Applying Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to International Career Transitions: Working With Complexities and Contraindications

Phenomenology

In general, phenomenology is the philosophical study of experience with an emphasis on the examination of experiences as they occur in the lived world (Larkin & Thompson, 2012). As such, phenomenology offers researchers ideas for understanding the lived experience. In IPA, an influential phenomenologist was Husserl (1982), whose approach to phenomenology emphasized that individuals could accurately reflect upon their experiences to identify the essence of this experience. Husserl believed that these essences would transcend the individual and illuminate features of the collective experience of a particular phenomenon. For Husserl (1971), intentionality of focus onto these experiences was important as this allows for individuals to step outside their everyday experiences and instead turn their focus toward their perceptions of objects in their world. This intentional focus on the perceptions of objects in our world is a critical orientation in IPA (Eatough & Smith, 2017). Specifically, Husserl influenced IPA researchers to give credence to the process of reflection and the attentive, systematic investigation of our lived experiences.

Another key phenomenologist that influenced IPA is Heidegger and Stambaugh (1927/1996/1962), a former student of Husserl. Specifically, Heidegger moved away from the transcendence of essences of experiences and instead questioned whether any knowledge could exist outside of an interpretive perspective. That is, there is a focus on inter-subjectivity, or the understanding of the world as it appears to people, including how individuals make meaning from it, given the relationships and activities in which they each engage. For IPA, it is this perspective of being in relation to something that is critical (Smith & Osborn, 2007). Heidegger influenced researchers to consider the notion that individuals exist within a pre-established world in which they create their own meanings about experiences (Smith & Nizza, 2022).

Beyond Husserl and Heidegger, two other phenomenologists, Merleau-Ponty (1962) and Sartre (1956), are important in understanding the phenomenological perspective in IPA. Merleau-Ponty shared Heidegger’s ideas around individual in relation to the world; however, Merleau-Ponty went further and argued that individuals’ bodies are the tools for communicating within the world, creating a primacy of our own situated perspective. For IPA, this means that researchers can never share entirely in someone else’s experience as it is dependent on their unique situation, but researchers can observe it through their own perspective (Larkin & Thompson, 2012). Sartre also expanded upon Heidegger’s idea of understanding as an individual in the world to include the absence of objects. In IPA, this manifests as an understanding that the meaning individuals make of their experiences is in relation to the presence and absence of relationships in their lives (Smith et al., 2022).

Hermeneutics

The second theoretical axis in IPA is hermeneutics which, simply stated, is the theory of interpretation (Moules et al., 2015). Three key philosophers influenced the hermeneutic tradition in IPA: Schleiermacher, Heidegger, and Gadamer (Smith et al., 2022). Schleiermacher (1998) was one of the first philosophers to articulate a more systematic approach to hermeneutics. Specifically, Schleiermacher noted that there is a grammatical and psychological approach to interpretation. That is, interpretation can be in one way exact and objective in meaning, as well as in another way subjective to a particular person. For IPA, this means that researchers can offer insights into the explicit, face value information shared by participants regarding a particular experience, while also shunning claims of one analysis or interpretation being truer than another (Shinebourne, 2011b).

Heidegger and Stambaugh (1927/1996/1962) advocated for phenomenology as hermeneutic; that is, IPA researchers do not simply report participants’ descriptions of how experiences appeared to them, but they also provide an interpretation of these descriptions, with synthesis across descriptions (Smith & Nizza, 2022). Moreover, Heidegger claimed that researchers move back and forth between their own preconceptions regarding the phenomenon under exploration and the participants’ descriptions of their experience with it. Specifically, preconceptions influence researchers’ interpretations, and the descriptions in return influence the researchers’ preconceptions moving forward (Shinebourne, 2011b).

Gadamer et al. (1960/2004/2004) echoed Heidegger’s thoughts around this dynamic and cyclical process of influence, going a step further to suggest that researchers cannot know their preconceptions until the analysis and interpretation process (Smith & Osborn, 2007). The importance of Gadamer’s work for IPA researchers is that researchers’ preconceptions are inevitable, yet they can bring novel stimuli into focus, in order to give voice to alternative perspectives (Larkin et al., 2006). These alternative perspectives create a hermeneutic circle, which involves the iterative exploration of the whole and its parts, in relation to each other (Smith et al., 2022). In addition to the hermeneutic circle is the idea of a double hermeneutic, which is where the participants are actively making meaning of their experiences as researchers are seeking to understand the meaning participants ascribe to their experiences. In this way, the findings in IPA are always interpretative and do not represent an essential ‘truth’ (Smith & Nizza, 2022).

