Specific design features of an interpretative phenomenological analysis study
Intended for healthcare professionals
Men Previous     Next

Specific design features of an interpretative phenomenological analysis study

Christopher Wagstaff Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
Bob Williams Senior lecturer, King’s College London, UK

Aim Report of an innovative use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to enable an in-depth study of the experiences of disengagement from mental health services of black men with diagnoses of severe and enduring mental illness.

Background The aim of IPA is to explore the sense that participants make of their personal and social worlds, while recognising the contribution of the researcher in interpreting the participants’ interpretations of their experiences.

Review methods Seven black male research participants were recruited to the study. The components of the study that contribute to the body of literature on IPA research design include: an engagement stage in the research; a second clarifying interview; discussion of clarifying questions and emergent themes with two academic service-users; and a post-interview meeting to discuss the themes emerging from the research study.

Discussion The paper focuses on the contribution of the four specific design features of the study and how these enabled the researcher to engage with a population that is often deemed ‘hard to reach’.

Conclusion The four distinctive methodological developments in the study emphasise the flexibility of IPA. These innovations assisted the researcher in developing a broader double hermeneutic that enabled reporting of the experiences of disengagement from mental health services of black men with diagnoses of severe and enduring mental illness.

Implications for research/practice The distinctive design of this study further emphasises the flexibility of IPA, while simultaneously showing fidelity to the core principles underlying the research methodology.

Nurse Researcher. 21, 3, 8-12. doi: 10.7748/nr2014.01.21.3.8.e1226

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 15 February 2013

Accepted: 07 October 2013

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more