Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Traditional approaches to designing social interventions often originate from the perspectives of social engineers, overlooking the nuanced experiences of those directly impacted by the intervention. Employing an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methodological approach creates an opportunity for the researcher to delve into the world of those who access services and provide a more holistic understanding of the dynamics surrounding the social issues. This paper explores the multifaceted role of IPA within social interventions, emphasizing ways in which IPA can bridge the gap between social engineers and service users within the context of student affairs programming. By immersing researchers in the subjective worlds of participants, IPA offers a unique lens through which to understand both the underlying factors necessitating social programs and also the intricate experiences of those affected by societal challenges. Additionally, the paper speaks to the educational dimension, highlighting the benefits of training students in qualitative research methodologies, particularly IPA, and its utility in designing social programs.

Keywords

interpretive phenomenology analysis interpretive phenomenology program design social interventions student affairs co-design

Historically, the formulation of social programs and interventions has predominantly adhered to a top-down approach, with social engineers designing initiatives imposed onto service users. Throughout this paper, we use the term “programs” to reference initiatives with “a set of resources and activities directed toward one or more common goals” (Wholey, Hatry, & Newcomer, 2010a, 2010b, p. 5). Social programs and interventions are used across various social systems to address a variety of social issues, such as housing, mental health, and education. This paper reviews the merit of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) has toward informing the design of social programs. We illustrate our argument through reviewing the relevance of a graduate student’s IPA master’s thesis examining students’ experiences of help-seeking in designing social interventions within the context of student affairs.

Participatory approaches that include the integration of participants’ lived experiences to inform and guide various initiatives have gained prominence across various sectors over time. These include curriculum development (Gille et al., 2024), patient-oriented research (Shaywitz et al., 2000), community-based participatory research (Kwan & Walsh, 2018), participatory evaluation (Cousins & Earl, 1992), and public services (Pirinen, 2016). A recent shift in practices in the development of these programs involves integrating the lived experience of participants who access programs to inform the design of social programs and interventions (Miller et al., 2023; Oertzen & Vink, 2018). These co-design approaches have been seen as a way to overcome the decreased faith individuals have toward public services (Idema et al., 2010).

Qualitative methods have increasingly been used to inform the development of interventions. Qualitative research, particularly phenomenological research, centered around the lived experience of those who access interventions has the power to illuminate the limitations of these interventions (Radley, 1997). Qualitative methodologies help with understanding the needs of a target population, planning, designing, and developing interventions, examining the complexities of interventions, uncovering how interventions interact with the user’s context, feasibility studies, and overall evaluation (Yardley et al., 2015; Yardley et al., 2021). Qualitative research has been used in developing randomized controlled trials (O’Cathain et al., 2013), digital interventions (Yardley et al., 2015), reducing HIV risk (Rosen et al., 2018), sexual adaptations of women with gynecological cancer (Gamel et al., 2001), and pediatric oncology palliative care interventions (Akard et al., 2013).

Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in particular is a methodology that seeks to understand experiences, from the perspective of people who have lived through those experiences (Smith et al., 1999). With the growing emphasis on developing social programs and interventions from the viewpoint of those with lived experiences, and considering IPA’s conceptual framework for understanding these experiences, it becomes evident that IPA is well-suited to facilitate the advancement of social programs and interventions grounded in the narratives and needs of those with relevant experiences.

The utilization of IPA to support the development of interventions and for use in participatory co-design contexts has become an increasingly common practice. Cassidy et al. (2011) argued that IPA is an appropriate methodology to inform the development of physiotherapy services attuned to the perspective of the individuals struggling with the health condition of focus in the services. The authors highlighted how understanding participant beliefs and knowledge can influence participants’ adherence to and follow-through with prescribed exercises. MacLeod (2019) conducted a systematic review of IPA as a participatory research approach in the context of autism studies. MacLeod’s analysis highlighted several studies that provide evidence of IPA being an appropriate participatory methodology within the context of autistic individuals. Lastly, Larkin et al. (2015) utilized IPA in a project led by a co-design approach to address service-level improvement around inpatient mental health services. We contribute to this growing narrative by demonstrating our argument through a case study approach of a graduate student’s IPA master’s thesis examining the impact of shame on student persistence and help-seeking behaviour in the context of post-secondary undergraduate studies.

