Elliot et al. (1999) proposed seven ofstandards for quality of qualitative research. These standards were drawn upon to critique the methodology and results of this study:
1. Owning one’s perspective.
This refers to the researcher owning one’s perspective of the research topic, including their theoretical orientation and personal anticipations. In order to do this, as the researcher, I have attempted to recognise my values, interests and assumptions and the role these played in my understanding of the results. I engaged in self-reflexivity through keeping a reflective journal and through conversations with my research supervisors. A declaration where I am open about my theoretical and personal perspectives isincluded in Section 2.3 of the Methodology. By doingthis I aimed to help the reader to comprehend my understanding and consider alternatives. I will now further expand on my own perspective in order to highlight the reflexive relationship between myself and this research.
When first considering this research area I was drawn to investigate the boundary between trainees’ personal and professional lives. This perhaps stemmed from my own struggles in trying to create a boundary between these for myself. I was particularly intrigued by relationships during training, which are framed as professional (e.g. with other trainees), yet for me, colleagues became friends and confidants. Yet, I attempted to maintain a boundary between different aspects of myself, perhaps because this was what I thought was expected of me. Therefore, in approaching this research I anticipated that my participants would attempt to separate their personal and professional lives and selves. Yet, participants spoke about these aspects of themselves as closely intertwined. This close relationship was something many participants valued. This mirrored my own journey of allowing fluidity into the boundary between personal and professional aspects of myself.
The fluidity of the boundary between personal and professional is a theme which I have considered throughout the duration of this research and there were multiple perspectives on this from participants. Supervision and my relationship with my primary supervisor has played a key role in my understanding of this boundary. The creation of an open reflective space by my supervisor enabled fluidity in my thinking and allowed for a focus on personal aspects of myself. The permission to bring my personal experiences and struggles into supervision has been a freeing experience. I have been able to consider multiple perspectives and embrace new ideas. As the reflexive relationship between personal and professional is acknowledged, so it must be that the personal cannot be ignored within the professional domain of supervision. This stance has allowed me to fully explore and acknowledge my relationship with this research, which has enabled me to fully engage with the research process and better represent the experiences of my participants. This personal focus has subsequently become intertwined within this research, as my research journey has joined with my personal journey.
I was drawn to working with my primary supervisor owing to her stance in relation to the training of Clinical Psychologists and how this fitted with my own experience of training. My supervisor values the personal perspective in training and views the personal context as central to the training experience and professional role. Her view is that through allowing people to be themselves, even within the professional training context, they are enabled to develop more fully and gain a fuller awareness of themselves. This was a view that fitted with me, though prior to this research I would have struggled to articulate this fully. Training has been a personal experience for me and I believe there has been a paradoxical process of me flourishing into who I have always been. My supervisor’s stance has made me consider alternative ways of thinking about the training experience, for example I have been able to move away from the current literature, which is often categorising of personal and professional, towards being open to the varied experiences of my participants.
As a trainee I have valued opportunities for personal professional development offered by my course (e.g. Problem Based Learning tasks, reflective practice groups). These opportunities have enabled me to make changes both personally and professionally. For example, I was greatly influenced by teaching on the value of relational risk taking (Mason, 1999) which I have applied in both my personal relationships and in my clinical practice. This idea has subsequently featured in this thesis and I was intrigued to find a theme around risk taking in my analysis of the interviews.
These experiences have led me to believe in the value of both personal and professional development as aspects of CP training. There has been a reflexive relationship between my own perspectives and the themes in the research. I now value a degree of separation between my personal and professional lives, but also bring personal aspects of myself into my practice. This is shown in my clinical work where I greatly value the human connection I have with my clients.
In light of this study being peer research, owning my perspective as the researcher was of particular importance, as I may have had similar experiences to the participants. Our potentially shared experiences would have understandably influenced my interpretations of the data; however, through self-reflexivity I was able to remain open to multiple perspectives. Furthermore Platt (1981) highlighted that a strength of peer research is that it can reduce power differences. Mercer (2007) stated that shared experiences can help foster stronger rapport and a deeper shared frame of reference. When asked about the influence of my peer status, participants spoke of a shared knowledge base, which enabled a deeper shared understanding of their experience.
2. Situating the sample
As part of situating the sample, it would be expected that the diversity of participants would be acknowledged. However owing to the small population from which I recruited participants, in line with the homogeneity of sample expected in IPA studies, exploring issues of diversity may
inadvertently have revealed the identity of participants. Therefore, diversity of the sample was not explored apart from basic descriptive data (e.g. age range and gender). This may impact on the generalisability of the study.
2. Grounding in examples
Elliot et al. (1999) highlighted the importance of grounding the results in examples from the data. This was achieved through use of verbatim quotes in the Results section. However, it must be
acknowledged that this was only one possible representation of the results. 3. Providing credibility checks
The analysis in this study followed the rigorous and transparent IPA procedure (Smith et al., 2009) in order to ensure validity of the results. Elliot et al. (1999) proposed that triangulation through
checking the credibility of emerging themes with individuals who have had experiences of the
phenomena under investigation, can be particularly useful. Both of my supervisors who were involved in triangulation of the data, have experienced PPD in the context of CP training and are now qualified CPs. Given the interpretative element of IPA, the findings of this study relate to my interpretations of participants interpretations of their experiences. Therefore, my interpretations of the data remained central to the overall findings of this study. Owing to Smith et al.’s (2009) concerns regarding seeking participants validation of the themes owing to the inherent double hermeneutic in IPA, their feedback was not sought.
4. Coherence
Elliot et al. (1999) proposed the importance of achieving coherence and integration whilst preserving nuances of the data. Coherence in this study was achieved through attempting to ensure themes hung together into a coherent narrative whilst preserving the nuances of the accounts through thorough representation of divergences and convergences in the Results. In addition, the two research supervisors were consulted to ensure the account given here was both coherent and rooted in the data. Yardley (2000) proposed that coherence can be achieved by ensuring that the research adheres to the underlying theoretical and epistemological assumptions of the implemented approach. This was ensured through acknowledging these aspects of IPA within the Methodology.