Epistemology
The researcher frames their epistemology within hermeneutic realism (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006), based on the philosophical works of Heidegger. This epistemological stance recognises that reality exists outside of human consciousness and existence, but that this reality can only be understood through the lens of the individual. Thus the question of a separate existence of an objective and subjective reality can only arise because humans are here to ask such questions (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). Crucially, whilst reality is not dependent on human existence, the interpretation of that reality very much is. In essence it is impossible to remove the human lens from the way in which we understand the world in order to find out how things are experienced in an objective way (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). Indeed Heidegger, a prominent philosopher in Hermeneutics, and the basis of this researcher’s understanding of hermeneutic realism, adopted a realist position (Larkin,
Watts & Clifton, 2006), who sought to better understand how humans experience an objective reality, which exists outside of human consciousness.
From a purely pragmatic view, and for all purposes relating to this research, this perspective serves to demonstrate that the researcher’s interests lie in the subjective
experiences and sense making of reality, and more specifically the phenomenon of killing in combat, rather than seeking an objective description of such phenomenon. This stance also highlights the researcher’s pragmatic approach to utilising a methodology that is best
66
served to exploring the sense making of individuals, rather than engaging in an epistemological debate regarding the nature of reality and knowledge. In short, the researcher has avoided using this thesis as a platform to investigate whether an objective reality exists outside of human consciousness, which can be defined and governed by laws, and has instead focused on the subjective experiences of the individual.
An example of how an individual might view a mundane object, such as an oak table, may provide clarity and make this issue of pragmatism less abstract. For instance, an individual might describe a crimson-stained oak table as a solid, robust ugly furniture item, which reminds them of their grandparents’ house when they were growing up. In this example, the researcher is not interested in whether the table exists or not outside of the individual’s experience or whether it is objectively ‘ugly’. Instead the researcher is interested in
exploring the meaning the table holds for that individual (the influence of the ‘boring’ grandparents’ house) and by extension how that affects their sense making, experiences
and ultimately, behaviour.
The focus of this thesis will be on analysing individuals’ sense making of their
experiences. This focus differs to other forms of phenomenology which seek a more descriptive, precise account of individual experiences, in an attempt to meet the rigours of the natural science (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). Therefore, the analysis of individuals’ experience will be based on interpretation rather than an objective and purely
descriptive analysis.
4.3: Introduction to IPA
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is a relatively recent and novel qualitative approach developed by Smith in the mid 90’s (Hefferon & Rodriguez, 2011; Smith, 1996, 2010, 2011; Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009) in order to address research issues in psychology and social sciences. IPA can be considered an approach within methods and
67
analysis in psychology, which both captures qualitative data, whilst maintaining a dialogue with mainstream psychology (Smith, 2004; Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). IPA is a research approach committed to the examination of how people make sense of their major life experiences (Smith, 2004; Smith, 2011). In this sense IPA is a psychological approach to analysis, as opposed to being borrowed from another subject, aimed at providing answers for applied or real world psychology (Smith, 2004; Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). Grounded in psychology, IPA differs from other forms of qualitative analysis by focusing on phenomenology and hermeneutics; as such it is concerned with exploring experience in its own terms and what happens when the everyday flow of lived experience takes on a particular significance for people (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2008; Smith, 2004, 2011; Hefferon & Rodriguez, 2011). A strength of IPA is its suitability to explore meaningful experiences in people’s lives. These experiences may take
on a major significance to the individual, who will then engage in a considerable amount of reflecting, thinking and feeling as they work through what it means (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2008; Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). This phenomenological approach of exploring how an individual makes sense of these experiences leads to its second theoretical axis: hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation. IPA is based on the idea that human beings are sense making creatures, and thus any narrative by the individual will reflect their attempt to make sense of their experience. IPA adopts a double hermeneutic approach to analysis, a second layer to the analysis that focuses on how the researcher interprets the narrative provided by the individual, in order to better understand their experiences (Eatough & Smith, 2006). In this way it can be said that the IPA researcher is trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of their experiences (Eatough & Smith, 2006; Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). Each of these major components of IPA will now be discussed.
68