Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

A reflective journal as learning process andcontribution to quality and validity in interpretativephenomenological analysis

Journal ArticleHow to cite:

Vicary, Sarah; Young, Alys and Hicks, Stephen (2016). A reflective journal as learning process andcontribution to quality and validity in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Social Work(early access).

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© 2016 The AuthorsVersion: Accepted ManuscriptLink(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/1473325016635244

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or othercopyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials pleaseconsult the policies page.

oro.open.ac.uk

1

Areflectivejournalaslearningprocessandcontributiontoqualityand

validityinInterpretativePhenomenologicalAnalysis

SarahVicary,AlysYoungandStephenHicks

Abstract

Usingselected,contemporaneousillustrationsfromthereflectivejournalofadoctoral

studentundertakingdataanalysisforthefirsttime,thisarticleexaminesthe

relationshipbetweenjournalingasalearningprocesswhenundertakingcomputer

assistedqualitativedataanalysisandestablishingqualityandvalidityinInterpretative

PhenomenologicalAnalysis(IPA).Thewritingofthejournalisshownbothtoenact

somepotentialvaliditycriteria(e.g.inproducinganaudittrail)whilstalsorecording

andreflectivelypromptingtheprocessoflearning,interpretationandbracketing,thus

evidencingtransparency.Byusingajournalinsidethesoftwarepackageandalongside

thestagesoftheIPA,analysiswithinthesoftwarepackage,itisarguedthatqualityand

validitybecomedynamic,notstaticconstructs.Theseconstructsareintimatelylinked

totheresearcher-learning-processandpermitacriticalstancetobetaken.

ThisisanAuthorAcceptedVersionofamanuscriptpublishedinQualitativeSocial

Work(2016).CopyrightSage.

2

Keywords

Learningprocess,reflectivejournal,qualityandvalidity,computerassistedqualitative

dataanalysis,interpretativephenomenologicalanalysis(IPA)

Introduction

InterpretativePhenomenologicalAnalysis(IPA),asaqualitativeresearchapproach

initiatedanddevelopedprimarilyinthefieldofhealthpsychology(Smith,1996;Smith

etal.,2009),hasattractedsignificantdebateaboutwhatmightconstitutequalityand

validitywithinitsmethodologicalframework(Chamberlain,2011;Shaw,2011;Smith

2011a;Smith2011b;Todorova,2011).Interestinqualityandvalidityhascentredonall

stagesintheresearchprocess;sampleidentification,datacollection,dataanalysis

(interpretation)andrepresentationinprint(Brockietal.,2006;Gee2011;Larkinetal.

2006).AtissueiswhetherandhowcriteriamightbedevelopedparticulartoIPAor

whetherthedebatesthatdiscussqualityandvalidityremainthesameasforall

qualitativeresearchmethodologies(GubaandLincoln,2005;LincolnandGuba1985;

SealeandSilverman1997;Robson,2002;Rolfe2006).Thisarticlefocussesonhowa

studenttackledtheissueofqualityandvalidityinIPAdataanalysiswhilecarryingout

anIPAprojectforthefirsttimeaspartofaPhD.Itexaminestheactivityofjournaling,

3

(i.e.theuseofareflectiveresearcher-createdregularwrittenlog)asalearningprocess

whenundertakingdataanalysis.Specificallybyusingajournalinsideadata

managementcomputersoftwarepackage(inthiscaseQSRNvivo10)andalongsidethe

stagesoftheIPAanalysis,alsowithinthesoftwarepackage,wearguethatqualityand

validitybecomedynamic,notstatic,constructsintimatelylinkedtotheresearcher-

learning-process.Weexaminetheextenttowhichjournalingenactscriteriabywhich

‘quality’mightbedefinedandrecognised.Weshowhowitsprocessasstudent

learningtoolmesheswiththedoublehermeneutic,essentialtotheIPAapproach,

whilstholdingituptocriticalexamination.Excerptsfromtheresearcher’sjournal

presentedinitalicsareusedthroughouttoillustrate.

Qualityandvalidityindataanalysis

Numerousauthorsattempttoproducecriteriaforassessingthequalityandvalidityof

qualitativeresearchbothgenerically(Hammersley,2008)andacrossarangeof

disciplinessuchassocialwork(Baruschetal.2001),nursing(Rolfe,2006)and

psychology(Yardley,2000).Hammersley’sprécisdefinesacontrastingspectrum;at

theoneendafinitesetofobservableanduniversalindicatorsandattheotheralistof

considerationsagreedinlocalcircumstances.Hammersley’sownpreferencefor

4

methodologicalapproachessuchasIPAisthelatter.Hearguesthatcriteriawhichneed

tobetakenintoaccountcomeaboutaspartofthejudgementprocess,areusedin

particularcontextsandarecyclicalandliving.Studiesthatcomelater,hesuggests,will

judgetheirownqualityandvalidityagainstsimilarpreviousstudiesbutwilldosoby

interpretingandsometimesre-interpretingcriteriaaccordingtothesituation

(Hammersley2008p.160).Initially,Smithandcolleaguesappliedthecriteriato

measurequalityandvalidityasoutlinedinYardley’sfourbroadprinciplestoIPA:

sensitivitytocontext,commitmentandrigour,transparencyandcoherenceandfinally

impactandimportance(YardleyinSmith2009pp180-183).Morerecentlythis

applicationhasbeenrefined(Shaw2011,Smith2011aandSmith2011b),albeitSmith

concludesthatassessment,orqualityandvalidity,willalwaysbeamatterof

judgement(Smith,2011ap.15).Inthisarticleitisarguedthatqualityandvalidityare

achievedinthreeways;reflexivity,reflectionandjournaling.