Idiography

The final theoretical axis in IPA is idiography, which is the study of the particular (Shinebourne, 2011b). Specifically, idiography focuses on specific detail and depth of understanding regarding a particular behaviour for a particular person, rather than nomothetics, which emphasizes general claims regarding common behaviours (Eatough & Smith, 2017). Furthermore, an idiographic approach considers the context of an individual, similar to a case study, which reveals how the phenomena occurred within that particular context. For IPA, idiography offers another way of creating transferable ideas. That is, by understanding the particular experience, within its own context, across different people, eventually researchers can build toward more nuanced and intricately informed understandings regarding this of experience (Bromley, 1986; Smith, 2017).

Study Design

Smith et al. (2022) noted that in choosing IPA as the methodology for a study, researchers should consider whether their intended outcome is epistemologically congruent with IPA. Specifically, IPA is appropriate if researchers are investigating the meaning-making process of individuals regarding a particular experience, based upon their position in the world. Studies in IPA tend to be more exploratory in nature and have a guiding research question that asks, “how does this group of people make sense of/perceive/think/understand this experience?” The goal implicit within IPA research questions is comprehending a process-oriented phenomenon (Shinebourne, 2011a). Given this open and exploratory nature of IPA, studies using this methodology do not need a theory to guide it; however, Smith et al. (2022) explained that second-tier research questions may be included when using a guiding theory as well to help evaluate the theory.

In terms of size and demographic make-up of the study sample, researchers should reflect the theoretical axes of IPA. The sample should be purposive, explicitly seeking those individuals with relevant experiences, as well as small and homogenous, recruiting for depth rather than breadth of information (Wagstaff & Williams, 2014). As such, IPA studies may range in size from a singular case study to 15 or more in a larger project, depending on depth of information retrieved and the limitations of the project (e.g., graduate work; project timeline). Of note, participants in IPA studies may be involved in the study design process more than typical qualitative studies (Larkin & Thompson, 2012). Particularly, the researchers may ask participants to help form interview questions, provide participant validation of data analysis, or even offer suggestions for data analysis (Smith et al., 2022).

In terms of data collection, in-person, semi-structured, one-on-one interviews, and/or personal diaries have traditionally been the best source of rich, detailed information from participants (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2012). Other sources, such as focus groups, can also illicit quality data, so long as there is an emphasis on delving deeply into the individual experience, rather than skimming across experiences (Love et al., 2020; Smith & Osborn, 2007). Recently, other approaches to data collection have emerged, such as longitudinal studies (McCoy, 2017), asynchronous chat/email-based studies (Rodham et al., 2009), mixed method (Taylor, 2014), and expressive-based studies (Klein & Milner, 2019), and remote/online interviews (Matson et al., 2023), among others (Smith et al., 2022). IPA researchers typically construct an interview schedule for the interviews with questions the researcher would like to ask, but with flexibility to deviate and focus on more salient questions, particularly to inquire about priorities of the participants, as they arise during the interview (Smith et al., 2022). Beyond the interview schedule, it is important to ask participants to elaborate on what they have shared to gain a deeper understanding of their worldview (Smith & Nizza, 2022).

Data Analysis

For data analysis in IPA, there are a few main processes or principles that help guide interpretation, with this being one of the most updated areas in the recent version of the Smith et al. (2022) guide. Specifically, researchers can move iteratively from particular to shared experiences and from understanding a particular point of view to a psychological perspective of personal meaning-making (Shinebourne, 2011a). Researchers engage reflectively with the verbatim interview transcriptions through line-by-line analysis, and by flexibly following the seven steps (Smith & Nizza, 2022).

