Vol. 10 No. 71 (2022)

Research Article

Contemporary Approaches in Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): New Methodological Orientations for Business Management Studies

Published 2022-04-30

Cilt 10 Sayı 71 kapak

Öz

Yorumlayıcı Fenomenolojik Analiz’de (YFA) Güncel Yaklaşımlar

Yorumlayıcı Fenomenolojik Analiz (YFA) katılımcıların herhangi bir deneyime ilişkin nasıl bir anlam yüklediklerini keşfetmeyi amaçlayan nitel bir araştırma desenidir. YFA psikoloji disiplini içerisinde yaygın bir şekilde kullanılırken, son zamanlarda yönetim ve organizasyon alanında da kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Bununla birlikte, psikoloji alanında kullanılan bazı güncel YFA yaklaşımları, yönetim alanında yeterince ele alınmamıştır. Çalışmanın amacı psikoloji alanında kullanılan YFA’ya yönelik dört temel güncel yaklaşımın yönetim alanında tanıtılması ve değerlendirilmesidir. Bu bağlamda, boylamsal YFA, çok-perspektifli YFA, YFA’da odak grup tartışmaları ve YFA’da görsel araştırma yöntemleri bu çalışmada incelenmiştir. Boylamsal YFA örgütsel bağlamda deneyimlerin ve bu deneyimlere ilişkin anlamların zaman içindeki değişim ve dönüşümlerini incelerken, çok-perspektifli YFA aynı olayı ya da durumu farklı yönlerden deneyimleyen kişilerin anlamlandırma süreçlerine odaklanmaktadır. YFA’da odak grup tartışmaları belli bir deneyime yönelik paylaşımların grup bağlamındaki dinamiklerle zenginleştirilmesini ele alırken, YFA’da görsel araştırma yöntemleri sözel olarak ifade edilmesi zor olan deneyimlerin ve bu deneyimlere atfedilen anlamların paylaşılmasını kolaylaştırmaktadır. Bu çalışmada son olarak, gelecekte yapılacak YFA çalışmaları için yönetim ve organizasyon araştırmacılarına önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler Yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik analiz, boylamsal araştırma, odak grup tartışmaları, görsel yöntemler, çok-perspektifli yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik analiz

Abstract

Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (hereafter IPA) is a qualitative research design that aims to explore how participants attribute meaning to any experience. While IPA is widely used in the discipline of psychology, it has also started to be used in the field of management and organization. However, some recent IPA approaches employed in psychology have not been adequately addressed in the sphere of management. This study aims to introduce and evaluate four unusual IPA approaches in the field of management: (i) longitudinal IPA, (ii) multi-perspective designs and processes in IPA, (iii) utilizing focus groups in IPA and (iv) using visual research in IPA. While longitudinal IPA examines the change and transformation of experiences and meanings associated with them, multiperspectival IPA focuses on the sense-making processes of diverse groups of participants who encounter the same event or situation. Focus groups are employed in IPA to encourage participants to share more about their experiences through the use of group dynamics, while visual research enables participants to share sensitive experiences and their associated meanings. Finally, this study offers future research directions for IPA researchers.

Keywords Interpretative phenomenological analysis, longitudinal research, focus group discussions, visual research, multiperspectival interpretative phenomenological analysis

