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?

/pdf/interpretative-phenomenological-analysis-1rd3eyxs1j.pdf

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/201/4359/899.2.full.pdf

Phenomenology of perception.

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.

Interpretative phenomenological analysis

Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction

This paper has a marked practical aspect. We wish to encourage and facilitate the use of Q methodology amongst psychologists interested in qualitative research. The paper duly answers a number of pertinent ‘how to do Q’ questions. Yet our primary intention is not to produce an exhaustive ‘how to do Q’ guide. In discussing issues of theory, method and interpretation in Q methodology, the main aim of the paper is rather to address some of the more common misunderstandings and misrepresentations that constitute obstacles to the use of one of the very first ‘alternative’ methods to have been developed in the context of psychology. In addressing such obstacles, the paper hopes to bring ‘Why do Q?’ questions to the fore. In so doing, Q methodology will also be ‘positioned’ in relation to a number of other qualitative research methods, each of which currently enjoys a degree of prominence within the psychological discipline.

Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation

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 ...

Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis

This book introduces the theory and practice of Q methodology, and takes the reader on a journey from understanding the early history of the method to being in a position where the reader will be able to do Q methodology for themselves. Watts and Stenner cogently and clearly set out the origins of Q methodology in factor analysis and the R methodological procedures, and go on to explain the theory behind Q as set out by the method's early pioneers. They also look at how Q deals with issues such as subjectivity, abduction and constructivism. The main purpose of this book is to enable the reader to set up, run and analyse and effective study using Q methodology. The book is illustrated with examples and case studies throughout, and offers advice on highly practical issues such as the conduct of fieldwork, working with participants, good data management. The bulk of the book looks at process of analysis itself in Q methodology and examines and explains analysis through the use of a dataset and practical examples and exercises.

Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation

The understanding of their illness amongst people with irritable bowel syndrome: a Q methodological study.

The social scientific literature seems increasingly to accept that defining partnership or 'romantic' love in a singular and timeless fashion might not be a realisable task (Fehr, 1988). One clearly discernible response to this situation takes the form of a turn towards studying the subjective experience of partnership love. The work of Marston, Hecht, Manke, McDaniel, and Reeder (1998) and Sternberg (1995, 1996, 1998) are highlighted as theoretical and methodological exemplars in this regard. Each successfully abstracts a range of cultural conceptions of partnership love from the subjective experiences of their participants. It is argued, however, that the subjective experiences of the participants themselves, and particularly the holistic or Gestalt nature of those experiences, are left behind in the process of abstraction. This new research seeks to rectify that situation. An alternative (but nonetheless related) approach to the study of partnership love is duly outlined and an illustrative Q-Methodological study is reported which reveals eight distinct subjective experiences of partnership love at work amongst our participants (N = 50). Each of these holistic experiences is presented in the form of a narrative account. These accounts are then discussed and situated in relation to existing academic, cultural and historical conceptions of partnership love.

Simon Watts

Papers

Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis

Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation

Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation

The understanding of their illness amongst people with irritable bowel syndrome: a Q methodological study.

The subjective experience of partnership love: a Q Methodological study.