Developing expertise with interpretative phenomenological analysis

Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA, Smith 1996; Smith et al., 2022) is a still relatively new qualitative methodology, but has exploded in popularity over the past 15 years. Students seem drawn to IPA at master's and doctoral levels, which is often the first opportunity for students to engage meaningfully with this approach. The challenges of conducting and supervising 'good' IPA are as relevant today as they have been in the past (Hefferon & Gil-Rodriguez, 2011). 

In this article, we offer strategies to tackle common challenges we've seen IPA novices (students and supervisors) encounter. We draw on our experience as supervisors and trainers, supplemented with data gathered from a survey of 117 qualitative postgraduate students from various institutions and programmes. We provide our personal perspectives, conveying, in the spirit of IPA, 'what it's like' to do and supervise IPA, upholding the focus on the idiographic (our experiences) to inform the general (how others might do this). 

Getting started

There are many excellent resources describing the background, theory and implementation of IPA (e.g., Smith et al., 2022; Smith & Nizza, 2023) and what makes good IPA (e.g., Nizza et al., 2021; Smith, 2011). There are active and helpful online support groups and contacts. We recommend students (and supervisors!) engage with these throughout their IPA journey. There is also an ever-growing body of published IPA work and theses that show how IPA should look. 

However, as with any practical skill, you also need to practice, get feedback and implement corrections. Presumably, you wouldn't expect to become an excellent pianist by reading books about it and watching other people do it, but through ongoing practice and feedback. 

Fiona: I recommend that after conducting their first interview, students review the transcript in detail with their supervisor to discuss strength and possible areas for improvement. Students often miss opportunities to prompt and probe as they follow the schedule rather than really listen to the participant. This is one example of early feedback and development. Without it, some students continue through their interviews and find their data is too descriptive to allow for a rich IPA. 

Challenges and recommendations

The following challenges are presented in order from the start to finish of an IPA research project, with practical tips to address each.

Differentiating IPA from thematic analysis (TA)

Many novices struggle to differentiate IPA from thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013) or believe they should select IPA because they're looking at 'experiences'. The term 'experiences' can be problematic. Yes, in general, qualitative research (and TA and IPA) are interested in 'experiences', and IPA, as part of the phenomenological tradition, is concerned with the ideas of experiencing something. The term is vague, though. 

We ask students to identify precisely what about the 'experiences' and their psychological aspects interests them. This clarity cascades through the whole research project to writing up a convincing final report. 

Tips:
Read Johanna Spiers and Ruth Riley's 2019 paper, which compares conducting TA and IPA during the same project. They explicitly compare each approach, and the results they produce. 

Think about what you're aiming to do – what kind of knowledge are you aiming to produce? What makes your aims a good fit to answer using IPA?

Gulcan: To help students decide whether a research topic is better suited to IPA or TA, I ask them to think about whether their area of interest is one that is contained to a specific area of a person's life, or if the issue of interest is likely to impact multiple areas of life. For example, a student interested in understanding the influence of an art intervention on people's wellbeing may be better positioned to use TA versus a project looking at the experiences of living with a long-term condition that impacts many or all areas of a person's life, which would be an excellent candidate for an IPA.  

Additionally, some students see IPA as superior because it's more complex and has a defined theoretical background. However, it's not better if it doesn't provide appropriate answers to your question or if you can't do it well. It's better to produce a competent thematic analysis than a poor-quality IPA that lacks the interpretative element.

Supervisors: don't be afraid to guide your students to make a pragmatic decision about their method, considering their previous experience, time constraints and future plans. 

Lack of institutional expertise

The lack of institutional expertise in IPA is still problematic. Students continue to highlight the challenges of finding supervisors and examiners with sufficient knowledge of IPA to advise, give feedback and appropriately evaluate a final dissertation. This lack of institutional knowledge is perpetuated when IPA is supervised and examined by non-experts, resulting in students passing their postgraduate studies without appropriately rigorous appraisal. Staff who supervise and examine postgraduate IPA work should have published in IPA and thus been through a peer review process themselves.

Our survey highlighted that, although rare, some students (9%) continue to have supervisory packages without qualitative expertise, but around 50% of our respondents reported that their supervisory packages did not have anyone who had conducted or published research in their chosen method. With those using IPA, 56% had supervisors who had published research using the method, with 56% of IPA students saying they had at least one supervisor who was familiar with, but had not used, the methodology.