Framing IPA

Phenomenology dives deep into several individuals’ experiences around a phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2018). A phenomenological research approach seeks to provide a deep understanding of a phenomenon through various individuals’ accounts when they experienced the phenomenon in question (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Elements concerning perceptions, feelings, judgments, and interpretation are all used to understand the essence of the shared experience (Patton, 2015). Phenomenology does not argue whether or not a person’s experience is valid or not; the simple fact that the individual experienced the phenomenon means it exists (Van Manen, 1990).

IPA is concerned with how people make sense of life events (Smith et al., 2009). This methodology “is committed to clarifying and elucidating a phenomenon (be that an event, process or relationship) but its interest is in how this process sheds light on experiences as they are lived by an embodied socio-historical situated person” (Eatough & Smith, 2017, p. 194). The approach focuses on understanding a phenomenon or experience from the point of view of participants (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Smith et al. (2009) positioned the need for a form of inquiry that was experiential in nature but could still be incorporated within the large field of psychology. IPA “wants to know in detail what the experience for this person is like, what sense this particular person is making of what is happening to them “(Smith et al., 2009, p. 3). IPA is concerned with the product of reflecting from significant experiences (Smith et al., 2009). Interesting and unique to IPA is focus of understanding the convergence and divergence of experiences across several cases or participants (Eatough & Smith, 2017).

The nature of IPA aims to understand experiences from the perspective of the participant (Smith et al., 2009). Pietkiewicz and Smith (2014) outlined three theoretical ideologies that orient IPA: 1) the goal is to “investigate how individuals make sense of their experiences” (p. 8); 2) the analytical process is a double hermeneutic loop; and 3) the approach is idiographic. The methodology’s theoretical ideologies position the approach to provide a deep understanding of a phenomenon related to a social issue that could then inform a social program or intervention. The underlying approach encourages wide interpretation of participants’ narrative, including content, context, linguistic, and conceptual that is analysed (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014), provides an illustration to the ways in which the methodology supports the researcher in getting as close as possible to the participants experience to understanding these events by particular people in a specific context (Smith et al., 2009).

Reflecting on the merits to IPA we found the comprehensive analysis of various elements within IPA, particularly, the examination of content, contexts, and linguistics, such as metaphors, to be illustrative of participants’ experiences. This includes the comparison of these elements within and across participant cases in which offers a profound and intimate understanding of the studied phenomena. Our experiences with IPA revealed the immersive nature of the methodology, providing a rich framework that supports the researchers in understanding the complexities inherent in participants experiences. IPA challenges researchers to confront and set aside taken-for-granted assumptions, allowing the underlying experience of participants to come to life. This process not only enhances the depth of analysis but also promotes a more nuanced and authentic representation of the participants’ perspectives.

Applying these insights from participants’ lived experiences to the realm of social engineering in program and service design becomes imperative. By actively incorporating the perspectives of service users, social engineers can dismantle preconceived notions and embrace a more empathetic and informed approach. This inclusive methodology ensures that programs and services are better equipped to align with the diverse needs, preferences, and experiences of the individuals they are intended to benefit, ultimately fostering more effective and client-centered outcomes. In the following sections, we examine the aforementioned graduate student’s research that demonstrates the insights gained from an IPA study that can inform the development of social programs.

IPA in Action

To further illustrate the practical implications of the insights derived from IPA research, we examine the context of higher education student affairs, later weaving examples from the authors’ research project. Within higher education, students are provided access to myriads of programs and services designed to meet students’ diverse needs during their academic studies (Cox & Strange, 2010). These encompass academic resources, including student advising, math help centres, disability support services, as well as wellness services such as student counselling, physician services, housing, and campus ministries (Busby & Aaron, 2019; Cox & Strange, 2010; Long, 2012).

The context of programming within higher education created a unique avenue for examining shame and help-seeking as these programs are free, removing any financial barriers to accessing programs or services. For example, the intention or hope by institutions is that those who struggle or are in need of services are the primary users of services designated towards academic improvement supports (i.e., writing centres, math centres). However, service uptake is rarely a subject of research within institutions, and the minimal prevailing literature regarding students accessing supports demonstrates that often those who are in highest need do not access available resources. To further support this argument, Pell and Croft (2008) identified in their study those who accessed a math help centre were not at risk of failing a math course.

