prepared to do the most sensitive and responsive job we can, given our inherent epistemological and methodological limitations (Larkin et al, 2006, p.108). Inattention to the social, political and cultural context Another common criticism of IPA which Kaptein (2011) makes reference to is that by focusing on the individual and the individuals experience, IPA ignores the social, political and structural perspective. However, Todorova (2011) argues that Todorova & (2006) work on infertility using Kotzeva’s IPA was able to offer: ... an analysis which is sensitive to the social and cultural local worlds and thus we maintain an acute awareness of the language and meanings surrounding infertility (Todorova, 2011, p.7). Smith (2011b) has responded to (2011) criticisms that the main Kaptein’s focus of IPA is on lived experience rather than social context. individuals’ However, Smith (2011b) discusses how an lived experience is a individual’s vital component of IPA simply stating a centring in individual lived ‘Without experience, there is not (Smith, 2011b, p.3) but also acknowledges IPA’ Clearly individuals do not live in hermetically sealed bubbles. Their experience takes place in a context and is influenced by the social, historical linguistic milieu into which they are thrown (Smith, 2011b, p.3) I believe that in my research I have acknowledged the current social, historical, political and educational context for my participants. I have explored previous and current literature and legislation into supporting children with SEBD and the historical and current difficulties key adults face within the educational profession. Indeed, Smith (2011b) identifies that after doing an IPA analysis it is the to relate it to researcher’s responsibility existing literature.
prepared to do the most sensitive and responsive job we can, given our inherent epistemological and methodological limitations (Larkin et al, 2006, p.108). Inattention to the social, political and cultural context Another common criticism of IPA which Kaptein (2011) makes reference to is that by focusing on the individual and the individuals experience, IPA ignores the social, political and structural perspective. However, Todorova (2011) argues that Todorova & Kotzeva’s (2006) work on infertility using IPA was able to offer: ... an analysis which is sensitive to the social and cultural local worlds and thus we maintain an acute awareness of the language and meanings surrounding infertility (Todorova, 2011, p.7). Smith (2011b) has responded to Kaptein’s (2011) criticisms that the main focus of IPA is on individuals’ lived experience rather than social context. However, Smith (2011b) discusses how an individual’s lived experience is a vital component of IPA simply stating ‘Without a centring in individual lived experience, there is not IPA’ (Smith, 2011b, p.3) but also acknowledges Clearly individuals do not live in hermetically sealed bubbles. Their experience takes place in a context and is influenced by the social, historical linguistic milieu into which they are thrown (Smith, 2011b, p.3) I believe that in my research I have acknowledged the current social, historical, political and educational context for my participants. I have explored previous and current literature and legislation into supporting children with SEBD and the historical and current difficulties key adults face within the educational profession. Indeed, Smith (2011b) identifies that after doing an IPA analysis it is the researcher’s responsibility to relate it to existing literature.