A good place to start is with any articles on Phenomenoloogy, Epistemology, etc. in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

I found one entry using interpretive phenomenology https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=interpretive+phenomenology

It does not recognize the phrase "interpretative phenomenology"

You might look at the following recent article An examination of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA).

By Oxley, Laura

Educational and Child Psychology, Vol 33(3), Sep 2016, 55-62.

Aim: The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the IPA methodology and how this can be used in the field of educational psychology. Rationale: Originating in psychology and a popular choice in the health sciences, IPA is not yet a commonly used approach in educational psychology. The use of this methodology is gradually increasing. It is a particularly appropriate method to use for case studies and focusing on the perceived experiences of individuals, which is often relevant within educational research. Findings: This article presents an examination of IPA as a methodology, considering the theoretical and epistemological underpinnings. Limitations: IPA studies tend to focus only on small samples so there is no generalisability claimed. However, it is intended that, by close examination and metaphorically shining a light on a small area, this may lead to the illumination of the whole. Conclusions: The IPA methodology offers an approach that embraces the importance of individuals’ perceived experiences and the value in exploring the idiosyncratic accounts of small samples of ‘expert groups’. The holistic approach of IPA fits particularly well with the educational psychologists’ perspective of providing holistic support to pupils, schools, and families. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Thanks Hendrika. Unfortunately I don't access to this journal, if you do, I would appreciate it  if you could forward the article PDF. Thanks

I think you need to sort out at least two different levels of theorizing. On the one hand, social constructivism is, as you note, an approach to epistemology, and thus to questions about the nature of knowledge. On the other hand, phenomenology is a more specific philosophical approach to the understanding and meaning of lived experience.

So, I would recommend that you begin by asking how IPA compares to other versions of phenomenology. This has been discussed by Giorgi (2010) n the journal Existential Analysis, and that article then produced both a comment by Smith and a reply by Giorgi.

Phenomenology has a long history in Philosophy , and some modern papers calling it IPA don't change much. Just an acronym . It was Kant who made the distinction which classified Phenomena which are those things evident to the senses , as distinct from Noumena or things as they are in themselves without a priori conceptual distortions . Which drove a wedge between philosophy and things in themselves it never fully recovered from in the 18th, 19th and 20th century.

"the understanding, by calling an object in one aspect merely a phenomenon, forms for itself, apart from this aspect, another representation of an object in itself, and imagines itself able to form concepts of such an object.

(pg 258 ; B306,307 The Critique of Pure Reason)

"Understanding and reason can indeed be applied to appearances, but it is very questionable whether they can be applied at all to an object which is not appearance but noumenon ; and it is in this meaning that the object is taken when it is represented as in itself merely intelligible, that is, as given only to the understanding and not to the senses."

(pg 262 ; B313|A257)

I give these quotes to indicate this trend .

Hegel wrote two books on Phenomenology

'The Phenomenology of Mind' and 'The Phenomenology of Spirit  

(both available as free PDF downloads )

The Phenomenology of Spirit  is sheer torture to read, though a necessary area in metaphysics  (and the origin of the Blasphemy "God is Dead" Nietzsche , who would be born 37 years later is better known for) .Don't say I recommended it . But sometimes is important to understand what went wrong with earlier thinkers in history.'The Phenomenology of Mind' is a far better book, and certainly analytic.

The tendency to talk of Hermeneutic Phenomenology that is in metaphysical interpretation of Scripture or ancient Tracts came along later . Though this was what Philo did in ancient times.

In a broad way all of the Physical and Social sciences are specialist phenomenology as they make a study of observable phenomena. I don't know if this is helpful but you did want to look at theoretical underpinnings. Best Regards

I would advise you to look at the book on IPA which includes a chapter on its theoretical underpinnings:

JA Smith, P Flowers, M Larkin (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. London: Sage

The following papers may further help: 

• Dowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 1, pp. 131-142.
• Giorgi, A. (2010). Phenomenology and the Practice of Science. Existential Analysis, 21, 1, pp. 3-22.
• Halldórsdóttir, S. (2000). The Vancouver School of doing Phenomenology. In: Fridlund, B. and Hildingh, C. (eds.) Qualitative research methods in the service of health. Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 47-84.
• Kafle, N. P. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 1, pp. 181-200.
• Pietkiewicz, I. and Smith, J. A. (2014). A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal, 20, 1, pp. 7-14.
• Pringle, J., Drummond, J., McLafferty, E. and Hendry, C. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: a discussion and critique. Nurse Researcher, 18, 3, pp. 20-24.
• Rouse, J. T. (1987). Husserlian Phenomenology and Scientific Realism. Philosophy of Science, 54, 2, pp. 222-232.
• Smith, J. A. and Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In: Smith, J. A. (ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 53-80.
• Wojnar, D. M. and Swanson, K. M. (2007). Phenomenology: An Exploration. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25, 3, pp. 172-180. 

Thanks for posing this question...I am off to find Smith, Flowers and Larkin!!!

IPA and/or Hermeneutic Phenomenology is less flexible than Thematic analysis. so epistemological positions can be realist/ essentialist , critical realist or contextual-constructionist.

I would argue for the following assumptions for IPA:

Ontology: Soft-realist or non-radical relativist (same difference) where reality and truth are not fixed entities(in a epistemologicaly objective knowable world) but open new meanings and experiences. Why not just "relativist". Unlike a radical relativist view, phenomenology does not deny an external, observable and livable reality. Also, considering its ideographic emphasis (analysis is embedded in and takes the particular as starting point in its generalizations) it cannot be radically relative in its ontology. If this were the case, researchers would have noting "general" to say about their analysis - hence no legitimacy for "findings" . The "reduction" and interpretations of participants accounts are thus ideographic generalizations.

Epistemology: Inter-subjective. it could easily by argued that IPA subscribes to a subjectivist epistemology, but I think this is only partially true. Yes, the interior of the person (thoughts, feelings, intuitions) do make sense, attribute meaning and hence understand and come to know the world. However, with its emphasis on understanding through the vehicle of interpretation, (hermeneutic circle, the meeting of horizons and part-whole relationships) knowledge is when subjectivities meet - my understanding of your understanding (i.e., double hermeneutics) which is more than an interior, subjective self "knowing" the meaning of anther's meanings.

In the end, I think that for IPA (my understanding of it) ontology subsumes epistemology - because of Dasein, we are always already immersed in a word that we interpret before we "know" it.

Adri Prinsloo Thanks for your input. Your points make a lot of sense and add value to the understanding of IPA as an emerging research method, particularly in the context of its application to a broad range of academic disciplines beyond psychology and health sciences studies where it initially emerged from.

theoretical assumptions for IPA