Description
2,000-word report containing an analysis of two interview transcripts produced in your groupwork. You will use one of two analytic frameworks to analyse your data – either interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) or discourse analysis. Not both, not another analytic framework. Students will design, in groups, an interview schedule for a study concerning ‘taking regular physical activity’. Each student interviews and is interviewed once only. Students should produce a transcript of the interview where they acted as the interviewer. They then inherit another transcript from other group members. Each student will conduct an analysis on a total of TWO transcripts. This textual/transcript data will be analysed independently by each student using either Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) or Discourse Analysis (DA).
PY7154: Lab Report ( Qualitative methods coursework)
Qualitative Data Analysis- Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis
An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of how a woman perceives her current monogamous relationship based on Social Norms, past experiences and the way in which these may have influenced her ideologies.
<student ID masked>
(2284 words)
Section 1: Rationale
Introduction
The objective of this analysis was to analyse how the participant processes the feelings around her relationship and thoughts around monogamy.
Non-monogamous relationships have a plethora of problems, from sexually transmitted diseases, they may be less satisfying sexually and generally more risky than monogamous relationships. Research suggests there is a lack of evidence that being in a monogamous relationship is more beneficial than another relationship style and that consensual non-monogamous relationships maybe seen as an alternative (Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine 2012). Research also shows that most people have experienced infidelity either by being cheated on or themselves doing the cheating. With this being said, people make their stamp early in the relationship with regards to their expectations of exclusivity and stance on monogamy. Although monogamy is the preferred relationship style, infidelity is the leading cause of relationship breakdown ( O’ Sullivan, 2018). This research is designed to address the way in which the participant feels about monogamy, her fears or insecurities around her monogamous relationship and desires. This analysis examined how the participant experienced monogamy, expectations towards exclusivity and whether being in a monogamous relationship helped her to feel safe and secure in the relationship. It also addressed whether the participants ideologies may have been shaped through ‘social norms’. This is an analysis of how Debbie interprets her monogamous relationship with Allen based on her past experiences using (IPA).
Ethical statement:
The code of ethics that are stipulated in the BPS codes of practice were adhered to throughout this entire process. The subject matter in this analysis is of a highly sensitive nature and relates to personal information about the participant. One conducting this analysis must remain respectful towards the dignity of the people involved in this study. There was a need to respect Dee’s cultural differences, social status, ethnic origin or any other area that categorises the participant. The code of respect states that all human beings are worthy of equal moral consideration ( BPS, 2018) and to respect Dee’s opinions expressed in her interview. All biases and preconceived ideas had to be disregarded around what was discovered about Dee and that is where respect for her was paramount. Her right to privacy and confidentiality is also paramount and the participant had a briefing about the study and debrief so she was made aware of how her data would be used and her entitlement to see all documentation held about her.
The code of integrity is also important during this study, the need to be honest, truthful and accurate with accounts, actions, words, methods and reporting of outcomes found during this study. The BPS code also states that there must be accurate unbiased representation, that is fair. There was also a need to remain impartial and be aware of any stereotypical views that will be held that will prevent an accurate evaluation of the content in this research. The code of practice also states that a distinction must be made between fact, observation and opinion, and judgemental comments should be avoided.
Section 2: Methods Statement
The participant was described as being 29 years old, white British and heterosexual. The participant had been in a sexually monogamous relationship for three years, co-habiting with no children. The participant had been educated to degree level and in professional employment. This extract was part of a qualitative study of peoples experiences of their monogamous and openly non-monogamous relationships. The interview approach was semi structured and lasted 45 minutes, in the participants home. Both the interviewer and interviewee were present in the room where the interview was conducted.
Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis is the study of the relationship between participants, their lived experiences and how they process thoughts around their experiences. IPA involves closely examining what these personal experiences mean to the participants and how the experience makes sense of to the participant. The core principle is ‘ go back to the things themselves’, focusing on the experience in the moment, bracketing off the subjective perceptions of the phenomenon. Phenomenological reduction is the process of bracketing off the experience and analysing it in its purest form ( Husserl, 1913).
One critical thinker that helped to shape the philosophy of individuals lived experiences was Heidegger. He created something known as Hermeneutic Phenomenology- Hermeneutic means theory and method of interpretation of text or communication. Phenomenology- means a philosophical study of an experience that appears or is shown and this experience is understood through the concept of a Phenomenon. Heidegger felt that what maybe hidden can be exposed and that humans express themselves through language and thinking, these expressions are interpretive ( Manen, 2011). Heidegger believed that the world isn’t separate from consciousness ( Heidegger, 1962) and humans understanding is subjective and this maybe linked to the way the individual understands the world ( Polkinghorne,1983). Heidegger has been described as believing that people and the world have links that are determined by connections to culture and social expectations, and these are perceived within in a historical context ( Munhall, 1989).