IPAproponentscontendthatanalysisofdatainIPAshouldsubscribetoits

theoreticalprinciples;phenomenological,hermeneuticandidiographic(Shawin

Forrester2013;Smith2011aandSmithandOsborne2008).IPA,asitsnamesuggests,

involvestheinterpretationofaphenomenonandtheanalysisofthis.Interpretationis

twofold;first,theparticipanthastomakesenseof,orinterpret,thephenomenonof

interest.Theythen,ineffect,interpretthisfortheresearcher.Second,theresearcher

5

endeavourstomakesenseoftheparticipant’sinterpretationanddoesthisintwo

ways,byempathisingwiththesensemakingandalsobyquestioningthis.Referredto

asthedoublehermeneutic,acknowledgementofthisprocessiscrucialtojudging

whetherresearchcarriedoutusingIPAisofahighqualityandvalid.Ascapturedinthe

debateaboutthedevelopmentofcriteriaforqualityandvalidityinIPA,theresearcher

needstobeabletodemonstratethattheyhavebeentruetothisdoublehermeneutic,

inbothitsincarnations(Chamberlain,2011Shaw2011,Smith2011a,Smith2011b,

Todorova2011).

TheotherunderpinningtheoreticalbasisofIPAisidiographyor,theconcern

withtheparticular.Thefocusonthisaspecthasattractedcriticism,notleastbecauseit

isarguedthatsuchafocuscanignorethesocialcontext(Todorova,2011)andprovides

psychologicaldepth,butnotcontextualwidth(HoustonandMullan-Jensen,2012).

Smith(2011b)acknowledgesthiscriticismbutcontendsthatasthemethodology

maturestherewillbeanemergenceofasynthesisofpersonalexperienceandamore

explicitsocialcontext.Analysis,Smithargues,shouldalsosubscribetotheindividual

andtheexperienceandbejudgedbythis(Smith2011b).Here,qualityandvaliditycan

alsobepresentiftheanalysisfocussesontheindividualexperience,andincontext.

6

AnadditionalconceptconcerningtheprocessofdataanalysisinIPA,asinother

qualitativemethods,isbracketing.Thisprocessattractsmuchdebate,especially

amongphenomenologists(Finlay2002),andagainreferstotwothings;theputtingto

onesideofsensoryexperiencetotuneinwiththeothers’sense-making,orto‘see’

directly,andtheputtingasideofpreconceptionstoengageinthesense-making

(TuffordandNewman2010).‘Pure’phenomenologistsarguethattoseedirectlyand

alsoputasideisnotpossible(Giorgi,2010andGiorgi2011).InIPAterms,bracketingis

usedinbothways(Smith2010).Inaddition,itiscontendedthatbracketingfacilitates

deeperlevelsofreflectionfortheresearcherincludingduringtheinterpretationofthe

data(TuffordandNewman2010p.81).Clarificationofbracketingandthewayin

whichitisbeingusedis,therefore,anothermeasureofqualityandvalidityinstudies

whichemployIPA.Here,journalingisusedtoenactbracketing.

Lastacriterionofrelevanceconcerninganalysisistransparency,orasSmith

states,‘whatstepswereusedinanalysis’(Smithetal.2009p.182)and,later,‘so[the]

readercanseewhatwasdone’(Smith2011ap.17).Thissenseofaresearchaudittrail

hasalsobeenafeatureoffeministresearch,wherenotionsofretrievabledataand

analyticaccountabilityhavefeatured(Stanley2004;StanleyandWise2006;Wiseand

Stanley2006).Theprocessofdataanalysisisjudgedforitsqualityandvalidityifitis

transparentandcanbeevidenced.Forfeminists,thisincludesbeingmoralorethical,

7

reflexiveabouttheresearcher’sowninfluenceandallowingreadersto‘object’orform

adifferentview.Smithandcolleaguesagreethatanindependentauditisapowerful

wayofthinkingabouttheseaspectsinqualitativeresearch.FordataanalysisinIPA,

annotatedtranscriptsareseenasoneoftheelementsofsuchanaudittrail.A

spectrumisalsosuggested.Attheoneendispassingthewholetoahitherto

uninvolvedresearchertoaskhertoconductanaudit;attheotherisresearch

supervisorsundertaking‘miniaudits’,namelycheckingtheannotationsinrelationto

thetext(Smithetal.2009).

Theuseofajournalisanestablishedtoolforlearningbothinhighereducation

generally(Morrison2006)andinspecificprofessions,suchasnursing(Chirema2007).

Thevalueofusingsuchajournalincludesthatitenablesactivelearningandreflection

uponthatlearning(Thorpe2010).Inwhatfollows,wearguethattheuseofa

reflectivejournal,housedwithinthesamesoftwarepackageasthatusedforanalysis

oftranscripts,permitacriticalstancetobetakentoeachoftheabovecriterion

denotingqualityandvalidityinIPA.Furthermore,thewritingofthejournalenacts

someofthecriteria(e.g.inproducinganaudittrail)whilstalsorecordingand

reflectivelypromptingtheprocessoflearning,interpretationandbracketing,thus

evidencingtransparency.AccordingtoSmiththequalityandvalidityofthefinal

analysisisdeterminedbythe'personalanalyticalworkdoneateachstageofthe

8

procedure’(Brockietal.,2006p.96).Weshowhowdoingsowithinthesoftware

packageallowstheresearcherspacetoempathise,toquestionandtocreateor,inIPA

terms,tointerpret.

