Jenny,  Use both for strength in your analysis.

So they are not distinct methods? If I used both would this then become a mixed methods (although two qualitative methods) analysis or triangulation. I am ver new to qualitative research and trying to grasp the terms and ways they come together.

Jenny,    The beauty of qualitative methods is to be flexible and creative in your analysis. Float with the data, let it speak to you from your participants voice. Draw out what the members are saying or doing or feeling. Multiple methods (triangulation) allows for this flexibility. Remember, you are the receiver here; let the data inform you.

I think of both of these as variations on a fairly generic, inductive approach to  analysis. The best known alternative within this group of techniques is thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which is very similar to framework analysis.

Between the two methods that you mentioned, I would identify IPA as closer to your goal to "understand the individual experience deeply." This is due to its background in phenomenology, but that does apply more to its theoretical origins than its manifest procedures.

As long as they dont contradict each other in any way you can combine elements of both in ways that are useful to you and suits your data. If there are contradictions you can still use both, but should explicitly adress how the contradiction affects your results. 

If you are new to qualitative research, I would start out by just coding the data into thematic categories to first get an overview. 

Thank you to everyone. beginning to become clearer.

Jenny

Thank you for these thoughts. I think I am beginning to understand the concepts a little more. I had thought thematic analysis was the overriding term and that framework and IPA were specific techniques for carrying out thematic analysis. It appears that the boundaries are somewhat blurred and there is a great deal of overlap. Having a background in RCT's and quantitative statistics leaves me feeling as though I am learning a whole new language.

You need to systemise your analysis. Hence your goal is to create a' radar' that captures the different and overlapping themes in your data. Start with the simple but very useful thematic analysis as a first stage of analysis. You could do so with a number of your interviews first (select some). take a break for a day or two. Then return back to your findings  and try to view your initial analysis from a bird's eye perspective. See possible patterns. Let this inform your second round of analysis.

It would be wise to familiarize yourself with IPA prior to your design and the determination of your questions- the type of question you ask is related to the methodology you go with.  IPA does not look to create a framework, or model necessarily, as output at the end as FA seems to- be wary of assuming you can use them eclectically.  it is certainly true that there is a lot of overlap but you must ask first, what is my goal with this study and which method is intended to reach that goal.  I would suggest that you use the best fit for your intended purposes and refer to the other to see if there are elements that could strengthen what you are doing.  Triangulation does not necessarily get used in the same way in IPA as it does in other methods so, again, be very cautions of mixing with the assumption it will make it better just because you did more...

Hi Jenny,

These are very different types of research approaches and analyses methods. While I agree with the other posts that there are strengths to both and that you could combine the methods, your choice should also be driven by the research questions. If you are interested in the worldviews of your participants, for instance, IPA might be more important. Note as well that these methods come from different epistemological assumptions so consider which is more aligned with your research questions carefully. For instance, IPA doesn't specify that you need to continue to collect themes until saturation while Framework does, and the N you would collect will differ (IPA, because of its emphasis on phenomenology, tends to have very small sample sizes). In the policy literature framework analysis tends to emphasize greater sample sizes, saturation of themes, is epistemological grounded more in the realist tradition. Which approach you choose/ which you weight more heavily should inform not only your coding approach but also your study (e.g., the way your interview, your interview schedule, etc).  If you can provide a bit more information on your research questions I can help provide some suggestions of which approach may be more important to emphasize in your research.  

Best of luck! 

I would agree with David Morgan that IPA would suit your research objective to understand the experince deeply.  IPA allows the rsearcher an in depth view on "what it is like" to experience a given phenomenon.  The Interpretive part is the role the researcher plays, which is recognised in IPA.  I think that it is important that whatever method you used is based on a philosophical underpinning.  For example,  IPA is inductive and based on phenomenology, heurmenetics and symbolic interaction.  This basically means that there is no 'real' objective way of seeing things, but we all see and interpret events differently depending on our own experience within our social world -therefore each event will hold a special meaning to each of us. So you as the research attempt to capture all these meanings, analysise them and present them.  From a personal viewpoint, should you chose this method you will learn a great deal.  The experience for you will be very valuable.  Particularly inthe art of listening, re-reading, re-processing and the role of the researcher  -w hich is often not recognised.  I would recommend The book Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis , Theory, Method and Research by Jonathan A. Smith, Paul Flowers and Michael Larkin.  Its an easy-to-read book with examples that dmonstrate IPA from theory to practical tips.  Any publications by JA Smith and Mike Osborne within the health field would also be useful to you.

Article The personal experience of online learning: An interpretativ...

Hi Jenny,

I agree with the other respondents that you need to think about some of the underlying assumptions you make about what an interview can tell us about the participant. IPA is about how the participant perceives their experiences so everything is grounded in their perspective. It is especially useful when you want to understand how someone has understood a particular experience e.g. living with an illness. It requires less interviews because you will go into much more depth about how their emotions and thoughts are used to make sense of what has happened to them.