After carefully examining the two types of Phenomenological analysis, of (DA) and (IPA), the decision made was to use Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as a methodology for this report. The following procedures were used to compile this analysis: the transcript was read at least 5 times in order to be immersed in the content and then initial notes were made of any main ideas within the right hand margin to form building blocks for potential themes . After looking for similar information in the text, then each similar sentence was brought together by labelling them with codes. After making distinctions with codes of text, the codes were merged into themes. The main themes were called Superordinate themes, as they seemed to be more stronger themes within the text and defined the participants experience. The Superordinate themes are a reflection of the participants experience and the researchers interpretation of the participants experience.
Whilst analysing the text of Dee’s interview, there was an analysis of her thoughts and feelings around the subject matter of monogamy. Reading and analysing her interview will give the reader a sense of how Dee relates to and engages in her world and how she has learnt from her own personal history. Deep analysis showed how her past experiences may have influenced Dee’s ideologies and decision making in her current relationship. The aim of this analysis was to see how Dee viewed and experienced her monogamous relationship in relation to her past history. The main themes in text that identified how Dee viewed her monogamous relationship were: Intimacy as a form of security, exclusivity in partnership and How the future is influenced by the past.
Section 3: Data Analysis
Superordinate Theme 1: Intimacy as a form of security
The first theme identified is “ Intimacy as a form of security”. There appears to be a number of times that Dee mentions intimacy and the need to feel secure in her relationship. The interview shows us typical view points that are shared between the participant and ‘societal norms’ when it comes to monogamous relationships, intimacy and exclusivity.
The understanding Dee mentions higlights her importance of intimacy as security: The first superordinate theme displays where the participant refers to knowing what’s going on for her partner and that’s her idea of special intimacy. The level of intimacy Dee experiences appears to elicit the feeling of security within the relationship and a sense of belonging. The following extract highlights the kind of understanding Dee has towards her partner.
I like the idea of keeping that fullness of intimacy with just your lover,[..] each of us knowing exactly where the other person is and what they’re doing and what’s going on for them so there’s never any kind of wonder. That’s a special intimacy for me. Always knowing and no surprises.
It seems like intimacy is very important to Dee within her relationship and it appears that its also very important for her to know where she stands with her partner. It seems as though she may have some issues with insecurity, as she mentions knowing where the other person is and what they’re doing and potentially if she doesn’t know these things, she may start to wonder what her partner is doing. It felt like she may have these insecurities based on her personal history, maybe due to her having trust issues. The statement where she mentions about not wanting anyone else to be a part of their relationship and that is what makes her feel good about herself, suggests that she may have insecurities or fears around someone else disrupting their relationship. Monogamy seems to be very important for Dee in her current relationship. The extract below further highlights her need for intimacy, security and transparency.
Yeah. Completely. […] You’ve got something no one else knows about. I want to share an intimate space with Allan and I don’t want anyone else to come inside That’s part of what makes me feel good about myself anyway, it gives me a sort of basis for security and comfort and makes sure other things in my life work. It’s such a precious space and it’s so easy.
The creating of a bond Dee mentions further higlights her importance of intimacy as security : elaborating on the superordinate theme of intimacy as security, this relates to her need and desire to create a strong unbreakable bond between herself and her partner. The stronger she feels like their bond is, the more secure she felt within the relationship. Dee seems to feel very deeply for her partner and it almost seems to appear a bit possessive. The extract below mentions twice the fact that she would die if someone else came close to him and shared the familiarity she has with him. She even mentions that life wouldn’t be worth living if someone else knew him as deeply as she does. Even though she laughs whilst mentioning this point, you can almost feel the seriousness behind that statement.
Yes, it is quite a special form of intimacy. I mean things like nick names, I would actually die if I ever heard some other girl calling Allan by the nick name that I call him. I would die. I don’t think my life would be worth living [laughs]. That’s how strongly I feel about it. Yeah, that’s intimacy and I don’t want anyone else to know that with Allan. Ever
Superordinate Theme 2: Exclusivity in partnership
The second theme identified is “ Exclusivity in partnership”. Dee continuously mentions the need for her relationship to be exclusive and special. Loyalty is the most important part to her in the relationship and the loyalty is the basis of a committed relationship. Dee mentions phrases such as “ that I’m number one”, she refers to feelings that could be interpreted as jealousy whilst talking about a 3rd party coming into the relationship and she mentions the word “trust” many times throughout the transcript.
