In this sub-section, I examine three theoretical frameworks relevant to IPA including phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography. My aim is not to provide the readership with an elaborate philosophical discourse on hermeneutics, idiography and especially phenomenology which has been examined briefly. On the contrary, I am interested in showing the linkage between IPA’s methodological foundation and these perspectives.
4.2.2.1Phenomenology
Phenomenology has been prevalent in qualitative research (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Many eminent scholars vastly contributed to sociology through phenomenological studies. These include Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann in The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966); Alfred Schutz through his work The Phenomenology of the Social World (1972); and Harold Garfinkel in Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967).
Generally, in qualitative inquiry, phenomenology is a concept that points to an interest in understanding social phenomena from the actor’s own perspective. Consequently,phenomenologists describe the world as perceived and experienced by research subjects. As Smith, et al. (2009:11) argued, “phenomenology is a philosophical approach to the study of experience”. In what follows, I present
some salient points of the works of a few phenomenologists as mentioned in Smith, et al.’s (2009) work, and conclude with their relevance to IPA.
Husserl (in Smith, et al., 2009:12) agreed with other phenomenologists on the study of human experience. But his phenomenology was grounded on the “phenomenological attitude” which involves “stepping outside of our everyday experience, our natural attitude”, in order to properly study the everyday experience (Smith, et al., 2009:12). Husserl’s phenomenology caused IPA researchers to accord great importance to the “process of reflection” when examining lived experience. Husserl’s notion of bracketing is also relevant to the IPA research process. However, instead of seeking to know the essence of experience as Husserl posited, IPA scholars are concerned with capturing “particular experiences as experienced for particular people” (Smith, et al., 2009:16).
Heidegger’s phenomenology differed from that of Husserl which the former considered to be too theoretical and abstract (Smith, et al., 2009). Through his concept of ‘intersubjectivity’ central to his phenomenological position, Heidegger viewed the individual as “a worldly person-in-context” (Smith, et al., 2009:17). For IPA researchers, Heidegger’s phenomenology sheds light on how human beings should be perceived — human beings should be regarded as “thrown into a world of objects, relationships, and language” (Smith, et al., 2009:18). He also pointed out that “being-in-the-world is always perspectival, always temporal, and always in-relation-to something and consequently, that the interpretation of people’s meaning-making activities is central to phenomenological inquiry” (Smith, et al., 2009:18).
Merleau-Ponty argued that human beings regard themselves “as different from everything else in the world”. Consequently,he perceives “the other as a piece of behaviour” (Merleau-Ponty, as cited in Smith, et al., 2009:19). Merleau-Ponty’s view, that “the body shapes the fundamental character of our knowing about the
world” (Smith, et al., 2009:19) is important for IPA researchers. He pointed out that:
I am not the outcome or the meeting-point of numeral causal agencies which determine my bodily or psychological make-up. I cannot conceive myself as nothing but a bit of the world, a mere object of biological, psychological or sociological investigation. I cannot shut myself up within the realm of science. All my knowledge of the world, even my scientific knowledge, is gained from my own particular point of view, or from some experience of the world without which the symbols of science would be meaningless. (Merleau-Ponty, as cited in Smith, et al., 2009:18)
Sartre through his citation,“existence comes before essence”, argued that humans always become themselves, and self consciousness, meaning making and human action are catalysts to this process (in Smith, et al., 2009:19).
4.2.2.2Hermeneutics
Simply put, hermeneutics is “the theory of interpretation.” Before becoming “a philosophical underpinning”, it significantly contributed to construe biblical texts (Smith, et al., 2009:19). In this sub-section, I try to briefly describe three hermeneutical perspectives.
Schleirmacher (in Smith, et al., 2009:22) identified two aspects of interpretation including the psychological interpretation and grammatical interpretation. While the former focuses “the individuality of the author or speaker,” the latter deals with the “exact and objective textual meaning”. Schleirmacher (in Smith, et al., 2009:22) pointed out that:
Every person is on the one hand a location in which a given language forms itself in an individual manner, on the other their discourse can only be understood via the totality of language. But then the person is also a spirit which continually develops, and their discourse is only one act of this spirit of connection with the other acts.
Heidegger (in Smith, et al., 2009) referring to phenomenology as hermeneutics maintained that the function of the phenomenologist is to “help make sense” of the phenomenon which occurs. Moran (in Smith, et al., 2009:24) in a corroborative and emphatic statement argued that:
Phenomenology is seeking after a meaning which is perhaps hidden by the entity’s mode of appearing. In that case the proper model for seeking meaning is the interpretation of a text and for this reason Heidegger links phenomenology with hermeneutics. How things appear or are covered up must be explicitly studied. The things themselves always present themselves in a manner which is at the same time self-concealing.
Gadamer (in Smith, et al., 2009:26) elaborated upon Heidegger’s standpoint on hermeneutics and placed emphasis on “the complex relationship” which exists between the interpreter and that which is to be interpreted, and regarded the interpretation process to be “multi-faceted and dynamic.” Gadamer opined that:
It is necessary to keep one’s gaze fixed on the things throughout all the constant distractions that originate in the interpreter himself. A person who is trying to understand a text is always projecting. He or she projects a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text ... Working out this fore-projection which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there ... Every revision of the fore-projection is capable of projecting before itself a new projection of meaning; interpretation begins with fore-conceptions that are replaced by more suitable ones. This constant process of new projection constitutes the movement of understanding and interpretation. (in Smith, et al., 2009:26)
Under the hermeneutic theory lies a key analytical feature called the ‘hermeneutic circle’, which provides a useful and special way of thinking about ‘method’ for IPA researchers especially during data analysis. The idea is that “our entry into the meaning of a text can be made at a number of different levels, all of which relate to one another, and many of which will offer different perspectives on the part-whole coherence of the text” (Smith, et al., 2009:28). The ‘part’ and the ‘whole’ describe a number of relationships. For example: “the single extract and the complete text ... the interview and the research project ... the single episode and the complete life” (Smith, et al., 2009:28). Through the hermeneutic circle, the researcher may move back and forth during the interpretation process.
4.2.2.3Idiography
Idiography focuses on the particular and this concept is relevant to IPA for two reasons. Firstly, IPA is committed “to the particular, in the sense of detail, and therefore the depth of analysis”. Secondly, IPA researchers seek to understand how experiential phenomena such as events, processes or relationships, “have been understood from the perspective of particular people, in a particular context”. Accordingly, IPA researchers utilize “small, purposively-selected and carefully- situated samples” (Smith, et al., 2009:29).