Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Making the best and avoiding the worst of thematic analysis
Virginia Braun1, Viktoria Clarke2
1Professor/Ahorangi, School of Psychology/Te Kura Mātai Hinengaro, Waipapa Taumata Rau, The University of Auckland; 2Associate Professor in Qualitative and Critical Psychology, University of the West of England
This talk will explore problematic practices in reflexive thematic analysis (TA) – based on our reviews of published TA research across 7 health-related journals – and highlight examples of good practice. In this exploration, we emphasise the concepts and practices of methodological congruence, reflexive openness and being a knowing researcher. Methodological congruence – also known as methodological coherence, methodological integrity and paradigmatic congruence – captures the way different parts of a research project fit together to form a coherent and harmonious whole. This means our research questions, philosophical assumptions, understanding of researcher subjectivity, treatment of data and quality practices are all in conceptual alignment. Reflexive openness – more widely known as transparency – highlights the importance of qualitative researchers offering a transparent and comprehensive account of their research practice. For some, this can entail revealing some of the 'mess' and 'behind the scenes' of the research process rather than offering a seamless and polished account of the research. Both methodological congruence and reflexive openness are facilitated by researchers who recognise the importance of, and strive to become, what we call knowing practitioners – which includes having a sound understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of their research, being deliberative and reflexive in their choices, and being able to communicate these to others. We end by briefly highlighting two quality tools – the RTARG and the BQQRG – that we have developed to support researchers in conducting methodologically congruent and reflexively open reflexive TA.
