Interest in qualitative methodologies has grown over recent decades, encouraged by alternative research paradigms in the critical and postmodernist tradition. The array of interpretative frameworks now available to qualitative researchers suggests a potential for pluralist study designs that are not widely employed at present. Drawing on doctoral research in the field of child protection, this paper explores the scope for combining two such frameworks: interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) and critical discourse analysis (CDA). It is argued from a critical realist perspective that these methodologies pose different but complementary questions about a given research topic. Within an integrated study design, they can provide a dual lens with which to explore qualitative information, which is interpreted both as lived experience and discursive practice. Textual examples are used in order to show how separate sets of findings are generated using IPA and CDA, and how these may usefully inform each other. The paper proceeds to discuss some broader issues about how researchers produce and interpret qualitative information.
AggerB (2006) Critical Social Theories, Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
2.
AnspachR (1988) Notes on the sociology of medical discourse: The language of case presentation. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour29(4): 357–375.
3.
ArcherM (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BhaskarR (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, Brighton: Harvester Press.
5.
BhaskarR (2008) A Realist Theory of Science, London: Verso.
6.
BiggerstaffDThompsonAR (2008) Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research. Qualitative Research in Psychology5(3): 214–224.
7.
ByrneD (2009) Complex realist and configurational approaches to cases. In: ByrneDRaginC (eds) The Sage Handbook of Case-Based Methods, London: Sage, pp. 101–113.
8.
CartneyP (2011) Consolidating practice with children and families. In: CockerCAllainL (eds) Advanced Social Work with Children and Families, Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.
9.
ChambonAIrvingAEpsteinL (1999) Reading Foucault for Social Work, New York: Columbia University Press.
CherryholmesCH (1992) Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher21(6): 13–17.
12.
CollierA (1994) Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy, London: Verso.
13.
DanermarkBEkstromMJacobsenL (2002) Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences, Abingdon: Routledge.
14.
Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research: Third Edition. Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage.
15.
FaircloughN (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London: Routledge.
16.
FaircloughN (2009) A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage, pp. 162–187.
17.
FaircloughN (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
18.
FaircloughNWodakR (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: van DijkT (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary IntroductionVol 2, London: Sage., pp. 357–379.
19.
GoughN (2012) Complexity, complexity reduction, and ‘methodological borrowing’ in educational inquiry. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education9(1): 41–56.
20.
GranvilleJLangtonP (2002) Working across boundaries: Systemic and psychodynamic perspectives on multi-disciplinary and inter-agency practice. Journal of Social Work Practice16(1): 23–27.
21.
GreenwoodDLevinM (1998) Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change, London: Sage.
22.
Guba EG and Lincoln Y (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research: Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 191–217.
HammersleyM (1997) On the foundations of critical discourse analysis. Language and Communication17(3): 237–248.
25.
HammersleyM (2005) Should social science be critical?Philosophy of the Social Sciences35(2): 175–195.
26.
HoodR (2012) A critical realist model of complexity for interprofessional working. Journal of Interprofessional Care26(1): 6–12.
27.
Hood R (2013) Complexity and Interprofessional Working in Children's Services. PhD Thesis, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK.
28.
Hood R (2014) How professionals talk about complex cases: a critical discourse analysis. Child & Family Social Work. Epub ahead of print 9 January 2014. DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12122.
29.
HoodR (2015a) A socio-technical critique of tiered services: implications for interprofessional care. Journal of Interprofessional Care29(1): 8–12.
30.
HoodR (2015b) How professionals experience complexity: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Child Abuse Review24(2): 140–152.
31.
JohnsonSBurrowsAWilliamsonI (2004) Does my bump look big in this? The meaning of bodily changes for first-time mothers-to-be. Journal of Health Psychology9(3): 361–374.
MorrisT (2006) Social Work Research Methods: Four Alternative Paradigms, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
PawsonR (2013) The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto, London: Sage.
35.
SaukkoP (2005) Methodologies for cultural studies: An integrative approach. In: DenzinNLincolnY (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage, pp. 343–357.
36.
SayerA (2010) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach, London: Routledge.
37.
ShawRL (2001) Why use interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology?Health Psychology Update10(4): 48–52.