The superordinate theme of importance of exclusivity in partnership and importance of commitment is also illustrated in the extract below:
For me that’s what makes or breaks a relationship. [..] Not compromising the bond between two individuals cause I don’t think you can have that special kind of bond otherwise. I just don’t think there’s anything quite as strong and as sacred as a bond between two individuals.
Dee speaks explicitly about the feeling of jealousy behind her partner potentially going off with a 3rd person and the kind of rage she would feel if that actually happened. This feeling of jealousy further illustrates her need to be in an exclusive partnership. She mentions the word ‘stealing’, as though she is talking about an object that is in her possession. It’s almost like she is objectifying her partner like she is his owner, further illustrating the fact that she views exclusivity as the most important element of her monogamous relationship. It appears that Dee sees an outside person as a threat to her relationship and the thought of it makes her protective over her partner. Dee seems very emotionally attached to her partner and monogamy in her relationship is a integral part of her relationship working.
The feeling of jealousy behind wanting someone and them going off with someone else, that’s pretty basic. [..] The kind of rage that you can feel when someone else is stealing something that you want. I suppose the exclusivity of that intimacy can’t or shouldn’t be robbed or threatened by other people.
Superordinate Theme 3:
During the latter part of the interview, the interviewer asks the participant to elaborate on what being unfaithful means to her and how she has experienced it before. The interviewer also asks if Dee’s thoughts around monogamy in a relationship, are tied up with what a successful relationship should involve. This elicit’s certain responses from the participant that demonstrates how her past experiences have affected how she views the importance of monogamy in her current relationship. The previous superordinate themes have illustrated how the participant views her monogamous relationship and the next section focuses on her past experiences and how they’ve shaped her views during her current relationship.
It appears that Dee has really learnt from her past experiences and it has made her value her current monogamous relationship. It really sounds like Dee has taken plenty of time to reflect on her past experience and what drove her to cheat in previous relationships and she seems to know that it was an illusion or fantasy and not worth the hassle it comes with. Dee seems to have analysed the hurt and pain unfaithfulness comes with and this is illustrated in the extract below.
Feeling calm and confident, and having no fear that he will hurt me. And I don’t want to hurt him either so have promised myself never to be tempted by anyone else and to be true to him, and only him, so that we can be happy and build our lives together.
Dee has made an affirmative decision not to cheat again and remain loyal and monogamous to her current partner in order for the relationship to be successful. She displays a sense of maturity with the above statement and has had a realisation that being disloyal isn’t equal or as important as being monogamous and committed. During the final part of the interview, the interviewer asks Dee what feeling safe and secure is like for her in the relationship with Allen. The response Dee gives shows that her mind has been cemented and how committed she is to Allen and their relationship as seen in the extract below.
But that’s what makes me feel secure. In thinking about it now, I guess we’ve never actually never really talked about being monogamous or not, it’s just a rule in our minds, an unspoken rule.
Section 4: Conclusion
The findings of this examination have shown that the participant has reached a certain level of maturity and this is due to the analysis and processing of her past experiences, which seems to have given Dee a higher moral standing. This reflection has broadened her understanding and acceptance of what’s wrong or right in the current relationship. The unspoken rule that Dee mentions about being monogamous may have been subliminally implemented through ‘societal norms’. In Britain we see the elite e.g. the royal family conducting monogamous relationships and this ideal is also compounded through being read fairy tale stories where the prince marries the princess and lives happily ever after. Such influences may have shaped the way monogamy is viewed in British modern day society, whereas polygamy is generally frowned upon. Using an(IPA) approach has allowed for deeper exploration and understanding of the participants subjective view of herself in her world and what has shaped her ideologies.
Personal Reflexivity
All individuals should practice the art of reflection in order to understand themselves, personal choices and how one interprets their present situation (Caetano, A 2017). I could relate with some of the participants points of view and admired her openness and honesty around the topic of her relationship and monogamy. I related to her idea of monogamy being an unspoken rule and that one man should be with one woman. I found it hard not to assume how the participant felt with regards to some of the comments she made and not to pass judgement on her perceptions, which may have been mine and not hers. I also decided to collapse two superordinate themes together as I felt they were similar, which were “Exclusivity in partnership” and “ importance of commitment”.
