Braun and Clarke Thematic Analysis | Frequently asked questions about paradigms, reflexivity, going deeper and theory
Here are some common questions I’ve been asked about Braun and Clarke’s six stage thematic analysis:
What research paradigm does it fit within?
What does reflexive thematic analysis mean?
How can I go deeper in my analysis, I’ve been told its descriptive and superficial?
Where does theory come into it?
Keep reading because I’m going to answer all of those questions!
This is the second in a two part blogpost series about Braun and Clarke’s approach. In the first blogpost, I walked you through how to do it using an example project so if you haven’t already read that and need a step-by-step guide, go take a look by clicking here!
If we’ve not met before, hi, I’m Dr Elizabeth Yardley and I’ve spent the last 20 years supporting graduate students through their social science dissertations. In that time, I’ve supervised literally hundreds of students who’ve done thematic analysis and there are some very common questions they ask me.
Before we get onto that though, let’s have a quick recap on thematic analysis.
Quick recap
Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis is a flexible approach used to identify, analyse, and interpret patterns or themes within qualitative data.
It's all about generating deeper meanings and connections within your data to gain insights into your topic.
I go into way more depth on that in the previous blogpost, so check it out if you want more info.
Now, let’s get onto the questions!
What research paradigm does Braun and Clarke’s approach fit into?
Okay, first up, research paradigms. Where do Braun and Clarke sit?
Let’s situate them within the broader landscape of research philosophy.
If you’re using their approach, you’re going to have to write about this. Why? Well, to demonstrate your understanding of it and make a compelling argument as to why this technique is the best one for you to use.
Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis is one that, in my humble opinion, sits very much within the interpretivist paradigm.
I’m going to give you some more details about that shortly but if you want a more in-depth blogpost about it, check out this one I did as part of my paradigms series recently.
Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis (TA) is like putting on a pair of researcher glasses that help us see beyond the surface of our data. Instead of just describing what we see, we dig deeper, asking questions and reflect on what it all means.
This method fits well within the world of interpretivism, a research philosophy that focuses on understanding people's experiences and perspectives.
It's all about recognising that reality is subjective and that our interpretations of the world are shaped by our personal experiences and beliefs. There isn’t a hard, concrete objective reality that just exists regardless of whether we’re there or not, reality is something we construct on a daily basis as we go about our lives in the social world. Through our interactions with each other, we create the social world.
Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis is flexible enough to adapt to different research situations within the interpretivist paradigm, but it's not a one-size-fits-all approach that translates well outside of that. If you're looking for something more numbers-driven and objective, you might want to explore other methods like Boyatzis' thematic analysis.
What does reflexive thematic analysis mean?
Braun and Clarke call their approach "reflexive" because it's all about researchers being self-aware and thoughtful throughout the analysis process.
This means acknowledging our own biases and preconceptions and considering how they might influence our interpretations of the data.
As social science researchers, we're not just neutral observers – we bring our own perspectives and experiences to the table. So, when we're analysing data, it's essential to reflect on how our values and beliefs influence our interpretations. It's like being aware of the lens through which we view the world.
For instance, let's say you're analysing a participant's account of anxiety struggles. Reflexive thematic analysis prompts you to consider how your own experiences with anxiety might influence your interpretation. Perhaps you recognise parallels between their story and your own, prompting deeper empathy and understanding. Moreover, when exploring themes like coping mechanisms, your personal coping strategies could inadvertently shape your analysis. If you've found solace in mindfulness practices, you might be more attuned to mentions of mindfulness in the data, potentially overlooking other coping strategies. So your experiences will make you over-focus on particular things, so being aware of that can help you open up to other things.
In essence, reflexive thematic analysis acknowledges that as researchers, our subjectivity inevitably seeps into our analysis. By recognising our own participation in the process, we can approach the data with humility and self-awareness, enriching the depth and authenticity of our insights.
How can I go deeper? My analysis is too superficial!
A lot of initial feedback people get on thematic analysis from supervisors and mentors includes, “It’s a bit superficial”, “You’re just lumping things together”, “You’re categorising rather than delving into the underlying meaning or connections”, “That’s not a theme, it’s a summary”. That stings.
How do you make sure you’re digging deep and not just summarising or scratching the surface?
We need an example here!
Example - Workplace satisfaction study
Imagine a researcher conducting interviews on workplace satisfaction. They identify several broad themes such as "work-life balance," "team dynamics," and "career advancement."
Here are the differences between surface level analysis and deep analysis for those themes:
Work-Life Balance
Surface-level: The researcher may note that participants mentioned struggling to manage their work and personal lives effectively. They might list common challenges such as long working hours, conflicting priorities, and difficulty disconnecting from work.
Deep analysis: Upon closer examination, the researcher might uncover underlying factors contributing to the work-life balance struggles, such as organizational culture, managerial expectations, and societal norms. For instance, they may find that employees feel pressured to work overtime due to a culture that values productivity over well-being. Additionally, they might identify a correlation between poor work-life balance and decreased job satisfaction, leading to higher turnover rates and decreased productivity.
