One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?¶
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative Research in Psychology.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Overcoding
- The irony that makes overcoding a genuine failure mode rather than a naive mistake is that qualitative-research culture routinely reinforces it: supervisors, reviewers, and audit expectations push toward more codes as the default marker of analytic rigour (systematic, granular, auditable) — so the very practices that signal trustworthiness to external reviewers can be the practices that destroy the phenomenon's structure
This sourceCritique of thematic-analysis quality standards reporting that editors, reviewers and authors promote coding-reliability measures as universal quality requirements rather than recognising the plurality of TA.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“This plurality in TA is often not recognised by editors, reviewers or authors, who promote ‘coding reliability measures’ as universal requirements of quality TA.”
- The irony that makes overcoding a genuine failure mode rather than a naive mistake is that qualitative-research culture routinely reinforces it: supervisors, reviewers, and audit expectations push toward more codes as the default marker of analytic rigour (systematic, granular, auditable) — so the very practices that signal trustworthiness to external reviewers can be the practices that destroy the phenomenon's structure
- Thematic Analysis
- Braun and Clarke's 2019 revision distinguishes three variants with different epistemological and procedural commitments — codebook thematic analysis (aiming at coding consistency across researchers, closer to content analysis), coding-reliability thematic analysis (emphasising inter-rater agreement metrics, common in health research), and reflexive thematic analysis (foregrounding the analyst's interpretive agency as constitutive of the themes rather than as a source of bias to be controlled) — making explicit a plurality of practices that had previously been conflated under the same methodological label
This sourcePaper documenting the plurality of thematic-analysis iterations that differ paradigmatically, philosophically and procedurally, and challenging the promotion of coding-reliability measures to universal quality requirements.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“numerous iterations of TA that differ paradigmatically, philosophically and procedurally”
- Braun and Clarke's 2019 revision distinguishes three variants with different epistemological and procedural commitments — codebook thematic analysis (aiming at coding consistency across researchers, closer to content analysis), coding-reliability thematic analysis (emphasising inter-rater agreement metrics, common in health research), and reflexive thematic analysis (foregrounding the analyst's interpretive agency as constitutive of the themes rather than as a source of bias to be controlled) — making explicit a plurality of practices that had previously been conflated under the same methodological label
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:40ce0f0fb26a · see in the full table