Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis

By M. Larkin, Simon Watts, E. Clifton. 2006

2,163 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5cfc57374052003263601e27a45e193d209f4134

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Jonathan A. Smith
2. M. Larkin
3. M. Palmer
4. G. Fadden
5. D. Harper
6. R. D. de Visser
7. M. Osborn
8. Karen Howells

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. D. Harper
2. Jonathan A. Smith
3. D. Fletcher

In Language and Linguistics

1. D. Harper
2. Jonathan A. Smith

Citations in the corpus

• Choosing a Qualitative Research Method (2011, background): “Larkin et al (2006) and chapter 8 suggest that what is added in this process of interpretation is placing a participant’s account in a broader social, cultural and theoretical context.”
• Developing an Interpretative Phenomenological Approach to Focus Group Data (2010, methodology): “Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is an approach to qualitative research that is now well-established in British psychology ( Brocki & Weardon 2006 ; Larkin, Watts & Clifton 2006 ; Reid, Flowers & Larkin 2005 ; Smith 2004 ).”
• The Accordion and the Deep Bowl of Spaghetti: Eight Researchers’ Experiences of Using IPA as a Methodology (2014, background): “Distinguished therefore from descriptive phenomenology, IPA seeks to “give voice” to a phenomenon and to then make sense of that initial description in relation to wider social, cultural and theoretical contexts (Larkin et al., 2006).”
• Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners (2011, neutral): “…of a ‘dialogue’ between the researchers, their coded data and their psychological knowledge, about what it might mean for participants to have these concerns in this context (see e.g., Larkin et al., 2006; Smith, 2004), leading in turn to the development of a more interpretative account.”
• Interpretative phenomenological analysis (2008, background): “Larkin et al. (2006) provide further exposition on Heidegger’s relevance to IPA, and to the place of interpretation in analytic work.”
• Sink or swim: Adversity- and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions (2015, background): “168 Researchers 169 In their discussion about the principles of IPA, Larkin, Watts, and Clifton (2006) 170 emphasized that “we must identify the researcher as an inclusive part of the world that they are 171 describing” (p. 107).”
• Researching “experience”: Embodiment, methodology, process (2011, background): “The seminal, yet fragmentary, writings by the French sociologist Marcel Mauss (2006) on ‘bodily techniques’ or ‘the ways in which, from society to society, men [sic] know how to use their bodies’ (Mauss, 1992: 454), exemplify this tradition.”