RESPONSABILIDAD Y AUTORIDAD

Various approaches have been developed and used within descriptive phenomenological research to guide researchers from the initial stages of the research process through to data analysis (Colaizzi, 1978 and Giorgi, 1985). Within such approaches, the researcher is

required to maintain the context of epoché, by ‘bracketing’ their preconceptions about the

phenomenon under investigation (Langdridge, 2007). In chapter one I discussed how my professional experience created the incentive to pursue this study. As such I could not suspend or bracket my preconceptions to achieve epoché throughout the data collection or analysis; therefore a descriptive approach was not an option.

Instead I believed that an interpretative phenomenological approach to the data collection and analysis would be more suitable because such approaches do not necessitate the principles of epoché. Unlike descriptive phenomenological methods of analysis which focus

on epoché to reveal the ‘essences’ of a phenomenon; interpretative approaches concentrate on the researcher’s interpretation and the meaning of experience. Such

approaches include; interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA), hermeneutic (interpretive) phenomenology and phenomenological template analysis (TA).

Whilst the title ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis [IPA]’ indicates a focus on

analysis, this approach encompasses both the method of data collection and analysis. Developed by Smith (1996) as an alternative to descriptive phenomenological approaches

arguably more as a ‘third way’ between discourse analysis and cognitive social psychology,

the focus of IPA is how individuals perceive their experience and what it means to them. Within IPA, researchers have a general idea of the research question which they want to

explore and the aim is to explore the participant’s opinions of the subject. The role of the researcher is emphasised through the interpretation of analysis of the participant’s

71 IPA, whereby the researcher interprets the participant’s interpretation of the experience.

The double hermeneutic within IPA is based on the tradition of Gadamer’s (1975/1996) hermeneutic circle as discussed on page 64. Studies which use IPA are inductive and centred on the data as opposed to existing theory or knowledge (Langdridge, 2007). Smith described IPA as:

an attempt to unravel the meanings contained in accounts through a process of interpretative engagement with the texts and transcripts. (Smith, 1997, p. 189)

Smith (1997) described how such engagement of the researcher with the transcripts is achieved through a staged process. The researcher identifies themes and develops clusters,

within each participant’s case and across a collection of cases. Whilst IPA does provide a

structured systematic approach to data analysis, Willig (2001) argued that IPA could not be distinguished from thematic analysis.

Hermeneutic phenomenology refers to a group or ‘family of methods’ (Langdridge, 2007, p. 108); based on the work of Husserl, Heidegger and Gadamer. Van Manen’s (1990) method,

discussed on pages 67-70 is the most widely known. Similar to IPA, hermeneutic phenomenology concentrates on understanding the meaning of experience through

interpretation of the data. Having applied van Manen’s six themed approach to collect the

data for the study, I searched for a structured guide to enable me to thoroughly analyse the data and interpret the participants’ experiences. Template analysis (TA), developed by King

(1998), and Crabtree and Miller (1999) provides such a methodical approach for the researcher to analyse the data whilst retaining a degree of flexibility. Similar to IPA, TA is based on the thematic analysis of experience; the main difference being that within TA a coding frame or template is used to structure the analysis process. Another difference with

TA in comparison with IPA is the option for the researcher to use ‘a priori’ themes. Before

beginning the data analysis, the researcher identifies a number of priori themes, based on the phenomenon under investigation. These themes are subsequently revised and developed throughout the data analysis process. Within TA individual accounts are analysed in greater depth before integrating separate cases; thereby reducing the length of time to undertake the analysis if analysing large amounts of data (King, 2012).

72 One advantage of TA is that whilst it provides some structure for the researcher to analyse the data, it is also flexible and complements various epistemological positions (King 2012). Such advantages of TA have resulted in its increased popularity within a range of research areas, predominantly in business and management (Kenny and Briner, 2010), closely followed by health (Howard et al, 2008). TA has also been used in other settings including education (Au, 2007), clinical psychology (Stratton et al, 2006) and sports science (Nash and Sproule, 2009). A recent literature review revealed in excess of two hundred such studies which used TA (King, 2012).

Having used an interpretative phenomenological approach in the tradition of van Manen (1990) to guide the methods and obtain the data, I chose TA to undertake the data analysis. Several researchers have successfully used TA within hermeneutic phenomenology (King et al, 2002; Rodriguez, 2009; Rogers, 2010; Hardy, 2012) and there were multiple reasons why I chose this approach. I believed that the structured approach of TA would enable me to manage the data effectively through the identification of hierarchies and the structured approach would increase the rigour of the study. As previously discussed, within TA the researcher has the opportunity to identify and note the ‘a priori’ themes ahead of analysing

the data; a process which I believed supported the hermeneutic phenomenological

approach. The identification of ‘a priori’ themes before beginning the data analysis enabled

me to acknowledge my previous experience, knowledge and assumptions pertaining to the phenomenon. In this way I was able to acknowledge my position as recommended by interpretative phenomenologists including Heidegger, Gadamer and van Manen. It is important to note that especially in the context of a phenomenological analysis, a priori themes are always tentative and their value considered critically throughout the analysis; they are a starting point, not a rigid prescription.

The fact that TA requires the researcher to develop and redevelop a template through repeated readings and analysis of the textual data enables the researcher to work within a hermeneutic fashion. As the template develops and the researcher re- visits the data, they

can begin to interpret the participants’ interpretations of the phenomenon under

73 approaches as it supports Gadamer’s (1975/1996) ‘fusion of horizons’, otherwise known as the ‘hermeneutic circle’ as discussed on page 64.