To illustrate the compelling case for incorporating IPA into the development of social interventions, the first author of this article conducted their thesis under the guidance of the co-author, exploring the role of shame in student persistence and help-seeking behaviours among undergraduate students. The student researcher was particularly intrigued by the factors influencing individuals’ reluctance or decision to not seek help, with a specific focus on the role shame plays within this dynamic. Drawing on a background in student affairs and personal experiences of avoiding seeking help during challenging times, the first author found post-secondary education to be an ideal context for examining help-seeking behaviour.

Given previous research has highlighted the interaction between shame and help-seeking (Stamp et al., 2014; Symonds et al., 2008), the present study had two primary aims; the first was to understand the role of shame in impacting constructs related to student persistence (i.e., motivation, belonging; Tinto, 2015). The second aim was to investigate the role of shame in students’ help-seeking and to qualitatively explore this dynamic of why individuals do not seek help. This setting offered a rich landscape with a diverse array of available supports, both academic and wellness-related, and varying relationships with potential support figures, such as faculty, staff, and peers, all of which were freely accessible.

Participants were recruited through physical posters and the institution’s online bulletin board. Eight participants emerged to participate in the study; however, only seven participants completed the transcript review. Therefore, one participant’s data was not utilized in the study. Participants who consented participated in a 60–90 minute individual interview (n = 7) followed by an optional 10-day journalling activity (n = 4). Following two weeks after the interview, the student researcher met with participants to review the interview transcript for the accuracy of the response. Table 1 outlines the participants’ pseudonym, age, year of study, academic program, and the object of their shame they described as impeding with their academic study. The study’s findings resulted in two heuristics, the first demonstrating four super ordinate themes associated with shame and student persistence and twenty-two subordinate themes. The second heuristics illustrated shame and help-seeking, resulting in two super ordinate themes and ten subordinate themes.

Table 1.

Participant Shame Objects and Demographics.

Name	Age	Year of study	Previous degree	Present degree	Shame object 1	Shame object 2
Teddy	Early 20s	3	Pre-vet. (Biology)	Pre-vet. (Environmental sciences)	Failing [Organic chemistry]	Sexual misconduct
Olivia	Early 20s	4	Nursing	Nursing	Failing [learning contract]	Near Miss [wrong medication]
Amelia	Late teens	2	Psychology	Psychology	Failing [French]	Professor publicly exposing flawed self
George	Early 20s	2	Pre-pharmacy	English	Failing [Organic chemistry]	Failing [Psychology]
Izzie	Mid 20s	2^a	Pre-medicine	Art	Failing [calculus]	Parental rejection towards academic performance
Richard	Late 20s	5^a	Commerce^b	Law	Failing [calculus]	People exposing flawed/imperfect self
Karev	Mid 20s	4	Nursing	Nursing	Failing [statistics]	GF’s rejection of academic identity

^aParticipants took time away from post-secondary after their first year.

^bParticipant completed degree.

This research was driven by a desire to understand potential barriers in the designing and delivery of various student affairs programs. During the interviews, participants were asked to provide two different shame events that they identified as having a significant impact on their academic studies. One event was related to academics, such as failing a course, while the other was typically a non-academic event occurring during their studies, like experiencing sexual misconduct from a friend that negatively impacted their studies.

These events were explored in detail concerning their impact on constructs related to student persistence, including motivation and self-efficacy

(Tinto, 2015). Participants’ motivation was often undermined by behaviours such as escaping the situation, avoiding triggering stimuli, withdrawing from supports, hiding the shame object, engaging in a shame-procrastination cycle, losing control, and losing purpose. Each shame event was examined regarding participants' thoughts and feelings throughout these experiences, their help-seeking behaviours, and the reasons behind their decisions to seek or not seek help.

Below, we provide four exemplars from this research, followed by an analysis of their application to the context at hand and how they offer insights into designing effective interventions.

Escaping the Situation

Participants frequently described a powerful drive to avoid distressing situations and evade triggering elements related to the shame object. George, for instance, discussed the need to “get rid of the feeling,” often resulting in physically leaving the classroom or any environment where the shame could be triggered:

But I’ve never given anyone the chance in university. Every single failure has been voicemail or an email. I’ve never actually sat in front of a committee or anyone’s office chair or across a desk to face rejection or shame or judgment for something I did at all. Ever. Because every time it seemed like we were getting somewhere, I would get uncomfortable and then just fuck off and get drunk with my friends and never see them again. (George)

George’s experiences exemplify a prevalent tendency to evade face-to-face encounters that could potentially involve rejection, shame, or judgment. Such behaviours create difficulties in designing effective programming because they highlight a significant barrier to student engagement with support services.