ItisacknowledgedinIPA,aswellasothermethodologicalapproaches,that

softwarepackagescannotreplaceactiveperson-drivendataanalysis(Langdridge,2007

andSmithetal.,2009).Theuseofsuchasoftwarepackagetoautomaticallycodelarge

chunksoftextisjustthat.Analysisofthedataalongwithinterpretationisstill

required.Nonetheless,usingacomputersoftwarepackagesuchasQSRNVivoorAtlas

TIwhenundertakinganalysishasreportedbenefits;itisusefulinmanaging

comparativelylargedatasets,itallowscodinginmultipledimensions,withinittreesof

codescanbecreatedandmanipulatedanditcanrapidlyaffordasearchoflarge

amountsoftext(Wagstaffetal.2014p.9).Thesebenefitsrefertothemechanicalways

inwhichsoftwarepackagescanbeusednot,asisarguedhere,thereflexivelearning

process.Theuseofasoftwarepackageinsteadcanenableandinturn,bejudged

against,asbeingofqualityandvalid.Wagstaffandcolleagues,bytheirownadmission,

makeasuperficialexaminationoftheuseofacomputersoftwarepackageinstudies

usingIPA.However,StanleyandTemplehavecautionedresearcherstobeawarethat

technicalfeaturesofsoftwarepackagesactuallyhaveepistemologicalconsequences

thatneedtobeaddressed(Stanley&Temple,1995).Mindfulofthesepoints,this

9

articleinvolvesadeeperexploration,usingacurrentdoctoralstudy,butbeginning

withanexplanationoftheprocessofhowthedataanalysiswasundertaken.

Thelearningprocess

Thedoctoralstudyfromwhichthedataarebeinganalysedconcernstheexplorationof

theroleandexperienceofApprovedMentalHealthProfessionals(AMHPs),astatutory

roleinwhichvariousapprovednon-medicalprofessionalsassesspeopleforadmission

tomentalhealthhospitalinEnglandandWales.Thestudyreceivedethicalapproval

fromtheUniversity,eachHealthTrustthatemployedparticipantsandthesocialcare

equivalent,theAssociationofDirectorsofAdultSocialServices.Thedataare

transcriptionsofsemi-structuredindividualinterviewswithapurposivesampleof

AMHPsincluding,aspartoftheinterview,adiscussionofadrawingproducedbythe

participant;eachdescribetheexperienceofundertakingtheAMHProle,specifically

undertakingaMentalHealthActassessment.Alldataweretranscribedbythestudent

andimportedovertimeintothesoftwarepackageQSRNVivo10.Onceformatted,

dataanalysisproceededonacasebycasebasisusingthethreestepapproach

commontoIPA;description,useoflanguageanduseofconcepts(ShawinForrester

2013;Smithetal2009).Thestudent,whoisundertakingthedoctoralstudywhich

10

formsthebasisofthisarticle,hadneverpreviouslyundertakenanyqualitativedata

analysisorIPAbuthadreceivedspecifictrainingandeducationintheapproach.Her

supervisors(Authors2and3)suggestedtheuseofareflectivejournalintegrated

withinthefirst-timeanalysisshewasundertakingthatcouldalsoformthebasisof

supervisorydiscussions.Thejournalrecordedinrealtimethethoughts,feelings,

reflectionsandlinkstotheoryandpublicationsthatthestudentwasmakingduringthe

processofdataanalysis.Thiscontemporaneousdocumentwascreatedwithinthe

internalmemosourcesectionofthesoftwarepackage.Thissimultaneoushousing

withinthesamesoftwareasthedataanalysis,andalsoasitproceeded,facilitated

directlinksbeingmadebetweenthenotesinthejournalandthespecificpiecesoftext

thathadpromptedthethoughts.Insodoingitalsoenabledthestudenttohavea

senseofcontrolovertheprocesswhereajournalwrittenandmaintainedoutsideof

thispackagemaynothavehadthesameeffect.

11

Figure1.Screenshotofhighlightedtextdenotinglinksbetweenjournalthoughtsand

data

Thefocusofthejournalwasfirmly,inthefirstinstance,onthelearningprocess

ofthestudentassheundertooktheanalysis,ratherthanonfurtherinterpretationsof

thedataandreflexivitywhichhappenedlater.Ineffectitprovidedalearningcontext

inwhichthedoublehermeneuticstrategieswerebeingenacted.

Thefollowingareexcerptsfromthatjournalorganisedwithaneyetoexploring

qualityandvalidityindataanalysis.Editinghaspromptedthechoiceofexcerptsbut

thetextofthejournalusedisverbatim.Inwhatfollows,thethirdpersonisusedas

12

theauthorialvoiceofthispaper,howeverthefirstpersonisusedfortheauthorial

voiceofthejournalexcerpts.Inreality,theseareoneandthesameindividualbutthe

contrastin‘voice’allowsforthesubsequentreflectivecommentaryontheoriginal

journaltexttobemadeclearer.

Thelearningprocess-themechanicsofusingasoftwarepackageforthefirsttime

Asthestudentbegantheprocessofdataanalysis,shewasencouragedbyherdoctoral

supervisorstoconsidertheuseofasoftwareprogrammetomanagethedata.

Althoughshehadalargedatasetshewasreluctantatfirst;thestudenthasa

preferenceforreadinghardcopybooksasopposedtoe-readersandhadalsorecently

experienceda‘loss’ofalibraryonacomputersoftwarebibliographicmanagement

tool.Wouldshewarmtotheprocessandcouldshetrustit?

Havingattendedtrainingandacquiringatextbookforreference,thestudent

begantowonderhowtheuseofasoftwarepackagewould‘fit’withIPAandreflected

onBazeleyandJackson’sideasthatusersofsoftwarecanbeclosetothedataand

distantfromit(BazeleyandJackson2014p.7).

13

Iamnotsurethelatter[useofsoftwaremanagementtool]'fits'withIPAwhich

asIunderstanditproposesimmersioninthedata.Icannotcommentonother

benefitsatthistime,butinreadingNvivotexts(BazeleyandJackson2014),I

amprobablybecomingconvincedthatusingsuchsoftwarewillallowmetodo

both(becloseandstandaway).Thesoftwareisatooltohelpsortbutnottodo

theanalysisitself.