Framework analysis is particularly useful where you have a theory-driven research question and you are looking to see whether the theory applies to your data. So you use the framework derived from your theory / literature as the starting point for creating themes or codes to start analysing your data. You can then look at what else emerges from the data and when you have finished coding you can look across your participants in a matrix to see whether the final theoretical/coding framework applies equally to all participants / groups. You need quite a few interviews to enable this to be an effective strategy. The framework could also be created inductively from you data but it is more usual to start with something based on the literature which will be reflected in your research question.

I think reading around these two approaches will help but I agree that it is difficult to get your head around the language when you start. I work with trials and there is definitely a tension between the trial and the qual research because of their different philosophical underpinnings and certainty required about what can be found. In some recent interviews where we looked at patients experiences of having a condition and also how they managed certain aspects of that, we used inductive thematic coding to consider the lived experience of their condition, and a framework derived from a theory we had about how to change behaviour to see whether that applied to questions around their management of their illness and in particular differences between those who managed it well or poorly. This is because we had different research questions for each part of the study, even though it was one interview. Even with framework analysis it is important to stay open to what the data is telling you, and to keep reflecting on whether a different framework may fit the data better.

Let me know if you need more help / explanation on anything that I've said here.

Sarah

Hi Sarah and Roberta,

thank you for taking the time to write such helpful answers. Roberta - I got the book  on IPA by Jonathan Smith et al last week and plan to sit with this tomorrow and the article you have forwarded - good to know I was on the right track. Sarah - your description of Framework analysis has helped me clarify my understanding further - IPA seem to be the most appropriate route for my questions which as very much focussed on individual perception. thanks Jenny

To be honest with you, the way I interpreted qualitative data was a mix  of IPA, grounded theory, Becker, Strauss, etc. What is important to me is to find a way to understand the content of the interviews and to write a good report. Moreover, what has been useful was to consult key informers about the description I had done of the event. From my point of view, a good analysis method is the one which describe, translate and explain what the investigator observes. Good luck and hang on.

I think you are hesitating between a sociological or a psychological approach. "understanding the individual experience" points to psychology and IPA. If you were interested in regulated social processes underpinning experiences, I would opt for framework analysis or even grounded theory.

Is it necessary that you choose between them?  Both may be helpful, but in different ways.  Interpretive or phenomenological analysis will be helpful in recognizing themes and variations in your field notes or interviews.  Frame analysis will be helpful in recognizing how subjects understand or define various situations.

Michael is basically right. Keep in mind an expression like the french sciences humaines. During ongoing work you may move to the one or to the other side.

Again thank you everyone. Maryam, I am very interested in the Gilligan listening Guide, I have read the pdf you attached and I wonder if I can incorporate this in some way. I can see that it might be useful to bring more than one approach in to play depending on the unfolding of the data. I am seeking deep understanding of individual experience, beyond just themes and coding. So I think from all that you have said IPA is important, but I am going to see how the listening guide can inform my approach to the analysis technique. Thanks jenny

Hey Jenny, what did you go for in the end?! I'm also just about to make this choice, and now have a much better understanding of the two options, so thanks for asking the questions. My research area is the experience of siblings where a child in the family has an eating disorder. I expect some common themes but also think there will be huge differences in coping strategies and lived experiences.

Hi Laura,

I went for IPA in the end, with the theoretical base of phenomenology being closest to my aims. I am carrying out the analysis just now and it is very time consuming but very interesting. It certainly allows for depth and significant amount of reflection and interpretation. The IPA book by Smith, FLowers and Larkin has proved valuable, but also attending local IPA groups and seminars. These seem to be happening across the UK - not sure where you are based, but worth checking out.

Hi Jenny, Althought you have already a couple of very good clarification, I would recommend to you watch the YOUTUBE video What is TA by Victoria Clarke.It is a excellent explanation of TA as an umbrella term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4voVhTiVydc. all the best !

Hi there, I have found the posts above very helpful, I am about to start my own thesis, I guess here the aims have indicated the methodology, just for clarity, how would the aims be different for a Thematic analysis approach?

TIA

Hi everyone, Thank you for all of your explation.

I learnt a great deal from the conversations in this thread, thank you all! If anyone would be so kind to suggest which method (IPA or Thematic Analysis) would be best for the following research question:

•How are Current Interactions between Key Stakeholders (coastal fishermen, live reef fish cage operators, local exporter, regulatory authoritative bodies) in the Live Reef Foof Fish Industry (LRFFT) Industry in Tun Mustapha Park (TMP), Sabah, Malaysia?

Since phenomenology usually involves a deep exploration of the lived experience of some group, that doesn't sound like it would fit with interactions among a set of key stakeholders. In contrast, thematic analysis can handle such a wide range of situations that it should work here as well.

Thank you for your response Prof Morgan, I shall look further into the thematic analysis approach.

This thread has been really interesting, as I am trying to decide between IPA or TA for analysing semi-structured interview transcripts. I am researching the musical, psychological and emotional processes at work, as perceived by Music therapists offering group music therapy to infants and pre-schoolers with life-limiting / life-threatening conditions and their parents.

Any thoughts?

Thematic analysis is a very broad and widely used method that will handle many types of research goals. IPA is more specific, and to decide whether it matches your goals, you should consult the book by Smith, Flowers, and Larkin.

Thank you very much Prof Morgan for your suggestion.