Exploring analytical trustworthiness and the process of reaching consensus in interpretative phenomenological analysis: lost in transcription

Abstract

Typically authors explain how they conduct interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), but fail to explain how they ensured that their analytical process was trustworthy. For example, a minority mention that they 'reached consensus' after having engaged in a shared analysis of the data, but do not explain how they did so. In this article, we report on our experience of engaging in a shared analysis and aim to stimulate discussion about the process of ensuring the trustworthiness of one's data when employing IPA. Our key recommendation is that all researchers involved in analysis should listen to the audio recordings; failure to do so increases the potential for researchers to superimpose their own presuppositions or interpretative bias onto the data. We also suggest that audio recordings should be kept for a longer duration in case secondary analysis is required. We finish our article with a series of tips developed from our experience of shared analysis.

Beyond cognitive deficit: the everyday lived experience of dyslexic students at university

“…The researcher's experiences and perspectives constructed within the field of specialist teaching in specific learning difficulties in higher education necessarily guided interpretation of the data. as such, 'reliability' of data analysis, in the scientific sense of the word, was not an aim of this study; instead, trustworthiness (rodham, Fox, and Doran 2015) of data analysis was sought through rigorous, transparent and systematic analysis.…”

“…likewise, the researcher cannot 'jump out' of the world in order to examine the person (larkin, Watts, and Clifton 2006, 106); they can only attempt to acknowledge and reflect upon their own preconceptions and assumptions in interpreting the descriptions of others (rodham, Fox, and Doran 2015). IPA is particularly suited to research questions which in some form ask 'what is it like?'…”

Experiences of Counselors‐as‐Clients in Counselor Education

“…Fully capturing the dynamics or synergy of the focus group remained a challenge, an aspect that Tomkins and Eatough () advised IPA researchers to expect and embrace when conducting focus groups. Although we took steps to maintain objectivity and be reflexive, we could have done more to sharpen these efforts, such as by audio recording research team meetings, as was done in Rodham et al's () study, and enlisting the services of a consultant (e.g., in IPA or focus groups) with whom we could process our own sense making. These steps could be the “regular supervision” (p. 487) Lamb and Cogan () received as researchers to heighten their reflexivity.…”

“…This involved each of us condensing our notes into concise words (e.g., “stereotype”) or brief phrases (e.g., “mission of giving back”). Two questions posed by Palmer et al () guided our work in this step, which were also intended to foster our genuine curiosity on the topic, a curiosity reinforced by Rodham, Fox, and Doran (): (a) What meaning from experiences is being shared? and (b) Where are areas of agreement and disagreement?…”

Hidden walls: STEM course barriers identified by students with disabilities

“…A recommended practice of the IPA process is for researchers to avoid taking their assumptions into the analysis (i.e., bracketing) as these will interfere with interpreting how participants interpret their experiences [11]. By having a diversity of researchers co-generating interpretations, researchers are more likely to be confronted with differing interpretations which require each researcher to reflect and defend how the participant's words are the basis of the researcher's interpretation [12]. When using IPA, we also interpret participants' statements by asking questions of the transcripts such as "Do I have a sense of something going on here that maybe the participants themselves are less aware of?"…”