One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?

Braun, Virginia; Clarke, Victoria

Abstract

Developing a universal quality standard for thematic analysis (TA) is complicated by the existence of numerous iterations of TA that differ paradigmatically, philosophically and procedurally. This plurality in TA is often not recognised by editors, reviewers or authors, who promote ‘coding reliability measures’ as universal requirements of quality TA. Focusing particularly on our reflexive TA approach, we discuss quality in TA with reference to ten common problems we have identified in published TA research that cites or claims to follow our guidance. Many of the common problems are underpinned by an assumption of homogeneity in TA. We end by outlining guidelines for reviewers and editors–in the form of twenty critical questions–to support them in promoting high(er) standards in TA research, and more deliberative and reflexive engagement with TA as method and practice.

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Aug 12, 2020
• Online Publication Date: Aug 12, 2020
• Publication Date: Jan 1, 2020
• Deposit Date: Aug 24, 2020
• Publicly Available Date: Jan 2, 2021
• Journal: Qualitative Research in Psychology
• Print ISSN: 1478-0887
• Electronic ISSN: 1478-0895
• Publisher: Taylor & Francis (Routledge)
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 328-352
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
• Keywords: General psychology, codebook, coding frame, coding reliability, consensus coding, framework analysis, inter-rater reliability, qualitative paradigm, reflexivity, template analysis, theme
• Public URL: https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/6631950
• Additional Information: Peer Review Statement: The publishing and review policy for this title is described in its Aims & Scope.; Aim & Scope: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=uqrp20; Published: 2020-08-12