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.

Keywords

ReflexivityThematic analysisCITESQuality (philosophy)PsychologyCoding (social sciences)EpistemologySociologyQualitative researchSocial sciencePhilosophy

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

A Tool for Reviewers

Georges Bordage , Addeane S. Caelleigh

Peer review lies at the core of science and academic life. In one of its most pervasive forms, peer review for the scientific literature is the main mechanism that research jour...

2001 Academic Medicine 27 citations

Publication Info

Year
2020
Type
article
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
328-352
Citations
6603
Access
Closed

External Links

Download PDF (Free) View on DOI.org Semantic Scholar

Social Impact

Altmetric
PlumX Metrics

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

6603
OpenAlex
222
Influential

Cite This

Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 18 (3) , 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Identifiers

DOI
10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Data Quality

Data completeness: 77%