Lecture 10: Developments in Thematic Analysis

Developments in Thematic Analysis

Overview

• Reflexive Thematic Analysis
• Beyond Thematic Analysis
  • Introduction to Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
  • Introduction to Discourse

Reflexive Thematic Analysis

Epistemology (theory of knowledge)

• Positivism
  • Human experience is knowable, universal, and objective.
  • Research is a form of investigation for the truth.
  • Direct correspondence between perception and things.
  • Knowledge is inert and impartial.
  • (Braun & Clarke, 2013)
• Contextualism
  • Sits in-between positivism and constructionism, akin to critical realism.
  • Contextualization of human acts.
  • No single reality.
  • Knowledge comes from contexts.
  • Provisional; interest in the truth, despite it being inaccessible, knowledge can be truthful.
  • (Braun & Clarke, 2013)
• Social Constructionism
  • Historically & culturally contextualized account.
  • Research as a form of investigation of an account.
  • Questions tacit, taken-for-granted knowledge.
  • Knowledge is (re)constructed through language.
  • Knowledge is active and has power.
  • (Burr, 2003)

Ontology (nature of being)

• A brief spectrum of ontological approaches (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 26)
  • Realism: A pre-social reality exists that we can access through research.
  • Critical Realism: A pre-social reality exists, but we can only ever partially know it.
  • Relativism: 'Reality' is dependent on the ways we come to know it.

Problematic use of TA (Braun & Clarke, 2019)

• Thematic Analysis was developed as a way to systematize a general approach to interpreting Qualitative data.
• Whilst there have been good examples of Thematic Analysis, there is also evidence of poor practice, characterized by:
  • A mashing of other approaches, i.e., grounded theory techniques.
  • Use of coding reliability measures.
  • Treating TA as one approach.
  • Confusing summaries of data domains or topics with fully realized themes.
  • Procedure is often prioritized over reflexive thought and decision-making.
    • E.g., how many codes should I have? Is my coding accurate? Are my themes right?
• Instead…move towards ‘reflexive Thematic Analysis’
  • Centrality of researcher subjectivity and reflexivity.
  • Focus on deliberate, and well-thought-out methodological decisions that allowed for exploration, rather than recipe-following

So, what is reflexive TA?

• Associated with reflexivity in Qualitative research
• Researcher as active, and embedded, in the results
• Reflecting on, and understanding your position as a researcher in relation to the topic of study
• Thinking about how you think about the object of investigation and understanding the impact you have on how the topic is investigated
• Methodologically, theoretically, and epistemologically and ontologically transparent
• Being embedded in the decision-making of the project, avoiding recipe-like approaches,
• Draws on informed judgment calls, rather than a recipe!

Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Then vs Now)

• Not ‘getting it’ (them) versus ‘getting it’ (us)
• There are several clusters of TA approaches each with different philosophical assumptions and procedural practices that reflect these assumptions (we call these coding reliability TA, codebook TA and reflexive TA).
• TA is theoretically flexible
• In specific iterations of TA, flexibility is more or less constrained by paradigmatic and epistemological assumptions around meaningful knowledge production; reflexive TA procedures reflect the values of a qualitative paradigm, centering researcher subjectivity, organic and recursive coding processes, and the importance of deep reflection on, and engagement with, data
• Themes are themes
• There are different conceptualizations of a theme – domain summaries versus patterns of shared meaning, underpinned by a central meaning-based concept.
• Searching for themes
• We now prefer the term ‘generating (initial) themes’ to emphasize that themes are not ‘in’ the data, pre-existing analysis, awaiting retrieval.