Section 5: References
The British Psychological Society, (2018). Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Retrieved from World Wide Web 03 November 2018:
www.bps.org.uk
Caetano, A (2017) Coping With Life: A Typology of Personal Reflexivity, The Sociological Quarterly, 58, 32-50. Routledge
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2012). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper (Original work published 1927)
Husserl, E. (1913). Ides: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, translated by W.R Boyce Gibson. London, New York: Collier, Macmillan, 1962.
Polkinghorne, D.E (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: State University Of New York Press.
Manen, M.V. (2011). Hermeneutic Phenomenology: A Resource for Phenomenological inquiry. Retrieved from World Wide Web 03 November 2018:
www.phenomenologyonline.com/inquiry/orientations-in-phenomenology/hermeneutical-phenomenology/
Munhall, P (1989). Philosophical ponderings on qualitative research methods in nursing. Nursing Science Quarterly, 2 (1), 20-28.
O’ Sullivan, L (2018). Why You Might Want To Rethink Monogamy in 2018:University of New Brunswick. Retrieved from World Wide Web 05 November 2018:
http://theconversation.com/why-you-might-want-to-rethink-monogamy-in-2018-88217
PY7154: Lab Report ( Qualitative methods coursework)
Qualitative Data Analysis- Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis
Use of Metaphors and Interpretive Repertoires to Describe a Monogamous Relationship: A Discursive Account
Introduction
This study investigates use of discourse and its construction in building an individual’s personal account of the social phenomenon ‘monogamy’. Monogamy is the description of an intimate relationship with one partner: sexual and emotional exclusivity. Monogamy is widely accepted as a cultural norm due the representation and construction in political, cultural and popular discourses (Rubin 1984). Research embeds the idea of monogamy as the norm: ‘love’ and ‘passion’ scales used in empirical qualitative questionnaires construct non-monogamous ideas negatively (e.g. I’d feel bad if X liked someone more than me) (Fisher, Davis & Yarber 2013). There are not many papers investigating monogamy, in contrast polyamory, swinging and open relationships are themes that have recently increased in practice and discussion (Barker & Langdridge 2010). These non-monogamous practices differ to ‘unfaithfulness’, the former is consensual, whereas the latter is not.
Discourse shapes and enables reality through conveying meaning for an individual in their unique social context (Woodek & Meyer 2009). The lived experience of monogamy for an individual depends upon social context, their ontological and epistemological positions. Constructionism is described as a driving force to investigate phenomena through discourse, i.e. the focus is not phenomena in a cognitive sense but the construction of discourse that is used to describe it (Hammersley 2010), this may involve discursive repertoires and metaphors, their use depend on the action aim and context of the participant. The analytic aim of this study is focused on the little investigated phenomena of monogamy, exploring how an individual discursively constructs experience of monogamy.
Ethics
The British Psychological Society (BPS) ‘Code of Ethics and Practice’ (2018) state four principles that have been considered during this study: respect, competency, integrity and responsibility. The ‘Practice Guidelines’ and ‘Code of Human Research Ethics’ published by the BPS (2017, 2014) have also been considered. It is important to gain informed consent prior to the study and protect the participants’ confidentiality, privacy and psychological wellbeing as the researcher establishes what is known about the participant due to personal hermeneutics.
The degree of information given before an interview has been discussed in recent research, the dilemma of potentially influencing the interview (priming the participant to think from a particular angle) or mis-interpretation of the reasoning for the research need careful consideration (Taylor & Smith, 2014). To ensure that informed consent is achieved effectively it is important to share a broad understanding of what the research is about. Participants are de-briefed post interview, addressing finer details and questions. They also have the right to withdraw at any point. It is also important that the participant is given access to the study publication that arises from the transcript (Willig, 2013).
Method
‘Debbie’ and ‘Allen’ have been used as pseudonyms for this study. The 45-minute interview was semi-structured and confidential between Debbie and a male interviewer in her own home. The interview was described to her as a UK study looking at understanding and experience of monogamous and consented non-monogamous relationships. Debbie identified her relationship with her partner as heterosexual and monogamous. The interview was audio recorded then verbatim transcribed.
Discourse analysis is a non-cognitivist approach, it has a relativist doctrine focusing on representation and meanings, i.e. discursive construction of subjects and phenomena rather than analysis of cognitive behaviors. It is a social constructionist epistemological approach to analysis that involves text, pictures and other mediums that can be ‘read’. Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA) and discursive psychology (DP) are the methods of investigation of this study.