In the revised guide, Smith et al. (2022) noted that, first, IPA researchers read and re-read; the researcher reads while listening to focus in on the participant, then re-reading to focus in further, all while recording personal reflections and preconceptions that become apparent. This implies that researchers have engaged in exploration of their personal assumptions about the topic and consciously review their reactions and decisions on an ongoing basis, often through research diaries or journals (Smith & Nizza, 2022). Second, they create exploratory notes; the researcher takes the time to explore the descriptive (i.e., the face-value content), conceptual (i.e., interpretative interrogation of the content) and linguistic (i.e., the particular language features used) content of the transcript to produce detailed descriptions of the data using the key words expressed by the participant. Third, IPA researchers construct experiential statements; the researchers shift from working with the original transcript to their detailed descriptions, maintaining complexity but finding core ideas by working across the descriptive, conceptual, and linguistic meaning in the text. Fourth, they search for connections across experiential statements; researchers start to organize, combine and reform themes in relation to each other. Fifth, researchers then consolidate and organize experiential statements; they name the personal experiential themes (PETS) for the case to highlight the individualized characteristics. Sixth, they move to the next case; researchers look at another transcript and attempt to treat it independently of the previous ones, moving through the same steps. Seventh, IPA researchers look for patterns across cases; the researcher makes comparisons and contrasts across PETS to create interpretations of group experiential themes (GETS). When writing about the findings from an IPA study, Smith (2017) emphasized the importance of providing quotations from participants with each theme and interpretation to keep the findings grounded in the data.

Reflexivity and the Interpretative Process

As a high-quality IPA study requires an interpretative process by both participants and the researcher (Smith, 2011a), the context, understandings, experiences, and positionality of the researcher influence the research process. Smith et al. (2022) noted the importance of reflexivity as a way for researchers to explore how their understandings and experiences may influence the meaning they make of participants’ experiences and interpretations. Peat et al. (2019) noted that reflexivity within IPA does not have the goal of bracketing (i.e., attempting to remove the researcher’s influence from the research process), but rather the focus is on bringing mindfulness to this influence. This awareness then supports a more ethical research approach through transparency in the process, credibility in the findings, and trustworthiness of the claims made.

Theoretical Coherence

IPA has a theoretical foundation that is based upon long-standing philosophical traditions (i.e., phenomenology, hermeneutics, and idiographic), which are blended together to form a coherent approach (Shinebourne, 2011b). This coherence then allows researchers to claim that IPA has theoretical transferability (Smith et al., 2022). That is, by building an understanding from the very detailed accounts of individual cases, IPA researchers can start to form theories or models from the lived experience that guide practice (Brocki & Wearden, 2006). For example, Smith et al. (2009) noted that the body of literature around experiences of pain using IPA is substantial enough to start creating a theory about the experience of pain. The experiences of an international career transition are highly diverse, given the differing migration experiences (e.g., skills-based applicants and applicants from a refugee background), and country and cultural context, among many other considerations (Abkhezr et al., 2021; Arthur et al., 2023; Kennedy & Chen, 2012). Researchers could use the IPA process to, in the long-term, work across studies and form meta-interpretations to help represent and highlight the specific lived experiences and contexts of participants (Smith et al., 2022). This process of theory building could help to address long-standing critiques of career development theories based on individual theorists’ conceptualizations of a phenomenon (Arthur & McMahon, 2019; Flores, 2014; Sultana, 2022), to meaning made by people who lived it (Frechette et al., 2020).

Contextual Relevance

Researchers within the human sciences developed IPA for conducting psychological studies (Smith, 1996; Smith & Nizza, 2022). That is, one of the purposes of IPA is to explore the behaviours of individuals, their thoughts and beliefs, as well as the context in which they occur, which is congruent with the main aims of research in the human sciences (Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Smith, 2011a). The bulk of seminal work using IPA was in health psychology (Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008), which was responding to demands within the field to heed the subjective experiences of participants and patients, rather than strict adherence to impersonal rating scales (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2012). Currently, the use of IPA has expanded into other related human science fields, such as cognition (e.g., Larkin et al., 2011), sexuality (e.g., Farmer & Byrd, 2015), counselling psychology (e.g., Pugh & Vetere, 2009), and occupational and industrial organisation (e.g., Clarke, 2009), with some expansion into the career development field (Woodend & Arthur, 2018), among others (Smith et al., 2022). Moreover, the guiding principles of IPA are consistent with those in the career development field; specifically, emphasizing individuals’ agency, respecting their voice, and considering the influences of context (Savickas, 2012; Woodend & Arthur, 2023). Using IPA to explore the experiences of participants who have engaged in an international career transition would enable researchers to align with the values of the field and understand how participants’ meaning making (i.e., behaviours, thoughts, and feelings) shifted across time (Patton & McMahon, 2021).