We appreciate the challenge met by academics who are asked to be experts in all qualitative research despite lacking personal experience of them (e.g., Trainor & Bundon, 2016; Wiggins et al., 2016). Our survey data underscores the importance of a student's confidence in their supervisor's knowledge: a linear regression showed a significant positive relationship between satisfaction with supervision and confidence in presenting research findings.

Caroline: As supervisors we must ensure we are not misserving our students when we do not have the expertise that fits with their methodological approach. Supervisors need to ensure that the supervisory package provides the knowledge and experience required to support the student successfully.  Similarly, students can and should ask questions of their supervisors to ensure they receive appropriate support. If your supervisor is not experienced in the methodological approach you want to use, ask them how the supervisory package overall will ensure this need is met.

A second perspective is the value of being able to share experiences of doing IPA. Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun (2013) highlighted the value of showing students the "messy reality" of thematic analysis when working with data. The same applies with IPA. The experiential aspect of tackling hurdles and missteps enhances informational guidance. Show a student examples of your own work can be illuminating and form a useful starting point for discussions.

Tips:

Fresh eyes on a project can be helpful, and this may be before the point of an examination. Since it's unrealistic to expect all institutions to have equally experienced IPA experts available, seek expert connections outside your institution. This may be a formal arrangement with an academic or contracting with an independent expert. 

Seek collaborative opportunities with peers, which might include opportunities to see the process of others' research, e.g., examples of interview schedules, coding, initial notes about experiential themes etc. 

However, if your only 'critical friends' are peers also learning IPA, they may lack the knowledge and confidence to interrogate your work as an examiner might. It is helpful to have the chance to articulate and 'defend' your analysis with another person. It is also helpful to be open to elements in the data you might have missed, not be able to pick out an overarching concept by being too focused on details or become set in particular ideas about what's there that you can't see other ways to interpret your data. 

Be mindful: Outside a peer network, where all participants may equally benefit from the interaction, you are asking someone to put a considerable amount of time and energy into helping you. Be respectful of that and consider that a compensated arrangement with boundaries and expectations may be the best approach. 

Supervisors: be realistic about your training and experience. Find training. Direct students to a different supervisor/method if possible. At the least, try it yourself and seek out someone who can act as a critical voice for your own learning.

Developing theoretical knowledge

Conducting an IPA requires understanding of the underlying theories and assumptions that inform it. The extent to which you engage with philosophical arguments and debates depends on your level of study and personal interest. A basic understanding is sufficient at master's level (e.g., the overview provided in Smith et al., 2022) unless you have a strong interest in philosophical literature. 

Elly: While I don't think students need in-depth knowledge of the philosophical elements to attempt IPA, it does require a willingness to engage with and understand some of those elements. I am clear with students that I'm happy to supervise their IPA project but am honest about the additional work in learning and during analysis to move beyond a vaguely phenomenological ('experiential') version of TA.

For doctoral work, you must understand the philosophical stance your project sits within, as there are some underlying philosophies that might be a better fit for your project than others.

Fiona: from examining a variety of IPA doctorates, it is clear to see which students grasp the key concepts and can also position them in relation to their study. This is something that I would recommend that doctoral students do to showcase their level 8 thinking and knowledge of how their study sits within their approach.

Tips
Consider the practical implications of theory. Knowing about the hermeneutics of suspicion and empathy provides a useful tool for analysis without needing to read Ricoeur's work in detail (e.g., Ricoeur & Thompson, 1981). Reading others' explanations of concepts is a good starting point and can be enough for master's. Start where you can and build up your philosophical muscles for the original writing.

Elly: When I started my PhD, I found Darren Langdridge's book on general phenomenological psychology readable and informative. A broader discussion of phenomenology (although did lead to some agonised debates about the correct approach).

You can't learn everything in a day and circling back to challenging topics over the course of a project is more productive than trying to cram everything at the start.

Methodological and practical knowledge

'Qualitative' is used as shorthand for a huge 'family' of approaches (Willig, 2012, p.7) with different assumptions, conventions, theoretical influences and knowledge claims. It's less problematic when experienced researchers use this term, as they're implicitly aware of the context. It is an issue for novice researchers, who adopt techniques that are incompatible with IPA (for instance, member checks). 