Fear of Others Exposing Flawed Self

Participants often experienced intense shame during social exchanges where another person exposed an element they identified as flawed or undesirable. This theme was notably highlighted in Richard’s experience with his care team. When progress was made, it often triggered a defense reaction, causing him to abruptly end the relationship:

Which I had been doing since I was twelve-ish—doctors, counselors, you name it. But any time we started to get somewhere, I would tell them that they were wrong and leave and never come back. (Richard)

This pattern illustrates a defensive mechanism where participants would preemptively terminate supportive relationships to avoid further exposure of their perceived flaws. Richard also intentionally avoided situations where authority figures could shame him:

I’ve never experienced shame in person in university. I’ve felt ashamed of myself, but I’ve never even been physically present for anyone else to make me feel ashamed or project shame or judgment on me at all. (Richard)

This tendency to avoid potentially shaming encounters highlights a significant barrier to seeking help, as students often preemptively disengage from supportive relationships out of fear of being exposed and judged.

Fear of Others’ Evaluation

Participants described a deep-seated fear of how others might judge them if they sought help. This fear was closely linked to the uncertainty of where others would place blame within their situations, which deterred them from seeking assistance. Karev’s narrative captures this ambivalence:

So I would say from there it really spiraled to an avoidance of once there was no contact or minimal contact, maintaining that in that the closer people looked at the situation, then how would they think of me or how would that go? (Karev)

This fear of evaluation often led participants to minimize contact with others and avoid situations where their struggles might be scrutinized. The concern about being judged or blamed created a significant psychological barrier, preventing them from reaching out for support and exacerbating their sense of isolation and helplessness.

Fear of Being Treated Differently

Participants also expressed a fear that seeking help would change how people treated them. This fear was not just about being judged, but also about the potential actions others might take that could impose their standards and elicit shame. Izzie, for instance, was concerned that seeking help would lead to others imposing their expectations on her, thus reinforcing her sense of inadequacy:

Very negatively. I truly thought if I asked for help that I was just dumb and that I couldn’t do it if I had to ask for help and that other people would make me feel terrible for asking for help. (Izzie)

Izzie’s fear of being treated differently if she exposed her struggles reflects a broader concern among participants that seeking help could result in negative repercussions. This fear often led participants to avoid disclosing their difficulties, further isolating them from potential sources of support.

Additional narratives revealed that participants sought help from sources removed from their initial origins of shame. Olivia, for instance, deliberately chose to seek help from a help center or tutor rather than directly approaching the course instructor, “Yeah, so that—I sought out help from a different avenue that was far removed from the instructor and yeah” (Olivia). Participants emphasized the importance of seeking support from individuals they deemed trustworthy. Establishing trust was pivotal, with participants believing that trusted sources would not judge or treat them differently. Teddy highlighted the value of hearing the experience from someone they respected also failed the course in the past and achieved success. These narratives collectively underscore the intricate dynamics at play when individuals navigate the complex terrain of seeking help while grappling with feelings of shame and vulnerability in academic settings.

The examples presented from this research illuminate the intricate and profound experiences of undergraduate students. By understanding why students refrained from seeking help in instances where they recognized the need for support, we begin to unravel the nuanced realities of their academic and non-academic challenges that impact their performance during their studies. This exploration allowed us to comprehend students’ emotional experiences and how they navigated these experiences, highlighting the factors present when they were successful or unsuccessful in engaging in help-seeking behaviour. Through these students' lived experiences, we can begin to understand what they experienced and how they made sense of these experiences. A significant insight gained underscores the profound impact shame had in steering students’ behaviours, often leading to maladaptive responses (i.e., avoiding individuals associated with the shame object).

Applying these findings to the development of social interventions, particularly within the context of student affairs, invites a thoughtful examination of how programs are promoted and the pathways to access them. For example, the internal dynamics of fearing being treated differently and the fear of others exposing their flawed self were major barriers to participants accessing support. In this context, accessing help related to academic performance required individuals to face their struggles and expose these struggles to another person. Tying these barriers into factors that prompted help-seeking, such as trusting the help source, can inform how we promote and deliver services. This could include strategies such as having service providers proactively build relationships and trust with students before instances of failure to create pathways to seek help from services. Furthermore, promoting what to expect in a session and sharing success stories that highlight scenarios similar to those struggling with seeking help could help minimize the shame associated with their experience and shift the focus from seeing oneself as flawed to overcoming their experience.

