IPA contains its own version of phenomenology, which also represents a theoretical lens. You can find more details in Smith, Flower, and Larkin's (2009) textbook on IPA.

Also, IPA does sound like a good choice for addressing your research question.

Thanks, David L Morgan . I would read through the recommended text.

IPA is a good choice for conducting a phenomenological study. The source text by Smith, Flowers, & Larkings provides a well-developed guide for conducting phenomenological research. I think it gives the reader an ample discussion of the underpinnings and development of phenomenology as a qualitative research method. It also provides some practical insights and suggestions for data collection and data analysis. There are a few videos on youtube that are helpful as well--a few by "Michael L", one of the book's authors, but also at least one put out by the American Psychological Association. IPA is especially helpful if you have a very small sample--in fact, the authors recommend no more than 3-6--and you have the time to really engage in some "deep dives" with these individuals.

To specifically address your questions:

1. Do I follow Hermeneutic phenomenology (Van Manen's) or other types (Moustakas, etc.)?

IPA is hermeneutic. In fact, I like to make the argument that all phenomenology is hermeneutic since it is concerned with how individuals consciously perceive a phenomenon in their Lifeworld and/or through their lived experiences and make meaning of that phenomenon. This perceiving and meaning-making are, at least in my estimation, companion parts of an interpretative or hermeneutic act. I think in this sense, van Manen and Moustakas are compatible. I do think they "get at" this hermeneutic aspect a bit differently but when you read either from a Husserlian standpoint (which they both deviate from Husserl quite a bit, perhaps one more than the other), you can see that they are applying slightly different vocabulary or actions to the same phenomenological processes. I think they both selectively leave out some key phenomenological ideas and reframe others in their own way, but more or less they can be compatible.

Personally, I think van Manen is a good supporting text (mainly because Smith [et al.] cite van Manen and provide a paragraph on how van Manen specifically relates to IPA and the authors do not mention Moustakas at all). Giorgi is another scholar of phenomenology that they reference. Another consideration is that Moustakas, while lending his work to the "structural" demands of a dissertation or research project, uses a lot of terms that I find can confuse students and even scholars. Though I like his text, he simply doesn't do the greatest job of explaining what he means by some things.

2. Do I need to adopt a theoretical lens apriori or not?

As David L Morgan well noted, IPA is its own theoretical framework. I think his suggestion is best here. The text provides the researcher with what I feel is a fitting theoretical framework (in fact, it also provides several theoretical perspectives related to phenomenology that could serve as frameworks for qualitative research). So, in total agreement with David L Morgan to use the IPA framework.

My suggestion is that you can read this article for the answers to your both questions.Article The distinctions of Heideggerian phenomenological research method

The guidance as per the following publications may further help:

• Biggerstaff, D. and Thompson, A. R. (2008) Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research, Qualitative research in psychology, 5, 3, pp. 214-224.
• Brocki, J. M. and Wearden, A. J. (2006) A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology, Psychology and Health, 21, 1, pp. 87-108.
• Cronin, C. and Lowes, J. (2015) Brief Encounters with Qualitative Methods in Health Research: Phenomenology and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, The Cumbria Partnership Journal of Research, Practice and Learning, 5, 1, pp. 8-12.
• Hefferon, K. and Gil-Rodriguez, E. (2011) Methods: Interpretative phenomenological analysis, The Psychologist, 24, 10, pp. 756-759.
• Shinebourne, P. (2011) The Theoretical Underpinnings of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), Journal of the Society for Existential Analysis, 22, 1.
• Smith, J. A., Jarman, M. and Osbirn, M. (1999) Doing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, in Murry, M. and Chamberlain, K. (eds.) Qualitative Health Psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 218-240.
• Storey, L. (2016) Doing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, in Lyons, E. and Coyle, A. (eds.) Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 68-83.

You can follow Hermeneutic phenomenology.

You don't need adopt a theorical lens!

Best regards!

Thanks, Elaine Cristina Rodrigues Gesteira

Dear Devasheesh Mathur ji,

You have asked a very interesting question related to a powerful qualitative approach. I will be happy if this methodology gains wider currency in academic world.

I would suggest you to go with Moustakas approach, wherein there is no need to adopt a theoretical lens apriori. However, from peer review perspective, the Hermeneutic phenomenology (Van Manen's) has better acceptability as it is simple and is less deviant vis-a-vis majority of qualitative approach.

Hi Devasheesh,

Gadamer (Truth and Method) a core source of Hermeneutics, argues that Phronesis (Aristotle) was a primary instance of hermeneutic method. Phronesis is the exercise of practical wisdom or experiential enhancing human experience through enquiry informed by changing perspectives, affective 'horizons of understanding' Gadamer) through discussion. In your research such horizons would be built, established by 'how women suffering from PCOS make sense of their condition'. Your goal of such phronetic inquiry, establishing here practical wisdom, I suggest, would be enhancing 'their lived experience through the condition'.

My suggestion is Gadamer, Truth and Method.

The point of phenomenology is that you are listening to the lived experience of the participants and the understandings they bring to it - you definitely should not bring your own theoretical lens - follow the phenomenological method.