Towards a coherent Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) practice: epistemic clarification and methodological guidance for social sciences and allied disciplines research

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) has expanded rapidly across the social sciences, yet its philosophical foundations and methodological requirements are increasingly inconsistently enacted. This paper examines these challenges by analysing how IPA’s core commitments are described and operationalised in published studies, with the aim of clarifying recurrent epistemic and methodological misunderstandings. Using a Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) integrated with reflexive practitioner commentary, the study purposively identified and iteratively analysed IPA papers to develop synthetic constructs that illuminate patterned forms of conceptual drift. The analysis reveals six recurring slippages: reliance on undifferentiated or vague appeals to phenomenology; sampling practices that weaken idiographic depth; displacement of first-person authority through proxy or indirect accounts; theory-laden interviewing that constrains emergent meaning; surface-level or outsourced analytic procedures misaligned with hermeneutic interpretation; and limited transparency in multi-authored designs. Together, these patterns reflect deeper tensions between IPA’s interpretive ontology and procedural expectations shaped by broader qualitative conventions. The paper argues that strengthening IPA practice requires renewed attention to philosophical coherence, idiographic discipline, and reflexive accountability. It concludes by offering a principle-based, narrative framework that supports researchers in aligning design, data collection, and analysis with IPA’s interpretive commitments.Impact Statement This study strengthens the quality and credibility of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) by clearly identifying where researchers commonly drift from IPA’s philosophical foundations and offering practical guidance to address these issues. By analysing published IPA studies, the paper highlights six recurring problems—such as vague use of phenomenology, weak sampling logic, reliance on proxy accounts, theory driven interviews, surface level analysis, and limited transparency in multi authored work. These insights matter because they help researchers, supervisors, and reviewers better align IPA studies with its core interpretive commitments. Ultimately, the study supports more rigorous, coherent, and ethically grounded IPA research, improving how lived experience is understood and represented in the social sciences.