Another example, through examining the experiences of participants like George and Richard, shows their tendency to evade face-to-face encounters or terminate relationships that have the potential to involve encounters of shame, which creates difficulties in designing effective programming. This tendency to avoid potentially shaming encounters highlights a significant barrier to seeking help, as students often preemptively disengage from supportive relationships out of fear of being exposed and judged. Similarly, service providers creating trusting relationships with individuals proactively can extend a bridge for individuals to seek help.

Additionally, these dynamics reinforce the importance of outreach activities, particularly towards student populations at risk of struggling in their first year. Intrusive advising practices, such as “a deliberate structured student intervention at the first indication of academic difficulty to motivate a student to seek help” (Earl, 1988, p. 28), can engage students who are socially withdrawing. Alternatively, institutions can create early alert systems, which are “… systematic approaches to identifying and intervening with students exhibiting at-risk behaviors [sic]” (Tampke, 2013, pg. 1). Such systems place the responsibility on the institution to connect with students who are at risk, as institutions are more likely to identify ‘red flags’ or worrisome behaviours. Our research found that interpreting student withdrawal behaviours requires careful consideration, recognizing the profound impact shame can have on creating these behaviours that could be misinterpreted as student apathy towards their education.

This nuanced understanding of participants’ lived experiences reveals the internal dynamics people experience when seeking help during moments perceived as moral failure from the perspective of the individual navigating shame. Yardley et al. (2015) highlighted that qualitative research provides nuanced insight into the environments and contexts of those who access services and the challenges they may face throughout their engagements with the service. The authors suggest that for interventions to be more engaging, their design should attend to understanding users’ contexts—such as their needs, values, past experiences with similar issues and interventions, the obstacles and supports they encounter, and the barriers and facilitators that impact their engagement with the service.

The broader applicability of lived experiences can be extrapolated to other contexts. IPA serves as a versatile method applicable across diverse domains, including healthcare, education, workplaces, and social issues such as homelessness, mental health, racism, and poverty. By delving into the firsthand and lived experiences of individuals confronting and embodying these complex social challenges, we gain a unique lens through which we can gain deep insights into the nuances of their encounters. IPA therefore acts as an effective bridge, bringing forth service users’ lived experiences and supporting social engineers in improving the design of social interventions to meet the multi-faceted and unique needs of those who access them. This approach ensures that interventions are not only effective but also authentically resonate with the lived realities of the individuals they aim to serve, fostering a more inclusive and responsive approach to social engineering.

Educational Implications for IPA

Given the evolving emphasis on developing social interventions informed by the lived experiences of participants, there is a growing need for professionals to be equipped to meet these needs. Recognizing the significance of incorporating participant perspectives in the design of social interventions, various fields are moving through a paradigm shift, such as, nursing (Gamel et al., 2001), medicine (Akard et al., 2013), and evaluation (Cousins & Earl, 1992). Therefore, as additional fields continue to recognize the significance of incorporating participant perspectives within the process of designing social interventions, graduate programs then play a pivotal role in training the next generation of researchers and practitioners. Graduate training and courses serve as the primary drivers responsible for preparing students with the necessary skills and methodologies to achieve these aims. By prioritizing, or at the very least including participant-focused approaches in their curriculum, graduate programs contribute to the cultivation of researchers capable of conducting research whose findings can inform interventions that authentically address the unique needs and challenges of individuals.

Training graduate students to navigate the purposes and the complexities of qualitative research, with a particular focus on methodologies like IPA, enhances students’ understandings around diverse aspects to qualitative research, including: the qualitative research cycle (Cordner et al., 2012; Hazzan & Nutov, 2014), epistemological and ontological foundations (Cordner et al., 2012; Farooq et al., 2022), data collection (Farooq et al., 2022; Nind & Katramadou, 2022), and data analysis (Natland et al., 2016; Nind & Katramadou, 2022; Yang et al., 2019). By prioritizing participant-focused approaches, graduate programs contribute to the cultivation of researchers capable of developing interventions that authentically address the unique needs and challenges of individuals, thereby making meaningful contributions to the advancement of social programs and services.

