I think Engaging with a theoretical framework, even in a qualitative study like Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), is not inherently contradictory. You can incorporate a socio-ecological framework into your IPA study, and doing so can provide a richer context for understanding the lived experiences of resilience among Syrian refugees.

Here are some suggestions on how to integrate a theoretical framework into your IPA study while preserving the inductive nature of the approach:

Remember, the goal is to use the theoretical framework as a guide rather than a rigid structure. This approach allows for the exploration of the complexity of resilience within the socio-ecological context while preserving the inductive nature of IPA.

IPA has its own standards for analysis, and if you are indeed doing IPA, then you should follow them -- see, Smith et al. (2022) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research.

Too often, people say they want to do some form of phenomenological research simply because they want to study "lived experience," but virtually all forms of qualitative research pursue some version of lived experience. The difference is that the various forms of phenomenology have strong philosophical assumptions that are closely tied to their methodological assumptions. A good book on this issue is Beck, Introduction to Phenomenology: Focus on Methodology.

As Prof. Morgan said IPA has its own theoretical and philosophical assumptions, consisting of the phenomenon experienced, idiographic commitment (individual uniqueness, and hermeneutics (interpretations, participants and the researchers own).

David L Morgan Abukari Kwame Thank you for your answers and recommendations. I appreciate that. I know about the three theoretical axes of IPA. I was just wondering If we can or can't use a theoretical framework in case we need to study a complex phenomenon, where we know from the literature that multiple factors play a role. I read in the book of Smith et al. that secondary research questions can be theoretically driven. The same goes for prompt questions but this needs to be only "secondary". Given the indictive nature of IPA, I wasn't sure how this would work during the analysis.

My strong impression is that you need to be highly inductive in your analysis when you are using IPA.

I think it is important to use a theoretical framework when conducting an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study. While IPA is primarily an inductive approach focused on understanding participants' lived experiences, incorporating a theoretical framework can improve data analysis and interpretation by ensuring rigor and transparency, connecting to existing literature, providing a conceptual lens, and expanding interpretive possibilities.

Mayada Nageeb Al-Maktary The problem with doing IPA (or any other well-defined method) the way you prefer rather than the ways its advocates require will become apparent when you try to get your work published.

David L Morgan

I see, thank you very much for your answer.

But excuse me, have you observed any instances where researchers who chose to deviate from the advocated methods of well-defined approaches like IPA faced obstacles when seeking to publish their work?

I do a lot of reviewing, but since my specialty is not phenomenology, I have no experience with reviews on IPA. With my background, where I do see it frequently is with regard to Grounded Theory. The common objection is that you can't call just anything Grounded Theory, and I would expect the same standards would apply to IPA.

Mayada Nageeba, I will suggest that you identify a particular form of IPA you want to use and implement its methods and analytical approaches. You can be innovative while still being faithful to the key processes in your chosen IPA approach.

David L Morgan

Thank you so much for your answer! I genuinely appreciate your input and expertise in this area.

In my opinion , it is essential to apply the theoretical framework. Here are two reasons.1) The theoretical framework as a guide line help you to find the right way.2) At the end you can refer to it and check your results with it. More over, in this way your study stand on a very strong basis. About the selecting a suitable framework and using it, thereare two famous ways: First: Study papers, such as "A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology". Second: Consulting with the psychologists and sociologists familiar with your study.

Abbas Sheikh Rabiei In IPA and many other approaches to qualitative research, the goal is to be as inductive as possible, so theoretical frameworks are consciously avoided. Further, in my opinion, prior theory is as likely to be misleading as helpful when one is doing exploratory work with qualitative methods.

Yes, a theoretical framework can be useful in some circumstances, but it is far from "essential."

Hello all:

I do connect w/ David Morgan's statement. What I might call "traditional" forms of qualitative research did/do in fact want to be as inductive as possible and not bring in, a priori, "meaning" or "lenses" through which to understand the phenomenon. Today's forms of qualitative research, in my profession of counseling, or in our neighboring profession of psychology, and some educational research, it has become more common for researchers to integrate feminist theory, intersectionality theory, critical race theory, etc., as a lens through which to understand the phenomenon and data collection and interpretation. I do agree, that this is less "traditional" and probably take issue w/ this as less "pure" as a form of qualitative research. But if I can borrow the famous use of the term "bricolage," I do believe we are seeing more fluidity and integration of a priori theory into qual research design than ever before. I do think researchers still need to embrace transparency and talk not just of the benefits but also the limitations of this practice when discussing results. ~David

The essence of IPA lies in 'exploring' and understanding individuals' lived experiences in their worlds. Essentially, any theoretical framework only acts as a bias or sets us in a frame (in qualitative research) before approaching the area under investigation. But, as researchers, we're conditioned and re-educated by the positivist school of thought to refer to the literature in order to set the context. The literature, I believe, can be referred to once the study progresses and you've laid out your first-level codes. This will help you come up with original and nearest to your participant frames. Though this process is the road less traveled, I think it brings richer yields.

"Essentially, any theoretical framework only acts as a bias or sets us in a frame (in qualitative research) before approaching the area under investigation."

I'm going to have to disagree, at least as taught by Gill Thomson and Diane Spence. IPA, as opposed to descriptive phenomenology (Husserl) or classical grounded theory, believes the researcher is part of the research--an instrument that is part of the results. The researcher's lens should be reported, along with the participants. Jeong & Othman (2016) point out the following difference from descriptive phenomenology: "Thirdly, IPA is in the line of the interpretative (i.e., hermeneutic) tradition rather than the descriptive one within phenomenology (Smith et al., 2009). This is implicit in the concept of double hermeneutics: the participants try to make sense of experience (the first

hermeneutic layer), upon which the researcher makes his/her own interpretation (the second layer)" (p. 559). Like Gill and Spence, Jeong and Othman (2016) point out clearly there is the use of theory: "IPA encourages researchers to utilise their theoretical knowledge in inductively analysing data" (p. 561).

Back to Adu: One does not generally lead with theory, but one will use theory throughout and should try to capture the phenomenon from the partipant's perspective while showing the researcher's instrumentality. Some mistake bracketing to be applied to IPA, but bracketing is more applicable to descriptive phenomenology (though one sometimes hides what was bracketed, which many suggest should be reported to assist readers in understanding).

I do review IPA, having taken multiple courses (you will love Heidegger by the end). Thomson at the University of Central Lancashire offers a great course online on the related topic of hermeneutic phenomenology.

Jeong, H., & Othman, J. (2016). Using interpretative phenomenological analysis from a realist perspective. The Qualitative Report, 21(3), 558-570.