When considering which methodological approach was most appropriate to answer the research question, a number of qualitative methodologies were considered along with IPA; one of which was grounded theory (GT) as it is suited to exploring individual or interpersonal experiences (Charmaz, 2006). Willig (2008) highlights how GT aims to understand how social processes might account for phenomena that perhaps could have been useful in understanding possible processes such as how participants get into or sustain a romantic relationship. However, the aim of this study was to gain
insights into the essence of what it is like to experience romantic relationships. This might mean the experience of being in such a relationship, out of such a relationship, or perhaps what it is like to try to be in one. IPA was therefore felt more suitable to address the research question – as a way of understanding the texture and nature of experience (Smith & Osborn, 2008).
Discourse analytic approaches were also considered as a possible methodology. Discursive psychology (DP) aims to understand the performative and functional aspects of language within a particular interaction (Potter & Wetherall, 1987). DP does not see language as a route to cognition; rather it views it as a behaviour in its own right which has an interactive function that shapes a social reality (Willig, 2008). For example, DP could have been used to identify how the participants used la guage to o st u t thei o e pe ie e of o a ti elatio ships a d ho the a aged a d negotiated their interests within the interview. However, given that the aim of the current study
as to gai i sight i to e pe ie e, it as felt that DP s p i a fo us o la guage ould e potentially restrictive. IPA was thus better suited to revealing internal processes such as internal thoughts, feelings and beliefs (Chapman & Smith, 2008).
Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA) is another type of discourse analytic approach, which is less concerned with the interactive function of language, focusing more on how language gives insight into the different aspects of social and psychological life (Smith et al., 2009). FDA could have been used to u de sta d ho the pa ti ipa ts a ou ts ga e a i sight i to the diffe e t t pes of
o st u tio s of o a ti elatio ships a d ho these dis ou ses e a led pa ti ipa ts to ake sense of their own way of being. However, while FDA considers the implications of context in individual experience, its analytic focus is on the context itself (Willig, 2008). IPA on the other hand enables a detailed focus on the experiential involvement within the context (Smith et al., 2009). IPA was therefore felt more appropriate to fulfil the focus of lived experience.
IPA was chosen due to its distinct focus on gaining insights into the quality and texture of an
i di idual s li ed e pe ie e as ell examining and highlighting what meaning such experiences hold for them (Smith, Jarman, & Osborn, M, 1999; Eatough & Smith, 2008). Furthermore, IPA is also a pluralistic approach due to its varied philosophical foundations and methodological procedures (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). This allows for differing levels of interpretation, offering a greater level of flexibility and freedom throughout the research process. Smith et al., (2009) argue that this can be useful when exploring more complex experiences.
IPA also fully acknowledges the position of the researcher, highlighting how insights are more than just identified or discovered, but that meaning is also added by the researcher (Smith &
Shinebourne, 2012). As the researcher has a significant amount of pre-knowledge about ASD, as well as having experienced romantic relationships both directly and indirectly, it felt especially i po ta t to use a app oa h that full e og ises the esea he s pe spe ti e a d i flue es i the meaning-making process. Researcher reflexivity will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
The researcher was also drawn to IPA because of the number of parallels that can be made between IPA and counselling psychology philosophy. The aims of IPA are to hear and give voice to an
i di idual s li ed e pe ie e, et also to gi e ea i g to the a ou t i the o te t of ps hological theory (Smith et al., 2009). It could be argued that this is very compatible with what counselling psychologists are encouraged to do – to e gage ith lie ts a ou ts i a a epti g a d e pathi way that is value free, yet also to offer some kind of understanding that is linked with pre-existing psychological knowledge (British Psychological Society, 2006). Furthermore, the bottom-up
approach to knowledge generation that IPA assumes seems to be compatible with a practice-based research stance that is being increasingly advocated within the field of psychology (Barkham, Hardy, & Mellor-Clark, 2010).