1/ I'm just a thematic analysis author standing in front of a qualitative researcher and asking them to bloody read Braun & Clarke 2006 before citing it...
Honestly the things people claim @ginnybraun and I say that we don't. A short thread of some prize winners...
Honestly the things people claim @ginnybraun and I say that we don't. A short thread of some prize winners...
2/ A read a few weeks ago that apparently we don't provide a "plan" for analysis in Braun & Clarke 2006 - the author presented this as a justification for using grounded theory coding techniques to do TA... A) The paper is literally setting out a "plan"; B) We are expressly
3/ critical in that paper of the practice of using GT techniques for TA.
We also don't say saturation can be achieved in 12 interviews - and yet papers have got passed peer review claiming that.
There are no codebooks or coding frames in reflexive TA and yet numerous authors...
We also don't say saturation can be achieved in 12 interviews - and yet papers have got passed peer review claiming that.
There are no codebooks or coding frames in reflexive TA and yet numerous authors...
4/ claiming to "follow Braun and Clarke"... describe the use of codebooks or coding frames...
And/or measuring intercoder agreement... consensus coding...
My main point here is that TA is a diverse family of methods not one uniform approach - there are no "standardised thematic
And/or measuring intercoder agreement... consensus coding...
My main point here is that TA is a diverse family of methods not one uniform approach - there are no "standardised thematic
5/ analysis procedures" as many claim. If you're citing both Braun and Clarke & - for eg - Boyatzis our approaches are very different! And the differences aren't trivial. Different procedures reflect & enact different underlying research values. Across the TA family, there are...
6/ different conceptualisations of themes, some move from themes - coding, others including reflexive TA, coding - themes. To use Linda Finlay's fab distinction - some are more "scientifically descriptive", others more "artfully interpretative": ejqrp.org/index.php/ejqr…
7/ So if you're reviewing a TA manuscript with no TA sources cited don't ask authors just to bung in a citation to B&C 2006 - you need to support authors to become knowing practitioners of TA. And we're here to help! We've written about common problems: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
8/ many of which hinge on folks not appreciating the diversity within TA. That paper also includes a list of questions for reviewers to reflect on when reviewing TA manuscripts. I would also encourage reviewers to check out our discussion of the diversity within TA in our new bk
9/ I think it's Chapter 8 in which we provide our most detailed discussion to date - discussed in lots of other publications more briefly: uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/them…
10/ I totally get that this diversity in TA is poorly understood & confusing & that's where lots of problems stem from. But wildly misrepresenting what authors do/don't say is not OK and shouldn't be getting past peer review.
I have to say I'm disappointed at the lack of Notting Hill gifs in the comments!!!! 😀
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