Theory Expansion and Refinement

Researchers can use IPA to help evaluate the utility and boundaries of existing theories (Eatough & Smith, 2017). Specifically, the case-by-case approach to IPA can provide exemplars of theoretical concepts, expand theoretical concepts to experiences not conceptualized, and create insight into how theories might be further developed to reflect these unaccounted-for experiences (Smith et al., 2022). Researchers and practitioners are then able to use their professional experience and knowledge to make theoretical or practice-based decisions (Chen, 2008; Kennedy & Chen, 2012); for instance, regarding the particular experience (e.g., experiences of immigrant workers on skilled visas) and ideas that may be transferable to other, similar experiences or groups (e.g., experiences of immigrant workers not on skilled visas). This consideration is critical, given the diversity in migration experiences, and calls to expand research and theoretical understanding beyond dominant narratives, for an anti-oppressive, culture-infused approach (Arthur, 2019; Woodend, 2018; Blustein et al., 2019; Pope, 2019).

Phenomenon Specificity

Smith et al. (2022) suggested using IPA for conducting studies looking at transition experiences. In particular, the reflective and iterative process inherent within IPA can be helpful for participants to gain potentially previously unconsidered insight into important transition experiences in their life. Through this process, researchers can also see how identity shifted through the transition and the contextual elements that facilitated or hindered the transition (Smith & Osborn, 2007), potentially providing insight into best practices in assisting with a career transition (Patton & McMahon, 2021). Furthermore, researchers have used IPA to look at career issues (e.g., Bricker-Katz et al., 2013; Cope, 2011; Sallis & Birkin, 2014) as well as migration (e.g., O’Brien & Tribe, 2014), and temporary international career transitions (Fitzgerald & Howe-Walsh, 2009; Woodend & Arthur, 2018). IPA can also be used in a longitudinal design to deepen understanding of meaning-making across the transition (McCoy, 2017). Taken together, there is evidence that using IPA to explore international career transitions is not only in line with the purpose of IPA, but also to provide useful insights based on ongoing changes in the world of work (Garlick & Michal, 2022; McMahon & Watson, 2012).

Uniqueness of the Individual

Instead of working toward the aggregate or summative experience, the focus in IPA is on the individual voice of the participant (Larkin et al., 2006). This is particularly important and useful when working with participants whose voices have been subsumed or marginalized in society, through privileging dominant discourses, or excluded altogether (Flores, 2014; Jones, 2017; Todorova, 2011; Woodend et al., 2016). Although researchers can use IPA to eventually guide theoretical advancement regarding people’s particular experiences, theory creation is only a secondary, long-term goal, with the primary purpose of IPA always being to honour and elevate the individual voice (Smith, 2017). This honouring of individual voices produces findings that embody and are relevant to people with lived experience, rather than statistical approximations and averages that may not represent real participants. Larkin and Thompson (2012) argued that people’s experiences are complex and that the reduction of complexity for theory’s sake is dehumanizing and removes critical elements for ethical and competent practice, such as the history and context of these experiences. IPA uses three levels of interpretation (i.e., descriptive, conceptual, and linguistic) to provide a rich analysis based in the individual context. By honouring the voices of people who have been marginalized and advocating for the portrayal of a comprehensive picture of experience (Pope, 2019), the IPA process can support a social justice stance against or disrupt the status quo (Alase, 2017). Unfortunately, for many individuals, the experience of international career transitions results in under/unemployment due to factors such as lack of recognition of credentials and education, biases in hiring, and structural barriers that result in de-skilling (Campion, 2018; Woodend & Arthur, 2023). As such, research can inform policy and practice to address social inequities and strategies that result in decent work outcomes (Blustein et al., 2016; Sultana, 2022).