Thestudentwantedtogivesomethoughttothewayinwhichshecould

captureandcodethetranscriptsandtheninturncaptureandcodeherthoughtsas

theinterpreterofthedata,inotherwordstoengageinthedoublehermeneutic.At

thisstageintheprocessthestudentwasbeginningtousethejournaltoreflectupon

thereadingshewasdoinginrelationtotheuseofthesoftwarepackagetomanage

theanalysis.First,shequeriedtheuseofannotations.Bazeley(2014p197)suggests

‘touseannotationsorseealsolinkstorecordmemosorcommentsonpassagesof

particularinterest’butthestudentthoughtthismightbeproblematicandinstead

decidedtousethemtoexplainabbreviationsusedbyparticipants:

Ithinkthattoannotateisaproblemaswhiletheyarenotesthatilluminateor

brieflyreflectuponaspecificpartofthesourcetheycannotbecoded.Iwilluse

annotationstoexplainabbreviationsetc.

14

ShealsoquestionedBazeley’ssecondsuggestiontousecodestoattach

thematicstylelabelstosenseormeaningunitsinthetext(2014p197):

YesIthinkthisisagoodidea,butIamwonderingifitisbesttomakeamemo

foreachsource(treatingeachtranscriptasanindividualunitorsource)and

theninturncodethis.Imightinthememoforthesourcebeabletodistinguish

betweencontent(normaltext),linguisticcomments(italic)andconceptual

comments(underlined).Theseareineffectinitialcomments.IamwonderingifI

canusetheseealsolinkto'link'these.Icanthencodethesefromthesource

memoforemergentthemes.Thiswouldprovideaclearaudittrailofthe

analysisandalsoalwaysanchortheinterpretationinthetext.

Thestudentalsoconsideredthereporteddisadvantagesincludedamongst

themhavingtoimprovisetheduallevelcoding(Wagstaffetal.2014).Inthejournal

shequeriedthisandconcludedthattheuseasourcememowouldenableinitial

commentsmadeduringanalysistobeinterpretedfurtherorthedoublehermeneutic:

Iamnotsurethat's[duallevelcoding]aproblemisit?Or,Icanseeifthe

memosourceusingthreetypesofinitialcommentsasdescribedbySmithetal.,

2009willwork.Iwouldthinkthatanyresearcherregardlessofmethodology

wouldneedtobemindfulofhowbesttousethesoftwareanalysistooltofit

15

theirdataanalysisandtojustifyanddefendthis.Oneparticipantinthe

Wagstaffetal.paperusedannotationtodotheinitialcommentsandnodesto

createemergentthemes.Myconcernwiththisisthattheannotationscannot

becoded.Doesn'tasourcememoovercomethisi.e.becometheinitial

commentsandthenwhencodedbecometheemergentthemes.Formethe

codingofthesourcememoisveryclearlytheresearcher'sinterpretationor

doublehermeneutic.

Thestudentdecidedtostopthinkingabouttheprocessofanalysisandgeton

withthedoingofit!Sheformattedherfirsttranscriptaccordingtothe

recommendations(BazeleyandJackson2013p.59.),andimportedthisintothe

softwarepackage.Sheaddedalinkedmemo,andannotatedthetranscripttoprovide

explanationsofterminologytheparticipantwasusingbutwhichwasrestrictedtothe

understandingofparticipantsand,inthisinstance,theresearcher.

16

Figure2.ExcerptfromNvivotranscriptdepictingannotation

Inaddition,thestudentused‘seealso’linkstoanchorthetextexternally.For

example,wheretheparticipantreferredto‘roleover’thestudentwasabletolinkthis

phrasetoanexcerptfromthephotographofthepicturedrawnbytheparticipant

duringtheinterviewbywayofclarification.Themeaningmightotherwisehavebeen

confused:

Figure3.Excerptfromdatashowing‘roleover’phrasehighlighted

17

Figure4.Richpictureillustrating‘roleover’

Throughout,thestudentwasusingthejournaltoreflectuponheruseofthe

softwarepackagetoenablehertoanalyseinIPAbutovertimethejournalingactivity

changed.Ratherthanusingittoreflectonthetasksofdoingtheanalysis,the

potentialforusingthejournalwithintheanalysisbecameapparent.Thestudentbegan

tousethejournalnotjusttorecordherthoughtsaboutthemechanicsofthedata

analysisprocessbutalsooftheconnectionsandinterpretationsshewasbeginningto

make,includingtheimpactofherownselfonthis:

Notetoself,perhapsneedtocreateajournalinNVivocapturingmythoughts

aboutdataanalysisincludingtheimpactofmyselfinthis

Inthis,stageoneofherjournalingexperiencewithinIPA,thestudentlearned

totransformthereflectivejournalingprocessfromoneofrecordingherthoughts

18

abouttheanalysisprocesstooneofusingthejournalwithintheanalysisprocess.She

begantorecogniseitspotentialtoenablekeyelementsofIPAanalysis,suchas

exploringthedoublehermeneutic,butwasyettoplaywiththispotentialandconsider

itsstatuswithintheconstructionofqualityandvalidityinherstudy.

Thelearningprocess-fromdescriptiontointerpretation

Larkinetal.(2006)discusstheopportunitiesofferedbyIPAdeclaringthatitisnota

descriptivemethodologyalone.Intheirliteraturereviewofpublishedpapersinhealth

psychologyusingIPA,undertakenwiththeaimofcriticallyevaluatingitsuse,the

authorsconcludethatlittleattentionwasbeinggiventotheinterpretativefacetofthe

approach.TheymaintainthatSmith'suseoftheborrowedphrase'theinsider

perspective'hasbeenoverusedandinasimplisticway,andgoontosuggestthat

manystudieshave,intheiropinion,beentooeasilysatisfiedwithafirstorderanalysis;

thatisanalysisthatdoesnotdeveloptoaninterpretativeandconceptuallevel.The

studentunderstoodhowremainingatfirstorderanalysis,ordescription,couldhappen

assherecordedandreflecteduponherthoughtsduringtheanalysisofthefirst

transcriptwhereshefeltitwas'easy'todescribe.Ithelpedhertobeawarethatshe

hadyettotakethefurtherstep.Shealsocapturedheremergingunderstandingofthe

19

idiographiccommitmentandbegantoincorporateconceptualthinkingintoher

journal:

They[Larkinetal.]commentthattheresearchershouldhavetwoaimsinmind

whenanalysing:thefirsttounderstandtheparticipant'sworldanddescribe

whatitislike,thesecond,todevelopamoreovertlyinterpretativeanalysis

whichpositionstheinitialdescriptioninrelationtoawidersocial,culturaland

theoreticalcontext;asecond-orderaccounttocritiqueandcomment

conceptuallyontheparticipant’ssense-making[Larkinetal.2006](p.103).