The imposition of quantitative paradigms seems less problematic, in our experience, than it was when Braun and Clarke wrote for The Psychologist in 2013. However, the push for larger sample sizes in IPA is perhaps part of this lack of awareness and confidence in IPA as an approach.

Additionally, in academia, we often encourage students to conduct wider reading, which seems to motivate some students to seek out novel sources from authors who lack subject specificity or the quality or expertise of established voices. 

Tips:
Although we're trying to avoid 'assigning' more reading, you must engage with recent, relevant, quality IPA research. Start with Jonathan Smith's publications and see who he has published with. Read the articles Nizza et al. (2021) highlight as gold standard examples. You'll see varied writing styles, but the hallmarks of good ideas are clear: interpretation, idiography and insight into lived experiences of a phenomenon. 

Methodologies develop. The second edition of Smith et al.'s (2022) IPA book implemented a change in terminology for the analytic stages. Guidance about conducting focus groups with IPA was included based on publications from studies employing that approach and discussing the merits of this. 

Use the most up-to-date information from knowledgeable IPA practitioners. Re-read key steps as you encounter them and apply what you learned.

Attaining analytic depth and detail

Novice IPA researchers struggle to incorporate depth and detail in their analysis, and to reach a suitable level of interpretation. Our data also showed that students are unsure about the quality of their research. The open questions in our survey showed that a primary concern for doctoral qualitative students was 'will my thesis be good enough (for level 8)?' For IPA students, an added concern was whether it is 'interpretative enough?'. As one participants stated: 'I would really like an experienced IPA researcher to look at my themes and give me feedback on my analysis before final submission'

There is often a gap between information and experiential and application information. Here are some ways to obtain that helpful experiential and personal perspective.

Tips:
Insight often comes through interaction/engagement with others about your research. Review developing analytic ideas with your supervisor. See guidance above if you're a supervisor/have a supervisor with less experience of IPA for other avenues for doing this. 

Elly: I set expectations with students that a first draft of an analysis is a starting point for further discussions, but also to be reassuring that further discussion is typical to develop an analysis. Students who engage in this process almost always achieve marked improvement in their final analysis.

The independent audit is a specific approach to indicate quality in IPA (see Smith et al., 2022, pp. 153-4 for more on this). 

Read published research and think about what is done and how it's reported. Consider what the authors do (or don't) discuss. Start with Jonathan Smith's articles about good IPA (Smith, 2011; Nizza et al., 2021) and see the advice above about how to find more 'reputable' sources.

Find someone who has published IPA to work through an small portion of data with you to help you see how deep you could go. Our supervision experience is that reviewing a small part of an analysis typically finds areas for improvement that can be applied more widely across the whole analysis.

Elly: I use examples of my own research for discussion as I can talk more authoritatively about the process behind what was published, and how and where I drew on other published concepts to develop my analysis.

You might 'test' the conceptual element of your analysis by explaining and justifying your theme titles with someone else. 

Ask for or offer (if you are a supervisor) a mock viva from an IPA expert to help you prepare for analytic questions. Of our survey participants, 81% said that they would have liked to have experienced examiners (beyond their supervisors) help with their mock viva.

Concluding thoughts

We hope you have found this guidance useful. We have focused on tailoring our recommendations to IPA, but many points can be applied to other types of research. 

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE.

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (February, 2013). Methods: Teaching thematic analysis. The Psychologist. 

Hefferon, K., & Gil-Rodriguez, E. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. The Psychologist, 24(10), 756–759.

Nizza, I. E., Farr, J., & Smith, J. A. (2021). Achieving excellence in interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): Four markers of high quality. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 369–386. 

Ricoeur, P., & Thompson, J. B. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology & Health, 11(2), 261–271.

Smith, J. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9–27. 

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2022). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Smith, J. A., & Nizza, I. E. (2022). Essentials of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. American Psychological Association. 

Trainor, L. R., & Bundon, A. (2021). Developing the craft: Reflexive accounts of doing reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(5), 705–726. 

Willig, C. (2012). Perspectives on the epistemological bases for qualitative research. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 5–21). American Psychological Association.