FDA analyses discourse in terms of history, subjectivity (how subjects and phenomena are made) and power (the construction of power and its role within context) (Willig & Stainton-Rodgers 2007). It looks at macro-processes: looking further than discourse used to its wider meaning and the connections to social practices and structures. It is from a deconstructionism epistemological position: deconstructing discourse – looking to how it works to present a particular version of phenomena. It is understood as an example of social constructionism because it shapes discourse that constructs phenomena (Burr, 1995). Discourse governs our knowledge, we learn through common understandings, (past and present), what is socially acceptable or expected, thus discourse has a relationship with knowledge, which in turn means there is a relationship with power. FDA is centrally concerned with the relationship of power and expression through discourse (Burr 1995).
DP looks at micro-processes: the finer constructive details of discourse, the position of identity and human agency from a psychological viewpoint (Willig & Stainton-Rodgers 2007), for example how language is used to disclaim a stereotype, or repetition used to emphasise a point. Interpretive repertoires are interesting grounds for analysis due to the varying ways they are used in context. DP is not concerned with ontological questions, but on how a participant uses discourse functionally to construct phenomena (Burr 1995).
Both FDA and DP lend themselves to a social constructionist and relativist approach (Willig 2013). They are used together here to investigate the way Debbie discursively describes her experience noting how she socially constructs her version of reality.
Analysis.
Relationship as a Journey.
Debbie refers to the interpretive repertoire of ‘Journey’ implicitly and explicitly her opening response discusses a literal journey then throughout her interview to describe her own relationship, and others’ relationships that she has socially experienced. This is done in two ways one using positive metaphors relating to fairytales, home values and common goals (in her own relationship); and negatively constructing personal experience of relationships (her own and others) ‘going wrong’.
“Allen and I are like partners building something together […] I feel safe and secure now and so am not interested in anyone else. […] when I got back with Allen I felt like I’d really come home. I’d come home to my home values and comfort factors. […] it’s like, at the end of the day its you they’re going to be with […] so that we can be happy and build our lives together. Happily ever after really, maybe I’m still into the fantasy [laughs].”
The first sentence above comes from Debbie’s logical epistemological viewpoint: describing a relationship as a journey that has a common goal to work towards. She uses a conventional metaphor ‘like partners’ to describe two people involved in a shared interest. ‘Building’ is a metaphor used to convey the assembly of something and implies investment over a period of time, as building is not something instantaneous. Debbie uses it twice in the quote above. It is interesting to note the use of the word ‘something’ alongside the first use of the word building, not naming the shared goal explicitly suggests that the power of this decision does not lie entirely with Debbie as she has not taken control of it. Later in the transcript she uses the word ‘build’ again to express the assembly of two lives coming together. The action direction has shifted, and Debbie takes control explicitly naming a goal. Debbie constructs a relationship as having a final destination: ‘at the end of day’, ‘end up’, ‘happily ever after’; using interpretive repertoires of summarising and cultural reference to fairytales (which comes from Debbie’s own schema). The repetition of the word ‘happy’ and ‘happily ever after’ attribute personal importance or perhaps personal reassurance that ‘building together’ will bring her happiness.
A ‘home values’ interpretive repertoire is used to describe the comfort Debbie finds in her relationship, she constructs her experiences prior to Allen as a journey and now that she has ‘found’ Allen she conveys she has found her goal: ‘when I got back with Allen I felt like I’d really come home. I’d come home to my home values and comfort factors.’. She attributes the meaning of safety and security to bricks and mortar emphasising the degree of safety she feels. The stress placed on the word ‘really’ and repetition of ‘home’ reinforces again the importance of this.
Debbie constructs monogamy as a social norm (if a relationship is not monogamous it is not successful) by exploring her own experience and then by using the journey repertoire she expresses how she sees relationships going wrong.
“No long distance relationship or anything like that because I’ve known friends who tried that and it didn’t really work for them. There was too much hurt because their partners being unfaithful while she was away […] you know over the years I have been unbelievably unfaithful to nearly every boyfriend I’ve ever had [laughs] But that’s always the point where I think I shouldn’t be with this person. I’ve never maintained, never been able to successfully maintain a relationship after being unfaithful. […]
Debbie’s social group have shared knowledge that when they have been away their relationships have failed. This, along with Debbie’s own experience of being unfaithful, build, support and justify her logical epistemological viewpoint that unfaithfulness and relationships not working are inexplicitly linked. The laugh in this quote is interesting, it could be the release of anxiety as she constructs herself as anti-non-monogamy yet says that she has been unfaithful to almost every partner she has had.
Debbie then uses metaphors to construct relationships going wrong.
“If you don’t have trust, and trust someone to be monogamous, a lot of things start happening that could turn a relationship in the wrong direction. That’s when things can go sour. […] as far as I can tell if you’re going to go down that path and end up having sex […] I don’t think two people could work towards a common goal if there was a third person […] I think that in most cases that would destroy the working of that relationship […] The feeling of jealousy behind wanting someone and them going off with someone else, that’s pretty basic.”
