Despite the fact that my personal E-P assumptions and research question fit well with the adoption of IPA, the process of identifying the most appropriate methodology encompassed a careful examination of other possible methodologies. In this section, I deal with an exploration of Narrative Analysis, Template Analysis, Discourse Analysis and Grounded Theory – which were considered as alternative methodologies – and explanation of the reasons for their rejection.
Narrative Analysis
Narrative Analysis (NA) was also taken into consideration. This methodology is mainly based on the social constructionist epistemology and attempts to analyse the linguistic representation of narrative accounts and reveal their structure by paying close attention to the restrictions and opportunities these structures pose upon human experience (Willig, 2008). The researcher is engaged with a specific experience that is presented in participants’ stories through the analysis of the discourse. Smith et al. (2009) recognise that this is an effective methodology for researchers interested in exploring participants’ experiences through narrative. Although I acknowledge the emphasis it places upon language and the verbal expressions of participants that can provide clues about their individual ways of sense-making, it was rejected. I considered that its emphasis on linguistic and narrative analysis does not leave enough space for considering how the participant is making sense of her experience. Moreover, interpretation is informed by social theory and for the purposes of my research question, a more comprehensive interpretative approach was preferred.
Template Analysis
Template analysis (TA), which was developed by King (1998), is very similar to IPA in the sense that is engaged with a similar analytical process (semi-structured interview, thematic analysis). However, it is also very different from IPA as it holds a more deductive approach. The themes do not emerge from the data but are pre- selected through the exploration of previous related research and guide the researcher in analysing her data (Langdridge, 2007). In IPA, which is grounded in an inductive method instead, the themes emerge from the data during and not before analysis. What seemed tempting about TA is that the actual phenomena of investigation not only emerge through the literature review but also through the meaning that the participants ascribe to them before the interviews. Before conducting interviews, the researcher administers questionnaires in order to decide upon the themes that she will be subsequently discussing in the interviews (Langdridge, 2007). Although this can allow more participant involvement, upon more reflection I thought that what
precedes the participant involvement (defining the themes from the literature review) counteracts this very involvement. The purpose of the project is to reveal the individual meanings of intersubjective experiences in the psychotherapy of psychosis that are grounded in practitioners’ experiences instead of employing pre-selected themes. I was interested in reflecting upon the practitioners’ experience though the double hermeneutic concept (I will discuss this later) and therefore recognising the co-creative element of the research process where both researcher and participant are equally involved.
Discourse Analysis
I consider discourse analysis (DA) as a very attractive method from a socio- political standpoint and as has already been shown, the E-P tradition acknowledges the impact of our socio-political situatedness. What I found mainly attractive was the notion of a shared use of language, which it considers as the creator of meaning that constructs our understanding of reality and defines our social roles (Murray, 2008). For this particular project, it would have been interesting to explore how participants employ language for describing their experiences as such an exploration can shed light on the creation and maintenance of psychiatric discourses and the construction of personal and group identities. However, the purpose of this project was to explore how practitioners make sense of their intersubjective experiences and not the ways in which these experiences are narrated based on socially available discourses. DA was finally discarded as a possible methodology because I was mainly interested in exploring participants’ experiences from a meaning-making perspective and I considered that my participants’ meaning making could have been undervalued with discourse analysis. Also, DA does not embrace a holistic intersubjective approach to language in the sense that is perceived as a social phenomenon as compared to IPA, which holds a more comprehensive approach.
Grounded Theory
It should first be mentioned that the original positivistic approach of grounded theory (GT) proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) was rejected for this project, as it is incongruent with my epistemological stance. Instead, Charmaz’s version of grounded theory was instead considered for this project, which intends to generate theory (Willig, 2008) and through the exploration of the phenomenon under investigation to provide an exploratory framework. At first glance, the development of an exploratory framework seemed tempting due to the lack of literature for the phenomenon under investigation, but upon further consideration, it was discarded at it strays from the E-P epistemological grounding of my research question. The emphasis on the development of a theoretical framework wouldn’t leave much space for grasping in detail the intersubjective experiences of participants. Moreover, one of the main principles of GT is the assumption that within the data there is certainly something to be discovered. My epistemological stance is in conflict with this principle as I am interested in exploring participants’ subjective interpretations of their intersubjective experiences and through them revealing in which ways these were different or similar and therefore I do not assume that within the data lies something to be discovered.
Considering the limitations of the above-mentioned methodologies in light of my research question and E-P assumptions, IPA was therefore considered to be the most compatible methodology. The next section deals with the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of IPA.