Diverse Perspectives

Given that racialized people are the majority of individuals undergoing an international career transition to countries with developed economies (e.g., international students; OECD, 2020a), IPA seems to have some support in respecting diversity (Todorova, 2011). As IPA focuses on individuals’ meaning making (Wagstaff & Williams, 2014), researchers can explore particular experiences without categorizing experiences. Specifically, Arthur and Pedersen (2008) noted that methodologies with case study-like approaches, such as IPA’s idiographic philosophical underpinning, are well suited to exploring international transitions, including differences in cultural identities, privilege, and power, and portraying rich detail about the contextual and situational circumstances in which participants had these experiences and made meaning from them. Researchers have successfully used IPA in a number of studies with diverse racialized individuals across linguistic backgrounds, as well as other marginalized identities (e.g., O’Brien & Tribe, 2014; Tan et al., 2010; van Rooij et al., 2009; Vincent et al., 2013; Woodend & Arthur, 2018), which would parallel the diversity found in populations experiencing international career transitions (e.g., immigrants, refugees, international students from diverse country and cultural contexts; Kennedy & Chen, 2012; Sultana, 2022).

Methodology Accessibility

Another key indication of IPA is that it is relatively accessible in comparison to some other forms of qualitative methodology (Pringle et al., 2011). This is particularly the case for researchers for whom qualitative research is a novel endeavor (Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008). One reason for this accessibility is that Smith et al. (2022) described complex, deeply philosophical traditions, such as phenomenology and hermeneutics, in a manner that immediately highlighted the applicability of these theoretical underpinnings to the use of IPA (Shinebourne, 2011b). These descriptions offer entry points into qualitative research, with opportunities for further, deeper consideration as researchers become more experienced (Clarke, 2009; Eatough & Smith, 2017). The ease of accessing the IPA process may be critical for enabling researchers to shift their approach from methodologies that create generalizable understandings, to nuanced and complex ones that reflect the experiences of diverse populations, such as participants who experienced an international career transition (Patton & McMahon, 2021; Sultana, 2022).

Summary

This discussion highlighted seven key indications of the IPA process in research with participants who have experienced an international career transition. Specifically, the IPA process (a) provides a sound philosophical basis from which to make theoretical conclusions, (b) was developed intentionally to explore phenomenon in the human sciences, (c) supports an evaluation of existing theories for appropriateness with diverse population and support further development, (d) reflects shifts in meaning-making across transition experiences, (e) enables a case-by-case exploration for unique understandings, (f) foregrounds diverse experiences, (g) is relatively accessible for researchers to use. Taken together, researchers who select this methodology would have a straightforward process to support their analysis, and high-quality IPA research could provide rich accounts of diverse perspectives that, across time and numerous studies, could support the creation of nuanced theoretical frameworks that reflect international career transition experiences.

Ethical Limitations

When the researchers are working with individuals from identifiable cultural backgrounds, which is the case for many people who experience an international career transition, it is important to keep in mind ethical considerations regarding the data collection and the privacy of participants (Clark & Sharf, 2007). Presenting the unique case of individuals regarding a specific experience is useful in gaining rich detail and representing the diversity in newcomer populations (Mahalingam & Rabelo, 2013); however, that rich detail can also create challenges around informed consent and ensuring anonymity (Woodend & Arthur, 2023). Specifically, in using purposive sampling to work with individuals with a specific experience, some people with marginalized identities may represent only a very small number of individuals within the local community, making it possible to identify participants and potentially cause interpersonal conflict (Todorova, 2011). For example, exploring the career transitions of Afghan refugee women in a small town in Canada reveal negative experiences that might be perceived to reflect poorly upon certain people in the participant’s community, of the same reference group, or otherwise. In such cases, the researcher may not be able to guarantee anonymity of the participant (Moules et al., 2015). As such, researchers will need to consider whether the case-by-case approach in IPA is ethically appropriate for their exploration.

Analysis Complexity

Although IPA is supposed to be an iterative process, moving from face-value descriptions and experiential statements to higher level interpretations, this hermeneutic tradition can be a difficult process to learn, without sufficient mentorship or guidance (Rodham et al., 2015). Challenges in the iterative process can be particularly true for novice researchers, or researchers that have not had experience or training in offering qualitative research-based interpretations. As such, the findings for IPA studies can often resemble, or be indistinguishable from, general thematic analysis (Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Smith, 2011a). Simply providing descriptions of face-value themes can be valuable; however, it does not incorporate the theoretical influence of hermeneutics (Shinbourne, 2011b), misrepresenting or mislabeling the study findings as something that they are not. This is particularly important in IPA as the focus is on descriptive analysis along with conceptual and linguistic analysis of participants’ transcripts, representing multiple levels of interpretation for a rich account (Smith et al., 2022).