Inotherwords,thestudentmused,they[Larkinetal2006]suggestthe

researcherneedstowonder;whatitmeansfortheparticipantstohavemadethese

claimsandtohaveexpressedthesefeelingsandconcernsinthisparticularsituation.

Forthisstudythestudentrealisedthatunderstandingandsense-makingofthe

experienceofbeinganAMHPwhenconductingamentalhealthactassessmentand

participants’engagementwithitwascentral.Asthestudentbecamemoreconfident

inherunderstandingofthefeaturesofthesoftwarepackageshebegantomoveaway

fromthemechanicsoftheprocessandinsteadreflecteduponthequalityandvalidity

ofheranalysis.Tobeginwith,aswehaveseen,thisfocussedonmovingfrom

understandingwhatparticipantsweredescribingtoundertakinganinterpretationof

20

thisdescriptionanditalsomeantrecordingthisprocessasitwashappeningovertime.

Thesoftwarepackage’sdateandtimefunctionreadilycapturesthisasillustratedin

thefollowingexcerpts:

01/10/201415:58readingthroughagainitisinterestingtonoticethings

differently.

02/10/201411:45Icontinuetothinkthatmyinterpretationatthispointlacks

depth.Ihavetriedtolookatthetextindifferentways;readingfromthebottom

upandlookingatwordsinadifferentorder.

AsreportedbyRodhametal.,(2013,p3.),LeMasseursuggeststhat

researchersshouldbecomecurious.LeMasseurusestheanalogyofputtinganobject

inapaperbag.Thebagactsasatemporarybracketbecauseashesuggestsitcould

preventusfromknowingandlabellingtheobjectbysight.Inturnifweplacedour

handsintothebagandnotyetrecognisetheobject,wecouldhaveafreshexperience

oftheobjectwithouttheinterferenceofourpriorassumptionsandknowledge.Thus,

hecontinues,itsqualitiesofroundnessorroughnessmightbecomemoreapparentto

us.ThestudentrecognisedthatintheprocessofanalysisinIPA,itisimportantforher

astheinterpretertounderstandwhatpreconceptionsshebringsandto'bracket'prior

experienceinordertopreventthisinfluencinginterpretation.Or,ifthisisnotpossible,

21

shehastomakethesepreconceptionsexplicit.Sheusedherjournal,ratherlikea

soundingboard,todothisaswellandcruciallyinrealtimeastheanalysiswas

progressingandnotinretrospect:

Currently,myexperiencerestsonanumberofinfluences;first-handknowledge

ofdoingthe[AMHPorequivalent]roleandhowIexperiencedthis,in-depth

readingandongoingaroundtherole,andanincreasingawarenessof

sociologicalandpsychologicalconcepts.Iamafemale.Iamaregisteredsocial

worker.ShouldIacknowledgesocietalandprofessionalsocialisation?Transcript

N01Iforexampleisamalenurse.DoIhavepreconceptionsaboutnursingand

nurseswhoaremalewhichmaycolourmyabilitytointerpret?Therearetwo

waysofunderstandingthedoublehermeneuticinIPA;oneistomakemeaning

ofthepersonmakingmeaning,theotheristohaveempathyandthento

question.IthinkatthispointIamattheempathypart.

Atthispointthestudentwasawarethatshehadtodevelopahermeneutic

accountorasLarkinetal.,(2006)describe,theperson'srelatednesstotheprevailing

topicofinterest.Forthemthekeyobjectsofconcernintheparticipant'sworldandthe

experientialclaimsmadebytheparticipantarethekeytothefirst-orderdescription.

Thestudentalsounderstood,andrecordedthisunderstanding,thattheanalystis

22

doingmorethanjustdescribinginIPA.Theyare,accordingtotheproponentsofthe

methodology(Smith1996,Smithetal.2009),alsoofferinganinterpretativeaccountof

whatitmeansfortheparticipanttohavesuchconcernswithintheirparticularcontext.

IPA,itissuggested,allowstheresearchertotranscendorexceedtheparticipant'sown

terminologyandconceptualization.Thatsaidthephenomenologicalaccounthastobe

centralandcontextualised.Examples,orevidence,needtobetracedbacktoa

recognisablecoreaccount(SmithinLarkinetal.2006).

