Denzin &and Lincoln (2018) explainsexplain that in reviewing the rigour of IPA, researchers should focus on the rigour of interpretation and co-construction'co-construction credibility. As researchers consider themselves experts with prior knowledge of an issue, embarking on a study to draw out the hidden interpretationinterpretations that sometimes, even the participants may not know, which is contained within their words, they must co-construct co-create meanings with participants in their studies. As (Lopez &Lopez and Willis 2004)(2004) confirm, the interpretations of meaning that researchers arrive at in IPA are a “blend” of the researchers'researchers’ interpretation based on their own presuppositions. The meaning participants ascribe to their experiences within the context of the study. St. Clair (2014, p. 55) explained that researchers need to go further than their presuppositions or “already held ‘knowledge’ of things” to gain an understanding of what ‘is’ or the new meaning.
In the studies reviewed, the researchers present the analysis in a descriptive format instead of interpreting observations and participants' experiences. The narrative should illustrate the researcher’sresearchers’ reflexivity to understand the meaning participants make of these experiences. Instead, the form of writing is direct reportage of what the women report. There was no evidence that the researcherresearchers tried to co-constructsco-construct meaning with the participants in interpreting their experiences. Instead, the researchers describe these experiences precisely as itthey happened, except for (Kwaleyela & Greatrex-White, 2019), who attempted to interpret.