Furthermore, upon reviewing the quality of various IPA studies, particularly for interpretation of analyses, Smith (2011a) rated only 27% as good studies with 55% being acceptable and 18% being unacceptable. These low rates of good IPA studies showcase the difficulty in teaching and supervising IPA studies to reach higher-level interpretations that appropriately reflect the hermeneutic tradition in IPA (Smith, 2019). In research with participants who have experienced an international career transition, these face value descriptions might include an overrepresentation of barriers that they faced – a deficits focus – rather than a comprehensive understanding of the multi-layered influences on their experience (Jones, 2017; Mahalingam & Rabelo, 2013; Woodend et al., 2016). An important consideration for researchers in deciding if the IPA process is appropriate for their investigation is whether they have the capacity to engage in these in-depth interpretations.

(Mis)Interpretations

A third contraindication of the IPA process is that its double hermeneutic process, which is the researcher’s understanding of the meaning made by participants regarding a particular experience, can muddy whose voice the findings represent (Smith, 2011a). Although the purpose of IPA research is to emphasize individuals’ experience, with a focus on their respective context (Smith & Nizza, 2022), Todorova (2011) contended that when researchers take these accounts and move toward higher level interpretations, the original voice can be lost. Compounding this, although academics in countries with developed economies have become more diverse, most researchers are White (Rodriguez, 2015) and/or are in privileged social positions (Mahalingam & Rabelo, 2013), which could potentially result in findings that more closely resemble the interpretations of academics, rather than the experiences of diverse populations (Törngren & Ngeh, 2018). Specifically, Todorova noted that when findings are interpreted from this privileged group’s perspective, marginalized voices can be further excluded, perpetuating social inequalities and injustices.

Regarding this re-authorship of experiences, IPA does not offer explicit steps to avoid perpetuating power and systemic marginalization, instead emphasizing the inherent iterative reflection process (i.e., reflexivity) of the researcher to reveal these preconceptions throughout the research process (Nizza et al., 2021; Smith, 2019). This may be more difficult than it appears, as it relies on deep reflection about personal contexts and exploration of unconscious bias. Researchers are not immune to social processes that perpetuate stereotypes (Mahalingam & Rabelo, 2013), including devaluing and deskilling of people who experience international transitions (Woodend & Arthur, 2023). Given the diversity of international-born populations and changes in how the intersections of ethnicity, gender, SES and other identities may be viewed across country contexts, we (Woodend & Arthur, 2023) suggested additional considerations for qualitative research to navigate the ethical dilemma of whose voice is being represented, by whom.

Alase (2017) recommended that good IPA process include a reflection statement to help set the context of the interpretations made in the findings so that the reader can draw their own conclusions. Mjøsund et al. (2017) included an advisory team that consisted of members with similar life experiences as the phenomenon being explored, and who provided advice throughout the research process to further ground it in lived experiences. Smith et al. (2022) also noted that IPA can be used to support theoretical transferability, “The analyst should provide a rich, transparent and contextualized analysis of the accounts of the participants. This should enable readers to evaluate its transferability to persons in contexts which are more, or less, similar” (p. 45–46). In this way the interpretations are provided tentatively rather than as truth, grounded in the participants’ experiences, and open for evaluation of relevance.

Language Assumptions

A fourth contraindication to using IPA for exploring international career transitions is that the focus on language within the analysis and interpretation process carries some assumptions about participants’ holding the same language fluency as the language used by the researchers (Todorova, 2011). That is, researchers typically use semi-structured interviews, or language-based data collection, with the intent of collecting deep, reflective information (Larkin & Thompson, 2012). For example, many individuals who complete an international transition to Australia, Canada, UK or the USA (i.e., where most IPA studies take place) are from non-English speaking countries (Benton et al., 2021; OECD, 2020a), and therefore English fluency may be an important consideration in planning research. When non-fluent participants respond in English, it may be with some difficulty; for instance, choosing words they know in English versus words that more appropriately describe their experience (Smith, 2011a; Todorova, 2011). For researchers, when participants have difficulty communicating their authentic experience, this may create thinner descriptions and reflections regarding their experience, potentially resulting in superficial interpretations rather than rich in detail (Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Woodend & Arthur, 2023).

