For both IPA and narrative analysis, the goal is not to measure the frequency of the themes. Instead, it is to measure the content and complexity thereof, while adhering to the concerns and preoccupations of the research participant (Smith & Osborne, 2008). The data analysis stage commenced after the collection of the narratives and involved a multi-step process.
4.6.1 Phase 1: Multiple readings and making notes. In the initial stage of analysis I conducted multiple close readings of the collected narratives and collated interview transcripts in order to familiarise myself with the text (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014; Smith & Osborne, 2008). This initial process was important in allowing me to immerse myself in the data (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014). Since each reading was considered to provide additional insights into the text, it was important for the research material to be read both in relation to the research questions and to the principles of the narrative methods (Burman, 1994). I utilised the left-hand margin to make general notes about my observations and anything interesting written or said by the participant. My notes were unfocused and not clustered in any way (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014; Smith & Osborne, 2008; Willig, 2008). My notes focused on the content of what was written, the participant’s use of language, repetitions, and made initial interpretive comments. I also noted issues of reflexivity during this process (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014).
During these readings, I noted areas requiring clarification or further probing for inclusion in the follow-up semi-structured interview. Once the interviews were complete, the next step was to transcribe them. An important aspect of IPA and narrative analysis is that the transcript is verbatim. These transcripts focused not just
on the verbatim transcription of the participants’ words; any significant pauses,
laughter, false starts, and strong emotions were also noted (Smith & Osborne, 2008).
Once the transcription was completed, I engaged in the same process as previously done with the written narratives: multiple readings, with unfocused, unclustered notes in the left-hand margin (Smith & Osborne, 2008; Willig, 2008). Notes made during this stage were detailed and comprehensive in order to reflect the source material and lay the foundation for the later stages of analysis (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014). My unfocused notes in both the narratives and the transcripts of the
interviews paid special attention to both the IPA and narrative analysis concerns.
4.6.2 Phase 2: Transforming notes into emergent themes. At this stage of analysis, after the process of reading and notation was complete, I used the right- hand margin to list emerging themes in both the narratives and the transcripts of the interview. During this stage, I relied more on my notes than the narratives and the transcripts (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014). Once this was complete, the themes were listed in a separate document and connections between themes were clustered to create superordinate and subordinate themes (Smith & Osborne, 2008). Quotations from both the narratives and the interviews were utilised to support the emerging themes.
In discussion and reflection with my research psychologist assistants, I proceeded to label the resulting clusters of themes. The labels aimed to capture the essence of all themes within it. A summary table containing the superordinate theme and
subordinate themes that illuminated the phenomenon under investigation for each transcript, alongside citations representing these themes in the text was constructed (Willig, 2008). I then further discussed the clustered theme titles with my assistants with a view to validate my analysis process.
The participants’ quotations were clustered based on each theme. Through immersing myself again in this reading I selected the quotations which I felt most effectively illuminated the identified themes. My aim was to produce superordinate themes that captured these phenomenological experiences of the participants’ and that would be presented through extracts from their narratives. I will proceed to present the superordinate and subordinate themes which occur across the participants’ narratives and interpretive themes in light of the participants’ lived
experience, while simultaneously presenting the higher order theoretical ideas reflected, which I will locate within the context of the ITAND theoretical model.
4.6.2.1 Interpretive phenomenological analysis. At this stage, I shifted my
analysis to a higher level of abstraction and positioned the data within the
psychological framework of the ITAND Programme while still maintaining focus on the participants’ primary concerns (Burman, 1994; Larkin & Thompson, 2012; Larkin et al., 2006; Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014).
4.6.2.2 Narrative analysis. I conducted narrative analysis concurrently with the IPA
analysis. Narrative analysis goes beyond the examination of the content of the interviews and narratives; it examines the interactional and language structures of the data (Squire, 2005). Extending beyond the exploration of themes, narrative analysis requires the examination of the general structure of the narrative: abstract, orientation, complicating action, evaluation, and resolution (Labov & Waletzky, 1997). A narrative always has a story-teller and an audience. Therefore, it was important for me to keep in mind during the analysis that the audience for the participants’ writing was myself (Squire, 2005).
The narrative is not just a story, but serves a cultural, social, and personal function for the story-teller (Labov & Waletzky, 1997; Viney & Bousfield, 1991). The story is required to account for its telling. Narratives can assign blame, speak about
causality, give lessons and demonstrate morality (Squire, 2005). Participants also engage in narrative positioning. Therefore, I analysed the extracts in terms of how the characters within the narratives were positioned in relation to each other, how the speaker positioned herself in relation to the audience (myself), and how the speakers positioned themselves in relation to themselves (Bamberg, 1997). These aspects of the narrative were noted in the right-hand margin, to be expounded on in the write- up.
4.6.3 Phase 3: Identifying relationships and clustering themes. This phase involved identifying connections between the emergent themes identified in the previous step. The themes were grouped together based on conceptual similarities, and I identified each cluster with a descriptive label (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014). A table was created that ordered the main and subordinate themes in a coherent way (Smith & Osborne, 2008). These themes were accompanied by a short description,
and relevant short extracts from the narratives and transcripts were added. At this stage, emergent themes which had a weak evidential base or were redundant to the emerging structure were eliminated (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014).
It was important to pay attention to analytic reflexivity at this stage, to place the analysis within an account of its production and acknowledge the constraints of the analysis (Burman, 1994). Analysis requires interpretation, and inherent in this is incompleteness, partiality and bias. A transcript can be vulnerable to over-
interpretation and/or misinterpretation. A text can always be read in multiple ways; it is important to acknowledge that any analysis done on the transcripts is only one way of reading them (Burman, 1994). Since the analysis of a transcript is non- exhaustive and partial, I also accept that the analysis remains unfinished (Burman, 1994).
4.6.4 Phase 4: Writing up. Having completed the analysis, the findings were documented according to the individual themes (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014). During this time, the analysis was expanded and the themes were translated into a narrative account in which I made analytic comments (Smith & Osborne, 2008). Each theme was described, illustrated with supporting quotations, and then followed by an analytic comment by me (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014). Using extracts from the
narratives and interview transcripts has two functions. The first allows the reader to critically examine my interpretive analysis. The second provides an opportunity for participants’ perspective to be presented and the participant’s voice to be heard.
In the write-up, when passages were selected to elaborate a point, limitations on length dictated that the whole transcript could not be used (Bucholtz, 2000). I remained cognisant of the fact that whichever content I selected or ignored would have an effect on the context of the research. The selection of part of the content of the transcript for the research report reflects my research questions, ideas about the participants, ideas about the topic at hand and many other unintentional dimensions. While it is impossible to remove this bias, it was essential that I remained reflexive about it (Bucholtz, 2000).
For IPA, the write-up presents an opportunity for the participant’s concerns to remain the centre of the analysis, while grounding it within the psychological framework of the ITAND Programme. The write-up can present a multi-level analysis, focusing
from a low-level interpretation, to a highly detailed, theoretical examination which generates new insights (Pietkiewic & Smith, 2014). The write-up of the narrative analysis was woven into the IPA analysis, focusing on the interactional and language structures of the data (Squire, 2005). It also allowed for the examination of cultural, social, and personal function of the narrative for the story-teller (Labov & Waletzky, 1997; Viney & Bousfield, 1991), which provided a useful reflexive tool for me as the researcher.