There is a high frequency of the journey repertoire in the quote above: ‘wrong direction’, ‘going to go down that path’ ‘work towards’ ‘working of’ going off with’. This suggests that Debbie sees non-monogamy or unfaithfulness as an option that an individual takes, it’s a direction that someone chooses to follow. Debbie talks from a direction of authority, the first sentence in the above quote demonstrates this. She takes a social higher moral ground using ‘I’ and ‘I think’ repeatedly suggesting Debbie sees her viewpoint as ‘correct’, she is in a position of power in terms of ‘knowing’ that a common goal, trust and monogamy are requisites of a ‘working’ relationship.
Trust as Security.
Debbie constructs trust as an object essential for a successful relationship, she views it as honesty and uses it to describe monogamy.
“Um, trust is when, trust with a person you love is when they go off on their own and you don’t wonder what they’re going to do. You don’t wonder if they’re going to hurt you. Yeah, and when they tell you something they did you don’t wonder if it’s the truth or not, not finding out that one little thing that I trusted wasn’t true because that would mean that every single little thing that I trusted could possibly not be true. […] And I guess being so open and honest […] each of us knowing exactly where the other person is and what they’re doing and what’s going on for them so there’s never any kind of wonder. […] trust is everything I think, well in my relationship, trust is everything.”
A direct question from the interviewer results in Debbie constructing trust as an object, she gives herself time to think: ‘Um’ and repeats the question before reinforcing the question as ‘trust of a loved one’. The use of ‘Yeah’ suggests self-reassurance and allows her to carry on. There is a lot of repetition: the word ‘wonder’ is used four times, ‘not true’ three times, emphasising the importance of honesty in a relationship. After the emphasis of truth is a referral to chaos: ‘every single little thing that I trusted could possibly not be true’ again emphasising the importance of truth and honesty.
Debbie is using discourse of morally higher ground, the self-reassurance of ‘Yeah’, ‘I guess’ and the repeated use of ‘and’ to string reasonings together feel as if Debbie is not totally sure how to express trust and she does not sound as if she is in control, even if that is what she is trying to construct. Her final sentence is much stronger, taking back control she refers to her own relationship (‘my’), again repeating and emphasising ‘trust’.
Other referrals to chaos along with the repeated use of ‘and’ comes later in the transcript suggesting that chaos is part of her experience of unfaithfulness and this discourse has become part of her own schema:
“a lot of things start happening that could turn a relationship in the wrong direction. […] As soon as another person’s involved it gets mixed up and spread out and it’s just different.”
“I think being away also helped us have the trust we now have because neither of us saw other people while I was overseas, well at least he says he didn’t [laughs]. […] And, like I said before, it means us having a monogamous relationship. I mean I wouldn’t be in a relationship with Allen if it wasn’t sexually and emotionally monogamous and if I didn’t trust it. I just wouldn’t have the relationship. If you don’t have trust, and trust someone to be monogamous, a lot of things start happening […] for me monogamy in a relationship is important for a relationship to work.”
The quote above shows Debbie constructing trust as monogamy, she explicitly links the two. The power in this quote starts away from her as she says Allen said he was faithful (the laugh after this sentence may indicate reflection) then shifts to enforce power and higher moral ground: ‘And, like I said before’ to explicitly state her views. ‘Just’ is used to reinforce that without trust she would not have the relationship, emphasising the importance of trust. The use of a precursor ‘I mean’ and the emphasis on ‘and’ show that Debbie is clear that trust is needed for a successful relationship. She assumes that without trust the return to chaos will occur: ‘a lot of things start happening’.
“They talk about trust and you know, agreeing to see other people. I’ve read articles about the husband and wife […] I don’t know, that just doesn’t click with me. I don’t think I’d ever be able to have, you know over the years I have been unbelievably unfaithful to nearly every boyfriend […] being unfaithful is an act of unfaithfulness, one of cheating on somebody. You know, one partner going off and having an extra relationship that the other person doesn’t know about.”
Debbie constructs a higher moral ground by using discourse that removes emotion and connection to other humans: ‘they’, ‘the husband and wife’, ‘just doesn’t click’, she automatically disregards non-monogamy as a relationship choice per-se, she shows no consideration for a different school of thought. Debbie starts her sentence, then, through the use of ‘you know’ switches direction and subject of conversation back to personal experience of being unfaithful linking non-monogamy with the act of being unfaithful, again relating to the journey repertoire: ‘going off’.