Thestudentknewatthispointthattheywerestillempathisingandrecorded

this.Italsobecamecleartoherthatshehadtointerpretwhatitmeansforaparticular

participantinaparticularcontext:

11/10/201411:15Larkinetal.[2006]balancerepresentationagainst

interpretationandcontextualisation.InIPAtheanalystisofferingan

interpretativeaccountofwhatitmeansfortheparticipanttohavesuch

concernsinaparticularcontext

18/11/201410:06whatitmeansforthepersoninthisparticularsituation

(Larkinetal.2006p.104)

Also,duringthisperiod,thestudentcameacrossanarticlediscussingthe

argumentthatmostIPAstudiesfailtoexplainhowtheanalyticalprocessinIPAhas

23

beendefendedastrustworthy[orvalid](Rodhametal2014).Thearticlefocusseson

sharedanalysisasexperiencedbytheauthors,withtheaimofstimulatingdiscussion

aboutthetrustworthinessofone'sdatawhenemployingIPA.Thestudentalsobegan

toconsiderhowshecoulddefendheranalysisinthesameway.Writingitdowninher

journalmadethechallengemorerealandmoreimmediate.Itanchoredherthoughts

tothisissueandprovidedafixedpointtowhichtoreturntorecogniseandre-

recognisethischallenge:

04/10/201409:50Ihavebeenreflectingupontheprocessofanalysisand

especiallymyroleastheinterpreterwhichisafundamentalelementofIPA.In

addition,IPAisdescribedbySmithetal.(2009,p.184),asacreativeprocess.So

howthencantheprocessbedefended?

Rodhametal.contendthatbeingabletodevelopacuriousstancetoone'sdata

requiresreflexivity;toself-monitorbiases,beliefsandpersonalexperiences.Theygo

ontostatethattheprocessofreflexivityisanessentialpartofengagingwiththe

doublehermeneuticinIPA,nottoputasideone'spreconceptions,buttobecome

awareofthemandtheirpotentialinfluence(Rodhametal.2014p.4).

ThestudentagreedwithRodhametal.thattodefendisimportant,butshe

alsoquestionedwhetherthedoublehermeneutichadbeendemonstrated.Inwriting

24

downherreflections,thejournalprovidedameansofvalidatingheremerging

questionsaswell:

Their[Rodhametal.]paperconcludesthatmanyresearchersinIPAdonot

clearlyexplainanalyticaltrustworthiness.Whiletheyagreedthatbeingableto

defendtheprocessisimportant,forthem,theirconclusionmissestheelement

ofthemakingmeaningofmakingmeaning.Thisprocessalsoneedstobemade

clear.

Inthissecondstage,thestudentstartstointegratereflectionsonthe

theoreticalworkshehasconsultedwithherlivingprocessofdataanalysis,buildinga

personalisedcriticallyanalyticstance.Thejournal’sreflexivepowerbecomesapparent

foritsidentificationofthebordercrossingsbetweendescriptionandinterpretationas

itisunderstoodinIPA.Journalingwithinthesoftwarepackageprovidesarealtime

recordtowhichtoreturnandre-assessastheinterpretativeprocessproceeds.

Thelearningprocess-establishingtransparency

Thestudent’sthoughtsalsobegantofocusonthetransparencyoftheprocessthatshe

wentontorecord.Shecontinuedtodevelopherunderstandingofthemechanicsof

25

thesoftwarepackageandbecameawarewithincreasedusethatsomeprocesseswere

notgoingto‘fit’.Forexample,shecametolearnthatoneisnotableinthesoftware

packagetoannotateusingdifferentformats.Shethereforewouldbeunabletoanalyse

annotationsdistinguishingbetweenthesuggestedthree-wayapproachassuggested

bySmith(Smithetal.,2009).However,this,asitturnsout,didnotmatterasshewas

becomingmoreawarethatheruseofthejournalwasallowinghertoreflectuponthe

learningandinturnshecouldusejournalslinkedtoeachsourceasawayofnotjust

analysingeachsourcebutofaddinglayers.Theseinturncanbeanalysedandineffect

evidenceadoublehermeneutic.

Inaddition,theuseofthejournalcontainedwithinthedataalsoallowedherto

reflectupontheprocessofanalysiswhilstfeelingincontrol,andtorecordthis:

27/11/201417:42Iambecomingmoreaufaitwiththissoftwarepackage.

[supervisors]suggestedthatIrecordtheactualprocessbywhichIreached

decisionsaboutanalysisprocess.Ichoseafirstscriptbecauseit,frommemory,

seemedtobefairlyneutral.Ihadnostrongemotionalreactiontoitatthetime

ofinterview,recordingortranscription.However,Iamnowpickingup(and

describedinsupervision)thatthemannerofthisparticipantcomesacrossas

'macho'andsuggestedthatthisdidnotbotherme.However,itmustdoasI

26

havecommentedonitandthentriedtodismissit.Isthisthensomethingtodo

withthewayinwhichthisparticipantexperiencestheworkhewasdescribing

whichmaybewhatpeopledoinordertoexertsomesortofcontrol?Or,doI

havesomeanecdotalortheoreticalperceptionofAMHPworkasattracting

moremen(thanothersocialworkroles-apartfrommanagers).

Thestudenthadalsomovedfromthefirstscripttoasecondandinterestingly

begantoquestionwhetherherownsocialworkvalueswereshared:

29/12/201411:48Ihavespentsometimelookingatthesecondofmyscripts

(N05I).Itstrikesmethatthelanguageusedinthissecondscriptreferstothe

personbeingassessedassomehowdifferenttotheassessor.I,personally,find

thisdisturbingandnotwhatIunderstandtheroleoftheAMHPtobe.Or,amI

beingnaive.Istheidealisticsocialworkerraisingitsheadhere?Iamconscious

thatIamasocialworkerbyprofessionandIamsureIwouldnotrefertothe

personas‘them’.

Shealsoimportedandstartedtoanalysefurtherscriptsandtobeginanalysis:

10/01/201514:38Iamnowreadingfourthtranscriptandgetasensethatthe

newcodeswhicharearisingarefewer,butIalsosensethatthereisapattern

emergingwithregardtowhattheparticipantstellmeandtheorderinwhich

27

theydo.Iamalsobeginningtothinkthatthecodescanbemergedespecially

concerningroleattributes.

Shebegantomakesenseofthemesthatwerebeginningtoemerge.Firstofthe

senseofparticipants’hovering:

ThereisasenseofseparationbeingdescribedinthescriptsIhavelookedatto

datealmostasiftheroleinvolvesanabilitytohoveroverthesituation,to

ensurecalm,toorganisemattersandtoadvise'fromabove'allespeciallywhile

keepingthepersoninthecentreofthinking.