Big Q: Organic processes

• Reflexive TA can be otherwise conceptualized as a big Q or organic process of generating insight
• Big Q’ research: inductive methods used to explore meaning construction
• Focus on philosophy and procedure, rather than tools and techniques
• Researcher, understands, enacts, explains, and justifies methodological decisions
• “Quality reflexive TA is not about following procedures ‘correctly’ (or about ‘accurate’ and ‘reliable’ coding, or achieving consensus between coders), but about the researcher’s reflective and thoughtful engagement with their data and their reflexive and thoughtful engagement with the analytic process” (p. 594)

The Key Points

• Be clear about the reasons for methodological decisions & how these have been carried out in the research process
• Identify and understand your own positions as a researcher
  • What are your assumptions/interests/’biases’?
• Use TA in the way that suits your positionality as a researcher,
  • i.e., perhaps reflexive TA isn’t appropriate if you’re a positivist researcher
• Understand the quality criteria for (reflexive) TA

Beyond Thematic Analysis

Deciding what analysis to use?

• No ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – focus is on selecting the most appropriate method
• This should be a considered to be a holistic process
• Focus should be on selecting a method that helps answer the research question.
• There are some analytic techniques that afford flexibility and others which do not

Other qualitative analyses

• Conversational Analysis
  • Focus on how interactions are represented via talk and what action the talk represents in naturally occurring conversations (the process of interaction - how it is managed, constructed etc)
• Grounded Theory
  • Identification of a model/theory generated from the data (no preconceived ideas on what might be found)
• Content Analysis
  • Count frequency of pre-defined behavior

Common alternatives to Thematic Analysis

• Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
  • Attempting to understand participants’ experiences from their perspective (through themes which include descriptive, linguistic and conceptual comments)
• Discourse Analysis (DA)
  • Talk as social action – people convey their social position through their language and language itself is an interaction
• Both are subject to built-in theoretical positions, not theoretically flexible (different to Thematic Analysis)

Qualities of IPA

• IPA is a methodology in its own right and adheres to a set of philosophical assumptions, TA is flexible to researcher positionality
• IPA and TA both embrace researcher subjectivity, in IPA this is explained by the double hermeneutic
  • First hermeneutic: participant making sense of their experiences
  • Second hermeneutic: researcher making sense of the participants sense-making

Features of IPA

• In-built philosophical assumptions (phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical realism).
• Focus on personal experience and meaning-making. Data is looked at both thematically (across the data set) as well as ideographically (case-by-case basis).
• IPA assumes that language reflects, to some extent, people’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.
• Interviews are usually used in IPA projects as they allow exploration of personal accounting and sense-making.
• IPA tends to rely on small, homogenous (similar) samples to allow for in-depth exploration.
• IPA, whilst interested in personal social contexts, is not as focussed on broader social structures that act as a constructive force.

Differences between TA and IPA

Differences between TA and IPA processes

• Similarities in coding, but they tend to be more detailed and may draw on metaphor, psychological processes, and language use (i.e., pronouns)
• Similarities in thematic structure, but they tend to be more formalized, detailed, and individualized in IPA

When to use Reflexive TA instead of IPA?

1. When the research question is interested in exploring something other than personal experiences and meaning/sense-making
2. When data is not personal enough
3. If the sample is larger or heterogeneous (varied)
4. When there is a focus on themes across the data (no idiographic focus/approach)
5. Focus is on the individual social contexts, rather than broader social structures

Qualities of DA

• Associated with philosophical assumptions (e.g., social constructionism).
• DA tends to be heavily influenced by theory, and as such the process of analysis tends to be more conceptual and theory-driven.
• Language is considered to have a social function, that individuals are active in using to serve a social/performative function.
• DA has multiple iterations ranging from the specific focus on language use, to taking a broader approach where language is considered to represent broader social discourses.

Differences between TA and DA

When to use Reflexive TA instead of DA?

1. If the researcher is new to Qualitative methods
2. When wanting a less theory-dense approach
3. When the research question is not solely focussed on discourses, and particularly social constructionist approaches
4. When there is an interest in something other than the constructive power of language

The key points…

• There are similarities between reflexive Thematic Analysis and IPA and DA
• Reflexive Thematic Analysis may be well-positioned to answer similar questions to IPA or DA
• But…does this mean that we shouldn’t use IPA or DA…what are your thoughts on this?

Summary

• Reflexive Thematic Analysis
• Beyond Thematic Analysis
  • Introduction to Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
  • Introduction to Discourse Analysis