RESULTADOS Y DISCUSIÓN 82

Transcribed interviews will be analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to make sense of the subjective accounts of the participants.

IPA is a qualitative method founded by Jonathan Smith (1997). It is grounded in phenomenology and examines the ways in which people make sense of their lived experiences (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). Additionally, Larkin, Watts and Clifton (2006) state that, the phe o e ologi al o it e ts of IPA gi e oi e to the o e s of the participants, whilst the i te p etati e e ui e e t allo s fo the esea he to ake-se se of and contextualise these experiences from a psychological perspective.

Although IPA first appeared in the mid-nineties, Smith et al. (2009) propose that it draws on several philosophical traditions. They outline three main philosophies of knowledge that underpin IPA; phenomenology, hermeneutics, and idiography. These will be described below. According to Reid, Flowers and Larkin (2005), the IPA researcher will invite accounts from participants, with the emphasis of such accounts often resting on events of special significance. Once recorded, these accounts are analysed by the researcher, whose findings a e pe ei ed ot o l to e g ou ded i the data the pa ti ipa ts i te p etation of their experience), but also to involve an interpretation by the researcher. Thus, IPA emphasises that research is a dynamic process with an active role for the researcher in that process. The esea he i pa t atte pts to assu e a i side s pe spective, (Conrad, 1987) that is; they

61

attempt to understand what it is like stand in the shoes of the participant, whilst recognising that this is never completely possible.

U de pi i g the i te p etati e aspe ts of IPA, “ ith et al. g ou d the ethod i the tradition of hermeneutics. According to Willig (2013) this is the notion that understanding cannot take place without us making some initial assumptions about the meaning of what we are trying to understand. Willig (2013) suggests that there is circularity built into the process of meaning making-the he e euti i le . This is the d a i elatio ship et ee the pa t a d the hole, i that, to u de sta d a gi e pa t, ou look to the hole; to understand the whole, you look to the parts “ ith, et al., , p. . IPA d a s o the hermeneutic circle through the analysis stages in order to establish an interpretation grounded in original data.

I additio , “ ith a d Os o ha e ide tified a p o ess k o as the dou le hermeneuti , o t o-fold aspect of meaning- aki g i hi h the pa ti ipa ts a e t i g to make sense of their world; the researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to

ake se se of thei o ld “ ith & Os o , , p. .

Extracting ideas from phenomenology, Smith et al. (2009) postulate that the experience is reflexive, situated, embodied and existential. IPA acknowledges the significance of Husserl , the fou di g figu e of phe o e olog ho lai ed that e should go a k to the things the sel es “ ith et al, p. a d that s ie e should e g ou ded i pe so al experience. For Husserl, it was only through attentive, methodical inspection of awareness that science could develop second order knowledge. Husserl also suggested that this awareness is problematic, because to understand the things themselves, we need to strip away our pre- o eptio s a d a ket usto a a s of ie i g phe o e a. He a gued that i stead of fo usi g o the a ti it itself, that is taki g a atu al attitude e eed to make a reflexive move and turn our attention inward, to the subjective experience of the activity- the phe o e ologi al attitude “ ith et al., .

Smith et al. (2009) further acknowledge that the ideas of Heidegger (1962) and Merleau- Po t ha e ee i flue tial to IPA. The o epts of Dasei the e ei g a d the body-subject suggest that human experience is shaped by our physical bodies, our social context and our capacity for self-awareness. Smith and colleagues (2009), outline that

62

Merleau-Ponty proposes that the individual physical unit of our body means that our relationship to others must begin first from a position of difference. We can never entirely share an experience, because our experience is rooted in our individual embodied position. Smith et al. (2009) suggest that IPA is rooted in idiographic traditions. It is therefore, resolutely idiographic (Smith & Eatough, 2010) and involves a focus on the particular, both through a concern with detail and through the perspective of a particular person and context. Smith et al. (2010) suggest however, that this does not equate to an exclusive focus on the individual. They argue that although a person may be uniquely embodied, their experience is always situated, perspectival and relational. This idiographic focus means that while multiple accounts may be studied to gain understanding of a particular kind of experience, the distinctive voices within each account need to be preserved while considering shared themes. Lastly, Smith and Eatough (2010) highlight that IPA recognises the importance of language in influencing how individuals make sense of lived experiences and then in turn researchers ake se se of pa ti ipa ts se se aki g. A alte ati e ualitati e ethod hi h, like IPA recognises the importance of language within analysis is Discourse Analysis (DA), (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Since this research will pay attention to the language and tone participants use to describe their lived experience, it is important to briefly explain the choice of IPA over DA.

IPA differs from DA in its focus on cognition; the latter regards verbal reports as behaviours in their own right which should be the focus of functional analysis. Whilst the former by o t ast is o e ed ith u derstanding what the particular respondent thinks or elie es… “ ith, Flo e s & Os o , , p. . Mo eo e , u like DA, IPA ai s to e eal internal processes which the participants might not necessarily be aware of (Lyons, 2007). Since this research intends to get a glimpse of the internal thoughts, beliefs and meaning making process of the participants rather than the ways in which social constructions could be drawn from the accounts; IPA was chosen as the preferred method of analysis.

63 2.3 Reflexivity

Qualitative research recognises that research is co-constructed, and that it is a joint product of participants, researchers and readers and the relationship they build (Finlay, 2006 a). It therefore, acknowledges that the researcher affects and shapes the research process. As such, a degree of reflexivity, awareness of influences on my ideas and actions should be considered. Willig (2013) suggests that reflexivity is vital in qualitative research as it e ou ages the esea he to fo eg ou d , a d eflect upon the ways in which they are implicated in the research and its findings. This entails a constant examination of personal and professional influences on the research process – both in terms of collection of data and analysis (Finlay, 2002; 2006). Moreover, Willig (2013) argues that what we bring into analysis ith us a e i fa t the e essa p e o ditio s fo the esea he aki g se se of the pa ti ipa t s e pe ie e. “he suggests that these should ot e pe ei ed as iases that need to be shunned or eliminated but rather as aspects to be exploited and celebrated as they make possible certain insights and understandings.

Reflexivity in this study is conceptualised as:

...the p o esses i hi h esea he s a e o s ious of a d efle ti e a out the ways in which their questions, methods and very own subject position might impact on the psychological k o ledge p odu ed i a esea h stud La gd idge, , p. .

As a Counselling Psychologist, I consider reflexivity to be highly important and I am conscious of the critical impact it has on my clinical work, and personal life. As such, I also believe that the same level of attention to reflexivity should be paid in research. Therefore, throughout the project, I have endeavoured to engage in a process of reflexivity. The purpose of this was to consider my position and the steps taken to make explicit any preconditions that I bring into the research as suggested by Langdridge (2007). Here, I do not imply that in making these aspects explicit they will not impact on the project but that my increased awareness of them will assist me to be thoughtful about their influence on the psychological knowledge produced in this study.

Willig (2013) distinguishes between two types of reflexivity, personal and epistemological reflexivity. The former involves a reflection on the ways in which our own values/beliefs, interests, and political commitments in life have shaped the research, while the latter consists

64

of engaging in questions such as how the research question defined and limited what can be fou d out, i additio to ho the desig of the stud a d the ethod of a al sis o st u ted the data and the findings. In addition, Willig (2008) suggests that researchers should pay attention to critical language awareness as this also forms part of reflexivity. This is the idea that the words we use to describe our experiences play a part in the construction of the ea i gs that e gi e to su h e pe ie es. Usi g Willig s disti tio et ee the t o types of reflexivity, I will address both of these below.