Through the application of IPA in their master’s thesis, the student researcher experienced several contributions in general qualitative research and also specific insights into nuances specific to an IPA methodology. Broadly speaking, the student researcher highlighted gaining valuable insights into the qualitative research cycle. This encompassed a deeper understanding of the intricacies involved in qualitative research, from formulating research questions to experience in data collection and analysis, enhancing the student’s overall grasp of the qualitative research processes. In addition, the student researcher acknowledges the educational value received in terms of appreciating and understanding the significance of epistemology and methodology in research design. Their training illuminated the philosophical underpinnings and methodological considerations essential for designing robust and rigorous research frameworks. Overall, this learning equips the student to conduct comprehensive inquiry of social phenomena.

Within the context of IPA, the student researcher also highlighted the competencies gained from navigating complexity and ambiguity with the research process. Particularly, the method has an overall guiding framework (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014), but also one that can be adapted to the context and approach of the researchers and research project. An additional significant aspect of their learning journey was in the researcher’s skills in facilitating interviews. Proficient interview facilitation is not merely a technical skill but a cornerstone of IPA, serving as the conduit for a nuanced and profound exploration of participants’ experiences. The ability to craft interviews effectively within an IPA methodology enables researchers to delve beyond surface-level responses, unpacking the layers of meaning embedded in participants' narratives.

Discussion

As illustrated through the examination of lived experiences in the context of student affairs, IPA emerges as a potent and transformative tool in the process of program design. In contemporary policy and program design, there is a growing recognition regarding the benefits of including the lived experiences of individuals who directly encounter the social issues being addressed through social programs (Singh et al., 2023; Steen, 2013). IPA, by virtue of its commitment to delving into the personal worlds of participants (Smith et al., 1999; Smith & Osborn, 2003), aligns seamlessly with this progressive approach. The insights gained from the narratives of students navigating the complexities of seeking help and accessing programs within the context of student affairs illustrates the potential and value that IPA brings to the forefront of social interventions.

Beyond its methodological application, IPA has significant transformative potential in social interventions. The narratives uncovered within the domain of student affairs we hope illustrates how IPA through its dedication to understanding the inner worlds of participants transcends traditional research methods. IPA moves beyond functioning merely as a tool for analysis but also as a catalyst for empathy and a conduit for hearing the voices that often go unheard in the design of social interventions. This transformative aspect lies in IPA’s ability to humanize data, turning narratives into powerful agents for change. By amplifying the authentic experiences of individuals, IPA prompts a paradigm shift in how interventions are conceived, shifting abstract theories to grounded, participant-centred solutions.

The broader implications of incorporating IPA in social interventions extend far beyond its immediate application. By placing emphasis on the lived experiences of individuals, IPA can then challenge the status quo of program design by shifting towards a more inclusive and participant-centric approach. This methodology not only refines the understanding of complex social issues but also ensures that interventions are contextually relevant and attuned to the intricacies of human experiences. The incorporation of IPA signifies a departure from traditional, one-size-fits-all approaches, offering a nuanced and empathetic lens that recognizes the diversity of narratives within any given population and context.

In advocating for the significant value of IPA in the process of program design, we argue that its unique methodology, rooted in the principles of phenomenology, provides a depth of understanding unparalleled by traditional approaches to research. As illustrated through the examination of student affairs, IPA can serve as a bridge between researchers, social engineers, and the individuals whose experiences inform interventions. IPA’s commitment to delving into the personal worlds of participants aligns seamlessly with the evolving landscape of contemporary policy and program design, which increasingly recognizes the need for participant voices to be central in shaping interventions.

Encouraging the continued exploration and integration of IPA in social interventions is crucial for unlocking its full potential. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike need to recognize the transformative impact that IPA can have on program design. As attitudes evolve and co-design becomes more widely accepted, IPA could be instrumental in providing a new mechanism in the way the designing of social interventions is approached. Future developments should focus on refining methodologies, expanding the application of IPA across different contexts, and fostering interdisciplinary collaborations to leverage the rich insights IPA can offer in creating more effective, participant-centred interventions. The commitment to ongoing exploration and integration of IPA will be essential for advancing the field and ensuring that social interventions genuinely address the complex realities of individuals’ lived experiences.

