have a sense of something going on here that maybe the participants themselves are less aware of?

Interpretative phenomenological analysis

Abstract: Research demonstrates that rejection sensitivity develops through early, continuing, or acute experiences of rejection from caregivers and significant others. Rejection sensitivity refers to individuals who anxiously or angrily expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection. The question regarding why rejection is feared by rejection sensitive individuals remains unanswered by existing rejection sensitivity literature. Therefore, the current study answers this question using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to analyse 8 participants' experiences of rejection sensitivity. Four superordinate themes emerged: `experiences of parenting'; `impact of rejection'; `coping with the concept of rejection'; and `identity'. The primary fundamental finding indicates that rejection sensitivity is the same concept as abandonment anxiety. Participants in the current study demonstrate both rejection sensitivity and abandonment anxiety. Furthermore, the origins and characteristics of both concepts are identified as the same. Therefore, these findings indicate that rejection is feared for the same reason that abandonment is feared. In childhood, abandonment is experienced as terrifying and therefore defences are adopted to avoid further abandonment. The concept of `past in present' means that childhood feelings can be timelessly re-experienced in adulthood as actual and unchanged. Therefore, later rejection situations are perceived as abandonment and accordingly alert an individual to impending danger. As a result, rejection is feared because it is perceived as abandonment and as a threat to survival. This finding is fundamental to the fields of rejection sensitivity and abandonment anxiety, in terms of research and therapeutic work with clients. Integrating existing literature provides much greater depth of knowledge and support for these concepts. Recommended therapeutic approaches for abandonment anxiety can also inform interventions for rejection sensitive clients. Findings also suggest that participants experience annihilation anxiety in relation to perceived rejection, which further increases fear. Clinical applications and implications with respect to the findings arc discussed.