Team Dynamics
Surface-level: The researcher may document instances of conflict or lack of communication among team members. They might highlight specific incidents or issues reported by participants during the interviews.
Deep analysis: Through further analysis, the researcher might uncover broader patterns within team dynamics, such as power dynamics, trust levels, and organizational structures. For example, they may find that hierarchical structures inhibit open communication and collaboration among team members, leading to feelings of resentment and disengagement. Additionally, they might identify the role of leadership styles in shaping team dynamics, with autocratic leaders stifling creativity and innovation, while participative leaders foster a culture of trust and collaboration.
Career Advancement
Surface-level: In the theme of "career advancement," the researcher may note participants' desires for promotions, salary increases, or opportunities for skill development. They might catalog common goals and aspirations expressed by interviewees.
Deeper analysis: Upon closer examination, the researcher might uncover systemic barriers to career advancement, such as gender bias, lack of diversity initiatives, or limited access to professional development resources. For instance, they may find that women and minorities face glass ceilings or implicit biases that hinder their progression within the organization. Additionally, they might identify a correlation between perceived opportunities for career advancement and overall job satisfaction, with employees feeling more engaged and motivated when they see a clear path for growth within the company.
So, can you see that by exploring these deeper implications and interrelationships within each theme, the researcher can provide a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of workplace satisfaction, capturing the intricate narratives and experiences of the participants in a meaningful way?
Where does theory come into thematic analysis?
Thematic analysis is not a-theoretical, as a lot of people seem to say it is! Rather, it is designed for you, the researcher, to weave your own theoretical threads into the analysis.
Braun and Clarke talked about this in a recent interview.
They made it clear that their approach isn't theory-free, contrary to popular belief. Instead, theory can be the backbone of their method, providing a solid foundation for analysis.
They urged researchers to be aware of and close to the theory that resonates with them and to integrate it into their analytical process.
In essence, Braun and Clarke encouraged researchers to embrace theory as a guiding force in thematic analysis, enriching their interpretations and insights along the way.
How would this work in practice? Let’s take a look at a couple of examples.
Theory in Thematic Analysis: Example 1
In a thematic analysis of work-life balance using a Marxist theoretical framework, you might interpret the data through the lens of class struggle and economic relations in the workplace.
For instance, instead of merely identifying themes like "flexible work hours" or "job satisfaction," you would delve deeper into the power dynamics between workers and employers, exploring how capitalist structures influence perceptions and experiences of work-life balance.
An example of this deeper analysis could involve examining how themes like "overtime expectations" or "unpaid labour" reflect broader Marxist concepts such as exploitation and alienation. You might uncover narratives of workers feeling compelled to sacrifice personal time for the sake of job security or financial stability, revealing the systemic inequalities inherent in capitalist societies.
By grounding your thematic analysis in Marxism, you move beyond surface-level observations to uncover the underlying social, economic, and political forces shaping work-life balance. This theoretical framework allows for a more nuanced understanding of participants' experiences, highlighting the intersecting influences of class, labour relations, and capitalist ideology on work-life dynamics.
Theory in Thematic Analysis: Example 2
The same study, from a radical feminist perspective might you would scrutinise the data through the lens of gender inequality and patriarchal structures in the workplace. Rather than simply identifying themes like "career advancement" or "parental leave policies," you would explore the deeper implications of gender norms and power dynamics.
For instance, themes such as "double burden" or "gendered division of labor" would be examined within the context of feminist theories on oppression and liberation. You might uncover narratives of women struggling to balance caregiving responsibilities with professional aspirations, shedding light on the systemic barriers and discrimination they face in the workplace.
An example of this deeper analysis could involve interrogating themes like "microaggressions" or "glass ceiling effects" through a feminist lens, revealing how ingrained sexism perpetuates inequalities and limits women's opportunities for advancement. By centering your thematic analysis on radical feminist perspectives, you gain insight into the complex interplay of gender, power, and social norms in shaping work-life dynamics.
This theoretical framework empowers you to move beyond surface-level observations and illuminate the pervasive influence of gendered structures on participants' experiences. It underscores the importance of challenging patriarchal norms and advocating for gender equity in both professional and personal spheres.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis offers a robust framework for researchers seeking to delve deep into qualitative data and uncover rich insights. Through this two-part series, we've explored the foundations of their approach, delving into questions about research paradigms, reflexivity, depth of analysis, and the role of theory. By situating thematic analysis within the interpretivist paradigm, embracing reflexivity, striving for depth in analysis, and integrating theoretical perspectives, researchers can navigate the complexities of qualitative inquiry with clarity and rigor.
Need more help with your thematic analysis?
Then check out my 43-page PDF guide!
It comes with six PDF planners!
Go from feeling overwhelmed and stuck with your thematic analysis, going around in circles, to confidently coding and thrashing out themes like a pro!
Click here to learn more!