In essence, we argue that IPA has the potential to serve as a transformative force in the field of program design. It challenges conventional norms, pushes against resistance to co-design, and unlocks a new paradigm where interventions are not just solutions, but empathetic responses grounded in the genuine experiences of those they seek to serve. The commitment to ongoing exploration and integration of IPA is not merely an academic pursuit but an ethical imperative to ensure that social interventions authentically and meaningfully address the complex realities of individuals’ lived experiences.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the graduate student’s journey through their master’s thesis was centred around applying IPA and has been transformative to the student researcher. The insights gained extend beyond the confines of IPA methodology, offering valuable developments to the student’s broader understanding of the landscape of qualitative research. As we contemplate the broader implications, it is evident that the integration of IPA into research practices not only enhances the depth of understanding of lived experiences but has extensive application to how we design our social programs. The student researcher’s journey serves as an exemplar to the significance and utility of adopting participant-focused approaches, shedding light on the intricacies of human experience within specific contexts that provide significance to informing the design of social interventions and programs. The commitment to challenging assumptions and embracing adaptability, hallmarks of IPA, resonates as a guiding principle for researchers seeking to immerse themselves in participants’ experiences that will inform social efforts. Through this form of exploration, we can expand our methodological toolkit while also fostering a deeper connection to the individuals whose experiences form the foundation of our research efforts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ChatGBT was used throughout the drafting of this article by providing assistance in grammar and word choice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Andrew Hartman

References

Akard

T. F.

Gilmer

M. J.

Friedman

D. L.

Given

Hendricks-Ferguson

V. L.

Hinds

P. S.

(2013). From qualitative work to intervention development in pediatric oncology palliative care research. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 30(3), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043454213487434

Busby

A. K.

Aaron

R. W.

(2019). Advances, contributions, obstacles, and opportunities in student affairs assessment (Occasional Paper No. 52). University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

Cassidy

Reynolds

Naylor

De Souza

(2011). Using interpretative phenomenological analysis to inform physiotherapy practice: An introduction with reference to the lived experience of cerebellar ataxia. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 27(4), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.3109/09593985.2010.488278

Cordner

Klein

P. T.

Baiocchi

(2012). Co-Designing and co-teaching graduate qualitative methods: An innovative ethnographic workshop model. Teaching Sociology, 40(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12444072

Cousins

J. B.

Earl

L. M.

(1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014004397

Cox

D. G. H.

Strange

C. C.

(2010). Achieving student success: Effective student services in Canadian higher education. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Earl

W. R.

(1988). Intrusive advising of freshmen in academic difficulty. NACADA Journal, 8(2), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-8.2.27

Eatough

Smith

J. A.

(2017). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Willing

Stainton-Rogers

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative psychology (2nd ed., pp. 193–211). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555

10.

Farooq

Muhammad

Siddiqui

(2022). The lived experiences in learning qualitative research: An exploratory analysis of muffled voices. Global Educational Studies Review, 7(1), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-I).27

11.

Gamel

Grypdonck

Hengeveld

Davis

(2001). A method to develop a nursing intervention: The contribution of qualitative studies to the process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 806–819. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01724.x

12.

Gille

Frei

Kaufmann

Lehmann

Muñoz Laguna

Papadopoulos

Spörri

Stanikić

Tušl

Zavattaro

Puhan

M. A.

(2024). A guide for a student-led doctoral-level qualitative methods short course in epidemiology: Faculty and student perspectives. International Journal of Epidemiology, 53(2), dyae029. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae029

13.

Hazzan

Nutov

(2014). Teaching and learning qualitative research ≈ conducting qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 19(24), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1218

14.

Idema

Merrick

Piper

Britton

Gray

Verma

Manning

(2010). Codesigning as a discursive practice in emergency health services: The architecture of deliberation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309357544

15.

Kwan

Walsh

(2018). Ethical issues in conducting community-based participatory research: A narrative review of the literature. Qualitative Report, 23(2), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3331

16.

Larkin

Boden

Z. V. R.

Newton

(2015). On the brink of genuinely collaborative care: Experience-Based co-design in mental health. Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1463–1476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315576494

17.

Long

(2012). The foundations of student affairs: A guide to the profession. In Hinchliffe

L. J.

Wong

M. A.

(Eds.), Environments for student growth and development: Librarians and student affairs in collaboration (pp. 1–39). Association of College & Research Libraries.