Conclusion
A relationship as a whole is viewed as a journey and has a lot of similar features to a literal journey. Monogamy is related to trust which in turn relates to unfaithfulness, should trust be destroyed. A relationship involves two people with a common goal, each having a vested interest in the ‘success’ of a relationship. These are findings from Debbie’s viewpoint, it cannot be generalised to the population however, a proportion will likely share these views. Taylor & Smith (2014) highlight the danger of overgeneralisation.
This Research would be of use to relationship therapists to understand how monogamous relationships are viewed and experienced by participants. It is also useful to understand, that for some, non-monogamy is an unquestionable theme; it is equal to unfaithfulness and cannot be tolerated. This knowledge may help in understanding why and how relationships breakdown.
Only a limited amount of discourse has been analysed, other themes than those discussed were noted during coding of the transcript. In this respect the analysis is not finished per-se, it is always possible to unearth further layers of meaning. The research questions, the interpretations and conclusions of discourse is influenced and directed by hermeneutics, epistemological stance and assumptions made by the interviewer and the researcher – different conclusions may be drawn by another researcher. The male interviewer may have affected the way Debbie wanted to construct herself and the way she answered questions, perhaps a different picture or different themes would occur with a female interviewer or if the research was done in a focus group.
References
Barker, M. and Langdridge, D. (2010). ‘Whatever Happened to Non-Monogamies? Critical Reflections on Recent Research and Theory’. Sexualities 13, no. 6 (1 December 2010): 748–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460710384645.
British Psychological Society: Standards and Guidelines. (2018). BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (Updated July 2018). Retrieved November 12, 2018, Received from https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/bps.org.uk/files/Policy%20-%20Files/BPS%20Code%20of%20Human%20Research%20Ethics.pdf
British Psychological Society: Standards and Guidelines. (2014). BPS Code of Human Research Ethics. Retrieved November 12, 2018, Received from https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/bps.org.uk/files/Policy%20-%20Files/BPS%20Code%20of%20Human%20Research%20Ethics.pdf
British Psychological Society: Standards and Guidelines. (2017). BPS Practice Guidelines Third Edition. Retrieved November 12, 2018, Received from https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/bps.org.uk/files/Policy%20-%20Files/BPS%20Practice%20Guidelines%20(Third%20Edition).pdf
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Fisher, D. Davis, M. and Yarber, W. (2013). Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. London: Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (2010). Questioning Qualitative Inquiry, Critical Essays. London: Sage, 12-13
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In: Vance CS (ed.) Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. London: Pandora, 108-109, 267–319.
Taylor, S. and Smith, R. ‘The Ethics of Interviewing for Discourse Analysis: Responses to Martyn Hammersley’. Qualitative Research 14, no. 5 (1 October 2014): 542–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113503742.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Willig, C. and Stainton-Rogers, W. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: SAGE.
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009). Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE
An exploration of walking behaviour—An interpretative
phenomenological approach
Catherine D. Darker, Michael Larkin, David P. French
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Available online 3 August 2007
Abstract
The aim of this study was to provide a rich and detailed account of participants’ experiences of walking using the
qualitative method of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Participants were a snowball sample of 10 members of the
UK general public, aged 25–35 years, with equal numbers of males and females. Participants reported walking as not being
‘‘proper’’ exercise, and that it is not a goal in itself. Factors that participants cited as making walking easier included the
functionality of walking for transport, contextual factors of social support and psychological benefits. Perceived lack of
time was cited as an inhibitory barrier to walking. Participants’ perceptions of walking were incongruent with current
health promotion campaigns. There is a need to address the misconception that walking is not proper exercise. The
traditional focus of walking promotion campaigns concerns beliefs about the benefits of walking on health. People engage
in healthy behaviour for reasons other than to be healthy. Interventions to promote walking should consider targeting the
psychological meaning and value of walking, in addition to beliefs about health.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: UK; Walking; Public health; Exercise
Introduction
In recent years there has been a dramatic increase
in obesity levels globally, due to a combination of
overeating and inactivity (Kopelman, 2000). Recent
reviews confirm the positive contribution that
physical activity contributes to health benefits such
as lower risk of cardiovascular problems (Wannamethee
& Shaper, 2001) better control of hypertension
(Kelley, Kelley, & Tran, 2001), reduction in the
risk of all causes of cancer (Lee, 2003), prevention
of diabetes mellitus (Delahanty, Meigs, Hayden,
Williamson, & Nathan, 2002) and prevention of
osteoporosis (Melzer, Kayser, & Pichard, 2004).
