If you’re a qualitative researcher, you will be familiar with Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis (RTA). Originally outlined in their 2006 methodological paper “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, it is probably the most common ‘first foray’ into qualitative research for psychologists. Since 2006, Braun and Clarke have refined and reworked their 6-step method, producing papers, books, YouTube videos (from both Clarke and Braun) and an entire website dedicated to supporting the conduct of quality RTA.
Despite this clear and helpful guidance, we regularly come across a handful of common errors in the conduct and write-up of RTA studies here at PGPR.
1. Themes do not emerge!
If you’ve ever used the term “the themes that emerged…” or similar in your RTA study, you’re in good company – it’s an error so commonly commented on that it’s spawned its own meme.
Pin badge (now discontinued, sadly) designed by Dr Heidi R Green, “Science On A Postcard”
But why does this seemingly innocent phrase cause so much uproar in the RTA community? It comes down to its positivist implications: saying that the themes emerged, were identified, or even were found in the data, suggests that, if we look hard enough, we can find objective themes which truly exist, regardless of the researcher’s analytic process.
Themes, in an RTA sense, are not real – they are constructed through the analytic process. Braun and Clarke, true to form, say it best: “In reflexive TA, themes are generated, created or constructed (for example), they are not identified, found or discovered, and they definitely don’t just ‘emerge’ from data like a fully-grown Venus arising from the sea and arriving at the shore in Botticelli’s famous painting” (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Is this semantic pedantry? Some might argue that it is, but this edict has become the shibboleth by which seasoned RTAers recognise whether or not their students have familiarised themselves with Braun and Clarke beyond 2006!
2. So where do themes come from..?
They are developed! You won’t know what your themes will be until you’ve engaged in the analytic process, so none of this “we expect the themes to be…” nonsense in your introduction, please. Depending on your research aims and specific approach (inductive, deductive – RTA is delightfully flexible), you may have specific areas of the data you want to focus on, but try to also allow for unexpected insights. And definitely steer clear of topic summaries as theme names – a theme named “how patients use online patient portals” doesn’t tell an interpretative story (and probably doesn’t go much beyond the initially stated research aim). But theme names such as “taking ownership of my healthcare” communicates a core message – a message that cannot be conceptualized prior to analysis.
To put it simply: themes come from a combination of the data, the analytic process, the sociocultural context in which the data was collected and analysed, and the specific context that you, as the analyst, bring to the analytic process. If, for example, Johanna and I were to analyse the same set of transcripts, we would very likely construct a different set of themes. If we were to analyse the data together, a third distinct set of themes would probably be developed. And that is because…
3. You are a tool of the analytic process
…not a contaminant to be contained. Again, this comes down to a question of philosophical frameworks – RTA is not constructed on a bedrock of positivist paradigms.
Photo by Lachlan Donald on Unsplash
Unlike in much quantitative research, the aim of RTA is not to control for or eliminate researcher bias – the reflexive aspect of RTA acknowledges that the researcher plays an active role in developing themes. As the analyst, your position, context, and yes, bias, bring something unique to the analytic process – so own it, don’t deny it. Engage reflexively throughout the analytic process to explain how and why you developed the themes as you did. This can be done as a group process, with multiple coders or analysts, but not in an effort to “control for bias”. Inter-rater reliability has no place here.
4. Leave the concept of saturation to the grounded theorists
In a similar vein to “inter-rater reliability”, we all too often read references to saturation in RTA studies. I wonder if this is in an effort to appease positivist editors or supervisors, or a desperate bid to cling to something concrete to guide sample sizes. You might be showing your positivist hand if you insist that “interviews will be conducted until data saturation is reached”. The concept of saturation is that there comes a point after which “no new information” is produced by further interviews (or focus groups, or whatever mode of data collection is being undertaken). This makes sense in a grounded theory study, where the analyst is interested in finding the solution to a specific problem and will use theoretical sampling to simultaneously collect data as they analyse, thus allowing them to narrow down further and further towards an understanding of their new theory.
However, in RTA, Braun and Clarke have been pretty clear on the topic: “…when it comes to reflexive TA, data saturation is not a particularly useful, or indeed theoretically coherent, concept” (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The more data you collect, the more possibilities for interpretation arise – the themes you develop after 10 interviews may look very different from the themes you might have developed if you conducted 20 interviews. You’ll just have to make a pragmatic, interpretative judgement (and possibly be guided by Braun & Clarke’s Thematic Analysis FAQ). Try to be comfortable with the uncertainty.
5. There isn’t just one approach to Thematic Analysis
…although you’d be forgiven for thinking so. Braun and Clarke’s 2006 methodological paper “Using thematic analysis in psychology” has several hundred thousand citations now, and their approach is used across a broad range of disciplines. However, theirs is not the only way, even if it is my favourite – clearly, I’m not alone in this! There are other modes of thematic analysis, some of which have more neo-positivist roots. Thematic analysis’ multiplicity is part of the reason why, post-2006, Braun and Clarke chose to differentiate by naming their method reflexive thematic analysis.
If you are undertaking an RTA study, be explicit about this by naming it as such – and try to cite sources beyond that 2006 paper, to demonstrate your reflexive chops. And don’t forget: be reflexive!
If you want help ensuring that your RTA is working as well as it can, just get in touch with us via the box below. We’ll be happy to help.