18.

MacLeod

(2019). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a tool for participatory research within critical autism studies: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 64(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.04.005

19.

Miller

Ehrenberg

Jackson

Penwarden

Stein

van der Vlegel-Brouwer

Wojtak

(2023). Builder, expert, disruptor, leader: The Many roles of people with lived experience. 23(3), 12. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.7696

20.

Natland

Weissinger

Graaf

Carnochan

(2016). Learning practice-based research methods: Capturing the experiences of MSW students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 36(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2016.1117366

21.

Nind

Katramadou

(2022). Lessons for teaching social science research methods in higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014-2020. British Journal of Educational Studies, 71(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2022.2092066

22.

O’Cathain

Thomas

K. J.

Drabble

S. J.

Rudolph

Hewison

(2013). What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open, 3(6), Article e002889. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889

23.

Oertzen

A. S.

Vink

(2018). Mitigating the risks of co-creation by integrating empathy and lived experience design.in service design. In Proceedings of the ServDes.2018 Conference. Politecnico di Milano. https://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/contents.asp?issue=150

24.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.

25.

Pell

Croft

(2008). Mathematics support—support for all? Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 27(4), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrn015

26.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

J. A.

(2014). A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology. Czasopismo Psychogiczne - Psychological Journal, 20(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7

27.

Pirinen

(2016). The barriers and enablers of co-design for services. International Journal of Design, 10(3), 27–42.

28.

Radley

(1997). What role does the body have in illness? In Yardley

(Ed.), Material discourses in health and illness (pp. 50–67). Routledge.

29.

Rosen

R. K.

Kuo

Gobin

R. L.

Peabody

Wechsberg

Zlotnick

Johnson

J. E.

(2018). How qualitative methods contribute to intervention adaptation: An HIV risk reduction example. Qualitative Psychology, 5(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000093

30.

Shaywitz

D. A.

Martin

J. B.

Ausiello

D. A.

(2000). Patient-oriented research: Principles and new approaches to training. The American Journal of Medicine, 109(2), 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00452-6

31.

Singh

D. R.

Sah

R. K.

Simkhada

Darwin

(2023). Potentials and challenges of using co-design in health services research in low- and middle-income countries. Global Health Research and Policy, 8(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-023-00290-6

32.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903340091

33.

Smith

J. A.

Jarman

Osborn

(1999). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Murray

Chamberlain

(Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods (pp. 218–241). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217870.n14

34.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

(2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith

J. A.

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology – a practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). Sage Publications Ltd.

35.

Stamp

Banerjee

Brown

F. C.

(2014). Self-advocacy and perceptions of college readiness among students with ADHD. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 139–160.

36.

Steen

(2013). Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design Issues, 29(2), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00207

37.

Symonds

Lawson

Robinson

(2008). Promoting student engagement with mathematics support. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 27(3), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrn011

38.

Tampke

D. R.

(2013). Developing, implementing, and assessing an early alert system. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 14(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.14.4.e

39.

Tinto

(2015). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917

40.

Van Manen

(1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. State University of New York Press.

41.

Wholey

J. S.

Hatry

H. P.

Newcomer

K. E.

(2010a). Handbook of practical program evaluation. John Wiley & Sons.

42.

Wholey

J. S.

Hatry

H. P.

Newcomer

K. E.

(2010b). Handbook of practical program evaluation. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4055

43.

Yang

Maynard

Q. R.

Young

S. R.

Kenney

J. L.

Barber

Boltz

Womack

Young

T. L.

Nelson-Gardell

Zhang

(2019). Qualitative research skills acquisition within social work doctoral education using project-based learning. Qualitative Social Work, 19(5–6), 864–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325019881190

44.

Yardley

Bradbury

Morrison

(2021). Using qualitative research for intervention development and evaluation. In Camic

P. M.

(Ed.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (2nd ed., pp. 263–282). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000252-013

45.

Yardley

Morrison

Bradbury

Muller

(2015). The person-based approach to intervention development: application to digital health-related behavior change interventions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(1), e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4055

Bridging Perspectives: Utilizing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to Inform and Enhance Social Interventions

Abstract

Keywords

Framing IPA

IPA in Action

Escaping the Situation

Fear of Others Exposing Flawed Self

Fear of Others’ Evaluation

Fear of Being Treated Differently

Educational Implications for IPA

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References