Qualitative Research in Psychology· 2020Q1
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
- 8,571citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2020year
Short summary
Developing a universal quality standard for thematic analysis (TA) is complicated by its many different versions, yet editors and reviewers often wrongly demand 'coding reliability measures' as a universal requirement.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Thematic analysis (TA) has numerous paradigmatic, philosophical, and procedural variations.
- Editors and reviewers often incorrectly promote 'coding reliability measures' as universal quality standards for TA.
- This assumption of homogeneity overlooks the specific needs of different TA approaches, like reflexive TA.
- Guidelines with 20 critical questions are offered to improve TA research quality and reviewer/editor engagement.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
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.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2020 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Language and Linguistics
Language and LinguisticsArts and Humanities