13/01/201519:37IambeginningtowonderasIreadthroughtranscriptfour

whetherthereisanoverridingthemetodowithdistanceandnearness.

Upuntilthispointintheanalysisthejournalandthereflectionscontained

withinithadbeenaninternalmatter;toherasthestudentbutalsoinsidethedataas

storedinthesoftwarepackage.Forsupervision,thestudentdecidedtoexportthe

journalasithadbeencompletedatthattimeandtosendittotheirsupervisorsin

advanceoftheirnextmeeting.Herthoughtsindoingsoweretoaccountforthe

analysisandtoevidencethisandineffectprovidethebasisofa‘miniaudit’byher

supervisors.Ithasinturnresultedinthisarticle.

28

Inthisthirdstage,thejournalaslearningprocessbecomesfullyintegratedinto

theinterpretativeanalysis.Materiallyitsexcerptsarelinkedtopassagesofdataby

meansofafunctionwithinthesoftwarepackage,conceptuallyitsreflectivecontent

layerstheemerginganalysisfurtherinpromptingadditionallinesofenquiryandfirmly

evidencingthedoublehermeneutic.Thejournalproducesitsownaudittrail

evidencingnotjusttransparencybutalsothepersonalrigorofthequestioningand

reflectingresearcher.Incontemporaneouslywritingdownherthoughtsshedoesnot

justclarifytheminpresenttimebutalsoenablesthemtobefurtherquestioned,

reinforcedordismissedovertimeastheyareseeninretrospectasartefactsoftheir

time.Astheanalysisprogressestheymayormaynotretaintheirinterpretative

validityasconclusionsonthedatabuttheycertainlywillretaintheirvalidityas

markersthatqualityassuretheinterpretativeprocess.

Conclusion

Theuseofajournalisanestablishedtoolfortherecordingoflearningandprompts

theprocessofinterpretationandbracketingasareflectivemechanism.Thisarticle

discussestherelationshipbetweensuchuseandtheprocessofdataanalysiswhen

theyarebothhousedinsideasoftwarepackage.Wearguethatdoingsowithina

29

softwarepackageenhancesthewayinwhichareflectivejournalcanbeused

challengingthecontemporarybeliefthatcomputerassisteddataanalysisisastatic

construct.Journalingwithinasoftwarepackageinterweaveswiththedouble

hermeneuticwhichisessentialtotheIPAapproachwhileatthesametimeholdingit

tocriticalexaminationofitsvalidity.Thejournalthatbeganabouttheprocessbecame

withintheprocess.Usingajournalinsidethesamesoftwarepackagehousingthedata

isdynamic,simultaneouslyenablingtheprocessofmovingfromdescriptionto

interpretationandthedevelopmentofthehermeneuticandlaterdoublehermeneutic,

essentialtoIPA,andtheassuranceofitsqualityandvalidity.

Thetestimonyuponwhichourargumentisbasedreliesontheexperienceof

onestudent.Theprocessmaybeuniquetothem.Inaddition,theexcerpts,albeit

verbatim,havebeeneditedbyustoillustrate.Otherexcerptsmaynotbeasrigorous,

ormayquestionourassertion.Thetimelineoftheanalysisbeingdiscussedisalsoat

anearlystage.Whilethestudentatthistimereportsfeeling‘incontrol’,thismay

changeastheanalysisdeepensandtheinterpretativelayersincrease.Fornow,the

studentcontinuestousesthejournalwithinthesoftwarepackagetoreflect,inthis

instanceupontheimpactontheanalysisofwritingthispaper:

30

Thefirst[interruption]hasbeenthepullingtogetherofanarticleatthe

suggestionofmy[authors2and3].Ireallyenjoyeddoingthis,butgottothe

pointwhereIhadtosendadraft[tothem]inordertofreeupspacefor

continuingwiththeanalysis………thatsaid,thisfeelslikeanaturalalbeit

enforcedbreakandIknowthinkIamgearinguptoreturntonextstage.

Learning,inthisinstanceistheprocessofbuildinganargumentwithin,andthe

iterativeprocessrequiredforthepreparationofapaperfitforconsiderationfor

publication.This,arelativelynewexperienceforthisstudenthas,tosomeextent,

interruptedtheflowofthedataanalysiswithinthesoftwarepackage.However,the

studenthasalsorealisedthatanalysisisanongoingprocess.Thefirstjournalextracts

wereexportedexternallyandmadeknowntosupervisors.Uponthisexportation,

analysisandreflectionthemselvestookonafurtherincarnationand,forthisstudent,

hasbeenanotherimportantaspectofthelearner-researcher-process.Asdataanalysis

andjournalingwithinthesoftwarepackagecontinuessowilltheinterpretativeprocess

andtheevidencingofitsqualityandvalidity.

31

References:

Barusch, A., Gringeri, C., and George, M. (2011) Rigor in Qualitative Social Work

Research:AreviewofstrategiesusedinpublishedarticlesSocialWorkResearch35,

1pp11-19

Bazeley, P. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical strategies 2nd edition Sage,

