A reflective journal as learning process and …oro.open.ac.uk/45270/16/Hicks.pdf ·...
Transcript of A reflective journal as learning process and …oro.open.ac.uk/45270/16/Hicks.pdf ·...
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.