Consequently, encouraging individuals to take up a
more active lifestyle has become a health promotion
priority.
Current recommendations suggest that individuals
engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate
exercise, such as brisk walking, or cycling for at
least five days each week, to gain health protective
benefits (British Heart Foundation, 2001). Despite
this information, the majority of adults in the
Western world do not meet these minimal requirements
for physical activity wherein health benefits
are thought to occur. In the United Kingdom, over
60% of adult males and 75% of adult females do
not undertake enough physical activity to benefit
their health (Department of Health, 2004recent report, the Chief Medical Officer for England
recognised the difficulty many people have in
translating a physical activity recommendation into
a meaningful behaviour pattern that can fit into
daily life (Department of Health, 2005).
Ecological models have increasingly been applied
to understand the determinants of physical activity
and inactivity. It is widely recognised that social and
physical environments can influence health behaviours
(McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988;
Stokols, 1992), including physical activity (Frank,
Schmid, Sallis, Chapman, & Saelens, 2005). These
can form the basis of new environmental and policy
interventions (Sallis & Owen, 1999). The limited
number of published studies on attempts to alter the
physical environment to increase physical activity
suggest that spatial access to recreational facilities
may influence physical activity participants (Giles-
Corti & Donovan, 2002). The influence of both
individual and social environmental determinants
play an important role in determining exercising in
general (Sallis et al., 2006). However, evidence
remains elusive that simply having access to
facilities will increase regular physical activity.
While place of residence and its influence on
physical activity may be an important influential
determinant of activity, other, perhaps more modifiable,
determinants of activity and inactivity
should also be considered as targets of interventions.
These include the underlying beliefs and
attitudes people have towards increasing their
physical activity and the perception of potential
barriers to their implementing their activity plans
(Downs & Hausenblas, 2005).
Individual, rather than environmental, interventions
aim to modify the psychological factors
that control behaviour and those changes are
expected to alter behaviour (Sallis & Owen, 1999).
The literature on the determinants of physical
activity in adults suggest that a successful intervention
would promote low to moderate intensity
physical activity; alter perceptions of benefits, selfefficacy,
intentions and enjoyment; and stimulate
more social support for exercise. These determinants
are more readily available for manipulation
compared with altering a person’s environment
(Sallis & Owen, 1999).
In recent years there has been a shift away from
advocating structured formal exercise towards more
lifestyle activities. Lifestyle activities are those that
are performed as part of everyday life, such as
climbing stairs, walking and cycling (Department of
Health, 2005). French et al. (2005) investigated
individuals’ attitudes towards increasing their physical
activity, such as increasing their current levels
of walking and stair usage. The respondents agreed
that increasing their overall physical activity would
be good for them, but it was whether or not they
enjoyed physical activity that was the main predictor
of their intentions to increase their physical
activity later on. Eves, Hoppe´ , and McLaren (2003)
examined a range of physical activities, including
examples of vigorous intensity leisure-time pursuits
(team sports and aerobics), moderate intensity
leisure-time activity (dancing and swimming) and
two moderate intensity lifestyle activities (walking
and cycling). The predictors of intentions to walk
were found to be distinctly different from the other
behaviours examined, suggesting that individuals
conceptualise walking as being a unique form of
physical activity. Little is known about the contextual
element that social support or companionship
may have for each specific form of lifestyle
physical activity.
Walking is the most common form of lifestyle
physical activity (Siegel, Brackbill, & Heath, 1995).
It is especially promising as a focus of public health
interventions because of its widespread acceptability
and accessibility, particularly among populations
with a low prevalence of physical activity (Morris &
Hardman, 1997). However, there is still a dearth of
research on walking in comparison with other, more
vigorous forms of physical activity.
Previous research has shown that adults within
the UK population hold many salient beliefs in
relation to walking (Darker, French, Longdon,
Morris, & Eves, 2007). Positive beliefs such as
walking for exercise, stress relief and fresh air may
encourage people to walk more, whereas beliefs like
inclement weather and a perceived lack of time are
the most commonly held negative beliefs in relation
to walking for an average of 30 minutes a day
(Darker et al., 2007). One limitation of such
research is the conceptualisation of walking from
a particular theoretical perspective and the use of
questionnaires as the only measurement tool, thus
potentially limiting how such research may further
our understanding of walking. By contrast, qualitative
research is a form of empirical inquiry, which
enables a detailed and contextualised understanding
of the phenomenon under investigation (Bramley &
Eatough, 2005).
The context of the present study is a culture
defined by some strong, conflicting discourses about