London

Bazeley,P.andJackson,K.(2014)QualitativeDataAnalysiswithNvivo2ndeditionSage,

London

Brocki,J.M.andWearden,A.J.(2006)Acriticalevaluationoftheuseofinterpretative

phenomenologicalanalysis(IPA)inhealthpsychologyPsychologyandHealthVol

21,issue1pp.87-108

Chamberlain,K.(2011)TroublingmethodologyHealthPsychologyReviewVol5,No1,

March2011,pp48-54

Chirema,D.D.(2007)Theuseofreflectivejournalsinthepromotionofreflectionand

learninginpostregistrationnursingstudentsNurseEducationTodayVol27Issue3

pp192-202

32

Finlay,L.(2002)Negotiatingtheswamp:theopportunityandchallengeofreflexivityin

researchpracticeQualitativeResearchVol2,issue2,pp209-230

Forrester,M.A.(ed.)(2013)DoingQualitativeResearchinPsychology:Apracticalguide

Sage,London

Gee,P.(2011)‘ApproachandSensibility’:Apersonalreflectiononanalysisandwriting

usingInterpretativePhenomenologicalAnalysisQualitativeMethodsinPsychology

BulletinNo11,May

Giorgi,A(2010)PhenomenologyandthepracticeofscienceExistentialAnalysisVol21,

issue1pp3-22

Giorgi, A (2011) IPA and science: A response to Jonathan Smith Journal of

PhenomenologicalPsychologyVol42pp195-216

Guba,E.G.andLincoln,Y.S. Paradigmaticcontroversies,contradictions,andemerging

confluencesinTheSageHandbookofQualitativeResearch3rdeditionpp.191-216

Sage,California

Hammersley,M. (2008) The Issue ofQuality inQualitative Research pp. 158 -188 in

QuestioningQualitativeInquirySage,London

33

Houston,S.andMullan-Jensen,C.(2012)TowardsdepthandwidthinQualitativeSocial

Work:Aligninginterpretativephenomenologicalanalysiswiththetheoryofsocial

domainsQualitativeSocialWork11,3pp266-281

Larkin, M., Watts, S. and Clifton, E. (2006) Giving voice and making sense in

interpretativephenomenologicalanalysisQualitativeResearchinPsychologyVol3

issue2,pp102-120

Lincoln,Y.S.andGuba,E.G.(1985)NaturalisticinquirySage,California

Morrison,K.(2006)Developingreflectivepracticeinhigherdegreestudentsthrougha

learningjournalStudiesinHigherEducationVol21Issue3pp317-332

Robson,C(2002)Realworldresearch:aresourceforsocialscientistsandpractitioner-

researchers2ndeditionBlackwell,Oxford

Rodham,K.,Fox,F.,andDoran,N.(2014)Exploringanalyticaltrustworthinessandthe

processofreachingconsensusininterpretativephenomenologicalanalysis:lostin

transcriptionInternationalJournalofSocialResearchMethodologyOct1-13

Rolfe,G.(2006)Validity,trustworthinessandrigour:Qualityandtheideaofqualitative

researchJournalofAdvancedNursing53,304-310

34

Shaw,R.L.(2011)Celebratingtheachievementsandpreparingforthechallengesahead

inIPAresearchHealthPsychologyReview5,30-47

Shaw, R (2013) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in Forrester, M.A., Doing

QualitativeResearchinPsychology:apracticalguideSage,London

Seale, C., and Silverman, D. (1997) Ensuring rigour in qualitative research European

JournalofPublicHealthVol7pp379-384

Smith, J. A. (1996) Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using

interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology Psychology and

Health,Vol11issue2pp261-271

Smith, J.A. (2004)Reflectingonthedevelopmentof interpretativephenomenological

analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology Qualitative

ResearchinPsychology1pp39-54

Smith,J.A(2010)Interpretativephenomenologicalanalysis:AreplytoAmedeoGiorgi

ExistentialAnalysisVol1issue2,pp186-192

Smith, J.A. (2011a) Evaluating the contribution of Interpretative Phenomenological

AnalysisHealthPsychologyReview5.1pp9-27

35

Smith, J.A. (2011b) Evaluating the contribution of Interpretative Phenomenological

Analysis:areplytothecommentariesandfurtherdevelopmentofcriteriaHealth

PsychologyReview5.1.pp55-61

Smith,J.,Flowers,P.,andLarkin,M.(2009)InterpretativePhenomenologicalAnalysis;

Theory,MethodandResearchSage,London

Smith,J.A.,andOsborn,M.(2008)InterpretativephenomenologicalanalysisinSmith,

J.A.,QualitativePsychology:ApracticalguidetoresearchmethodsSage,London

Stanley,L.(2004)Amethodologicaltoolkitforfeministresearch:Analyticalreflexivity,

accountable knowledge,moral epistemology and being ‘a child of our time’, in

Piper, H. and Stronach, I. (eds.) Educational Research: Diversity and Difference

Aldershot:Ashgate(pp.3-29).

Stanley,L.andTemple,B.(1995)Doingthebusiness?Evaluatingsoftwarepackagesto

aid the analysis of qualitative data sets, in Burgess, R.G. (ed.) Computing and

QualitativeResearchGreenwich:JAIPressInc.(pp.169-193).

Stanley, L. and Wise, S. (2006) Putting it into practice: Using feminist fractured

foundationalisminresearchingchildrenintheconcentrationcampsoftheSouth

36

African War Sociological Research Online 11(1),

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/1/stanley.html,accessed1stJune2015.

Thorpe, K. (2010) Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice Reflective

Practice;InternationalandmultidisciplinaryperspectivesVo5Issue3pp327-343

Todorova, I. (2011) Explorations with interpretative phenomenological analysis in

differentsocio-culturalcontextsHealthPsychologyReview5,pp9-27

Tufford,L.&Newman,P.(2010)BracketinginQualitativeResearchQualitativeSocial

Work,11(1),pp.80–96

Wagstaff, C. et al., 2014. The Accordion and the Deep Bowl of Spaghetti : Eight

Researchers’ ExperiencesofUsing IPAasaMethodologyTheQualitativeReport

Volume19Article47,pp.1–15

Wise,S.andStanley,L.(2006)Havingitall:Feministfracturedfoundationalism,inDavis,

K., Evans, M. and Lorber, J. (eds.) Handbook of Gender and Women’s Studies

London:Sage(pp.435-456).

Yardley,L. (2000)Dilemmas inqualitativehealth researchPsychologyandHealth15,

215-228.