Although researchers can use language interpreters to help with communication, this interpretation creates additional ethical considerations (e.g., participants share their personal experience with more than the researcher; Pugh & Vetere, 2009). As well, the use of interpreters raises questions about the interpretations in the analysis process (Leck, 2014) as there are then three levels of interpretation in the IPA process (Love et al., 2020): (a) the participant’s original interpretation, (b) the interpreter’s interpretation of the participant’s experience through the participant’s interpretation, and (c) the researcher’s interpretation of the participant’s experience through the interpreter’s interpretation.

Important to note is that, although there is a focus on linguistic features and descriptive meaning making within the IPA analysis, researchers can also facilitate data richness in what Smith (2011b) deemed “diving for pearls” or “gems” (p. 1). This facilitation includes identifying particularly potent phrases or even utterances that help to highlight important meaning not just for the individual case, but across cases in understanding a particular experience (Clouston, 2019). In working with people who have lower English language ability, these gems would be one way to provide complexity in understanding their international career transition experiences.

Indirect Theory Creation

A fifth contraindication is that IPA does not directly produce a theory or model (Pringle et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2022). Theory generation is not the principal goal of an IPA study, and instead it is a more long-term objective once researchers have completed multiple studies with various populations regarding this experience (Eatough & Smith, 2017). Given that some researchers have critiqued existing career theories on their ability to make sense of the career transition experiences of individuals in the current world of work (e.g., Arthur & McMahon, 2019; Blustein et al., 2016), and the concerns raised about the under-representation of people with non-dominant identities (Flores, 2014; Pope, 2019), there is a need for stronger connections between theory, research, and practice. As such, if the researcher’s purpose for exploring international career transitions is to address this need, the IPA process will not be immediately helpful. Instead, using IPA would require substantial resources to conduct multiple studies, as well as time to then create a meta-analysis or meta-interpretation across studies to form a comprehensive theory (Smith, 2011a; Smith et al., 2022). Although the unique individual experience is useful in appreciating the context in which the experience arose for that person, it is not intended to be generalizable, and transferring ideas from one research contact to another requires further interpretation from researchers and practitioners (Pringle et al., 2011; Roberts, 2013).

Quality Assessment

A final contraindication of IPA is that the original articulation (i.e., Smith et al., 2009) has been critiqued as striving to meet standards and validation that echo those within the quantitative paradigm (Brocki & Wearden, 2006). Although Smith et al. advocated for flexibility in the analysis process, particularly when making higher level interpretations, there were efforts, reflective of the trends in the field at that time (Grypdonck, 2006), to balance criticisms from quantitative researchers regarding qualitative studies when discussing the rigour and validity of IPA studies. Specifically, Smith et al. sought to describe a systematic, step-by-step approach to IPA, particularly for guiding analysis, which may be counterintuitive to phenomenological and hermeneutic traditions (Moules et al., 2015; Shinebourne, 2011b). In the more recent and revised version, Smith et al. (2022) acknowledged that if researchers use quantitative standards to evaluate IPA research, then researchers will not find IPA to be as rigorous as quantitative approaches. As such, Smith et al. purposefully expanded the chapter around methodological rigour to include more qualitative standards, such as transparency through audit trails and Levitt et al. (2018)’s reporting criteria for qualitative research. Researchers working with participants who experienced an international career transition, are encouraged to consider whether this step-by-step approach, and revised ways of ensuring validity and rigour in the IPA process, align with the flexibility and fluidity needed to appreciate the diverse perspectives for appropriate conclusions (Kennedy & Chen, 2012; Sultana, 2022).

Summary

This discussion highlighted six key contraindications of the IPA process in research with participants who have experienced an international career transition. Specifically, the IPA process (a) may provide rich enough details to identify members of specific groups  or communities, (b) requires deep interpretations to comprehensively represent experiences, (c) muddies whose voice is represented in the interpretations, (d) may have assumptions about a shared language between researchers and participants, (e) requires long-term investigations to allow for theory creation, and (f) has historically relied on analysis validation and rigour that is less compatible with qualitative approaches. Taken together, researchers who select IPA would want to consider how they can protect the privacy of diverse international-born populations from specific cultural groups, evaluate their capacity to interpret diverse experiences while ensuring their voices are represented and not whitewashed, and think long-term about the logistics of setting up their research to support theory creation and advance conceptualization about international career transition experiences.