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Avey, James B., ve diğer. “A Call for Longitudinal Research in Positive Organizational Behavior.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, c. 29, s. 5, 2008, ss. 705–11, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.517.
  2. Bartoli, Angie. “Every Picture Tells a Story: Combining Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis with Visual Research.” Qualitative Social Work, c. 19, s. 5–6, 2020, ss. 1007–21, https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325019858664.
  3. Bell, Emma, ve Davison, Jane. “Visual Management Studies: Empirical and Theoretical Approaches*.” International Journal of Management Reviews, c. 15, 2013, ss. 167-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00342.x
  4. Berber, Aykut, ve Gökhan Acar. “Power Crafting at Work: A Phenomenological Study on Individual Differences.” Human Relations. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720942828
  5. Boden, Zoë, ve diğer. “Picturing Ourselves in the World: Drawings, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and the Relational Mapping Interview.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 16, s. 2, 2019, ss. 218–36, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1540679.
  6. Burton, Amy, ve diğer. “Quality of Life Research: A Case for Combining Photo-Elicitation with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 14, s. 4, 2017, ss. 375–93, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1322650.
  7. Byers, Peggy Yuhas, ve James R. Wilcox. “Focus Groups: A Qualitative Opportunity for Researchers.” The Journal of Business Communication (1973), c. 28, s. 1, 1991, ss. 63–78, https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369102800105.
  8. Farr, Joanna, ve Isabella E. Nizza. “Longitudinal Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (LIPA): A Review of Studies and Methodological Considerations.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 16, s. 2, 2019, ss. 199–217, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1540677.
  9. Gill, Michael J. “The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research.” Organizational Research Methods, c. 17, s. 2, 2014, ss. 118–37, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113518348.
  10. Gill, Michael J. “Elite Identity and Status Anxiety: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Management Consultants.” Organization, c. 22, s. 3, 2015, ss. 306-325.
  11. Githaiga, Jennifer Nyawira. “Methodological Considerations in Utilization of Focus Groups in an IPA Study of Bereaved Parental Cancer Caregivers in Nairobi.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 11, s. 4, 2014, ss. 400–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.933918.
  12. Hermanowicz, Joseph C. “The Longitudinal Qualitative Interview.” Qualitative Sociology, c. 36, s. 2, 2013, ss. 189–208, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9247-7.
  13. Keskin, Halit, ve diğer. “Yönetim ve Organizasyon Araştırmalarında Yorumlayıcı Fenomenolojik Analiz Yönteminin Kullanılması: Sistematik Bir Inceleme.” Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, c. 9, s. 4, 2021, ss. 1437–51, https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i4.1925.
  14. Kim, You Jin (YJ), ve diğer. “A Dyadic Model of Motives, Pride, Gratitude, and Helping.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, c. 39, s. 10, 2018, ss. 1367–82, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2315.
  15. Kirkham, Jamie. A., ve diğer. “Painting Pain: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Representations of Living With Chronic Pain.” Health psychology: official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, c. 34, s. 4, 2015, ss. 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000139
  16. Kulik, Carol T. “Climbing the Higher Mountain: The Challenges of Multilevel, Multisource, and Longitudinal Research Designs.” Management and Organization Review, c. 7, s. 3, 2011, ss. 447–60.
  17. Lamb, Danielle, ve Nicola Cogan. “Coping with Work‐related Stressors and Building Resilience in Mental Health Workers: A Comparative Focus Group Study Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, c. 89, s. 3, 2016, ss. 474–92, https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12136.
  18. Larkin, Michael, ve diğer. “Multiperspectival Designs and Processes in Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis Research.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 16, s. 2, 2019, ss. 182–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1540655.
  19. Lawler, Edward J. “An Affect Theory of Social Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology, c. 107, s. 2, ss. 321–352, https://doi.org/10.1086/324071
  20. Love, Beverly, ve diğer. “Should Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) Be Used With Focus Groups? Navigating the Bumpy Road of “Iterative Loops,” Idiographic Journeys, and “Phenomenological Bridges.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920921600
  21. McCoy, Lauren K. “Longitudinal Qualitative Research and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Philosophical Connections and Practical Considerations.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 14, s. 4, 2017, ss. 442–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1340530.
  22. Palmer, Michelle, ve diğer. “Developing an Interpretative Phenomenological Approach to Focus Group Data.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 7, s. 2, 2010, ss. 99–121, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880802513194.
  23. Phillips, Elly, ve diğer. “Worlds within Worlds: A Strategy for Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis with Focus Groups.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 13, s. 4, 2016, ss. 289–302, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1205692.
  24. Sengupta, Atri, ve diğer. “How Do Mid-Level Managers Experience Data Science Disruptions? An in-Depth Inquiry through Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA).” Management Decision, c. 60, s. 2, 2022, ss. 320–43, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2020-0099.
  25. Shinebourne, Pnina, ve Jonathan A. Smith. “Images of Addiction and Recovery: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the Experience of Addiction and Recovery as Expressed in Visual Images.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, c. 18, s. 5, 2011, ss. 313–22, https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2010.514621.
  26. Smith, Jonathan. A. “Reconstructing Selves: An Analysis of Discrepancies Between Women’s Contemporaneous and Retrospective Accounts of the Transition to Motherhood.” British Journal of Psychology, c. 85, 1994, ss. 371–392.
  27. Smith, Jonathan. A. “Identity Development during the Transition to Motherhood: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, c. 17, s. 3, 1999, ss. 281–99, https://doi.org/10.1080/02646839908404595.
  28. Smith, Jonathan A. “Evaluating the Contribution of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Health Psychology Review, c. 5, s. 1, 2011, ss. 9–27, https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.510659.
  29. Smith, Jonathan A. “Participants and Researchers Searching for Meaning: Conceptual Developments for Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 16, s. 2, 2019, ss. 166–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1540648.
  30. Smith, Jonathan. A., ve diğer. Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.
  31. Smith, Jonathan. A. ve Mike Osborn. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (ss. 25-53). London: Sage, 2015.
  32. Snelgrove, Sherrill Ray “Conducting Qualitative Longitudinal Research Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Nurse Researcher, c. 22, s. 1, 2014, ss. 20–5.
  33. Taylor, Yulia, ve diğer. “Perception of Cross-Cultural Adjustment by Immigrant Professionals From Three Ethnic Groups in One Host Context.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2021.
  34. Thomson, Rachel, ve Julie McLeod. “New Frontiers in Qualitative Longitudinal Research: An Agenda for Research.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, c. 18, s. 3, 2015, ss. 243–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1017900.
  35. Tomkins, Leah, ve Virginia Eatough. “Reflecting on the Use of IPA with Focus Groups: Pitfalls and Potentials.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, c. 7, s. 3, 2010, ss. 244–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903121491.
  36. Williams, Helen. C., vd. “Climbing to Freedom on An Impossible Staircase: Exploring the Emancipatory Potential of Becoming An Entrepreneur-Employer.” International Small Business Journal, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620967613