The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 25 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher
Open accessAbstract
This article discusses good practice in thematic analysis and common problems researchers should avoid when conducting and reporting thematic analysis.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This commentary reviews 20 thematic analysis (TA) papers published in the *International Journal of Transgender Health* that cite the authors' own TA work, and distils guidance for producing methodologically coherent TA. It argues that good TA practice requires researchers to understand which approach within the TA "family" they are using, to align procedures with underlying research values, and to treat themes as meaning-based interpretive stories rather than topic summaries.
Key findings
- The reviewed papers mostly reported qualitative studies (the remainder mixed methods), typically using interviews, focus groups or qualitative surveys, and mostly took an experiential orientation focused on transgender people's lived experience, underpinned by realist or critical realist ontology; a minority used TA within a critical orientation.
- Three recurring problems are identified: unacknowledged diversity within TA (some papers referred to a "standardised TA"), confusion between themes-as-meaning-unified-interpretive-stories and themes-as-topic-summaries, and incomplete ownership of the researcher's perspective.
- Methodological "mash-ups" were common — e.g. combining reflexive TA with consensus coding, intercoder agreement, codebook development, or positivist notions of researcher bias alongside Big Q reflexivity — usually without justification.
- Two papers are singled out as good practice examples: Fraser et al. (2021), which reported two meaning-based themes ("proving gender" and "the trans narrative"), and Frohard-Dourlent et al. (2020), which reported three themes and seven sub-themes on surgical readiness assessments and gave a clear thematic structure table plus an account of the analytic process.
Methods
- Commentary based on the authors' critical review of 20 papers published in IJTH that cite their work, most commonly Braun and Clarke (2006), with most authors claiming to have "followed" their approach and a minority citing it while using other approaches.
- The authors situate TA as a family of methods, using a typology of coding reliability, codebook, reflexive TA and thematic coding, and drawing on the small q/Big Q qualitative distinction (Kidder & Fine, 1987; Finlay, 2021) to analyse coherence between procedures and research values.
- The commentary closes with ten recommendations for researchers and reviewers rather than presenting new empirical data.
Limitations
- The authors state they deliberately do not list the reviewed papers, to avoid "naming and shaming," and reference examples of poor practice only in general terms (Note 1).
- The authors note that they do identify by name two papers exemplifying good practice, so the review is illustrative rather than a systematic or exhaustive sample.
- Evident from the text: the review covers only 20 papers from a single journal, and the authors are commenting on use of their own approach, so the snapshot is field- and method-specific rather than generalisable.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
15 No full text of the sources · 12 Own interpretation · 7 Own result · 7 No basis given · 2 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Codebook approaches to TA-such as framework (Gale et al., 2013) or template (King & Brooks, 2018) analysis-combine some of the more structured procedures of coding reliability TA 3 with some of the qualitative research values of reflexive TA.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gale et al., 2013 source
Gale et al. describe the Framework Method as combining structured coding with flexibility and reflexive qualitative analysis. Stages 3–5 describe independent coding, an agreed set of codes, and systematic application of the framework; the Background calls for critical reflection and reflexive notes. The citation supports framework analysis as the example in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites King & Brooks, 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most exemplified an experiential orientation to qualitative research, with a focus on the lived experience and perspectives of transgender folx (and some interest in the views of others, such of parents of transgender adolescents), or the factors that influence and contextualize certain behaviors and choices, underpinned by a realist or critical realist ontology.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We were heartened that some researchers in the field of transgender health are also using TA to interrogate the social construction of meaning within a critical orientation to qualitative research”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were several examples in the papers we reviewed of researchers using Big Q reflexive TA approach and procedures, with conceptually incoherent additions, such as small q consensus coding and measuring intercoder agreement, or adding a codebook development/recoding the data phase, or referencing both positivist notions of researcher bias and Big Q notions of reflexivity, or expressing concern”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
In the paper
“However, reflexivity rarely extended beyond this more personal framing (Wilkinson, 1988).”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wilkinson, 1988 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But these conceptualisations often don't map onto what happens in practice.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
In the paper
“Big Q researchers typically conceptualize mind-dependent truths, rather than a mind-independent truth (Tebes, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tebes, 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we don't think it fulfils all of the requirements of a methodology because it doesn't inherently provide researchers with a theoretically-informed framework for research.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Notes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Unlike methodologies such as grounded theory or discourse analysis, TA offers few directives around philosophical and theoretical positioning, appropriate research questions, data collection methods, or the size or constitution of the participant group/dataset (see Braun & Clarke, 2022a).”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Notes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2022a source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“whether saturation is a meaningful concept for reflexive TA (TL; DR no it isn't!; Braun & Clarke, 2021b)”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Everything changes…
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Braun & Clarke, 2021b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Frohard-Dourlent et al. (2020) explored experiences of surgical readiness assessments in Canada and reported three themes and seven sub-themes”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Frohard-Dourlent et al., 2020 source
The Abstract and Results report a thematic analysis of interviews about surgical readiness assessments in British Columbia, Canada, and identify three main themes. The Results organize the discussion under seven sub-themes: three concerning gatekeeping, two concerning barriers to care, and two concerning assessments as useful. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Researchers cannot coherently be both a descriptive scientist and an interpretative artist (Finlay, 2021).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Finlay, 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed copy’s Abstract says thematic analysis can be systematic or intuitive and lists both rigour and resonance as evaluation criteria. It does not address whether a researcher can coherently be both a descriptive scientist and an interpretative artist; searches for that phrase and for scientific–artistic incompatibility found no decisive passage. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most papers reported qualitative studies-with the rest mixed-method designs-typically based on interview, focus group or qualitative survey data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
In the paper
“Frohard-Dourlent et al. also provide an example of a clear overview of the thematic structure (in the form of a table), and a brief but effective account of the authors' analytic process and engagement with reflexive TA, both important elements of a high-quality TA report (Braun & Clarke, 2022b).”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2022b source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The papers we reviewed exemplified both good and bad practice with regard to researchers striving to own their perspective.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both problems-positivism creep, and the use of topic summary themes in reflexive TA-were evident in the papers we reviewed.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All included some kind of statement of the researchers' personal positioning and/or professional experience with regard to gender identity, which is particularly important when researching socially minoritized groups and when researchers may be more socially powerful and privileged outsiders.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
In the paper
“One paper justified the use of grounded theory coding techniques to do TA on the grounds that Braun and Clarke (2006) don't provide a plan for doing TA.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Notes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2006 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the reviewed papers provided clear examples of themes as meaning-based interpretative stories.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessment were also conversely experienced as positive by some, with participants feeling supported by the assessor and prepared for the next steps.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similar to experiences reported by Fraser et al., participants often experienced the assessment process as aversive gatekeeping, with health professionals having the power to deny access to care, and compel conformity to an archetypal and outdated binary trans narrative.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TA was occasionally described as a methodology in the papers reviewed”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Notes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessments were experienced as difficult to access because of opaqueness, bureaucracy and a lack of socio-economic privilege.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
In the paper
“Our approach, which we now call reflexive TA to acknowledge the plurality of TA and better distinguish it from other approaches (see Braun & Clarke, 2019), is an example of a Big Q or non-positivist qualitative approach”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“we have developed a typology of similar approaches, which we designate coding reliability, codebook and reflexive TA, and thematic coding”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2022b source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“it was more common before TA was widely recognized as a distinct method.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Flick, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rivas, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, thematic coding involves the use of grounding theory coding procedures to develop themes from data.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Reflexive TA approaches embrace researcher subjectivity as a resource for research (rejecting positivist notions of researcher bias, see Varpio et al., 2021), view the practice of TA as inherently subjective, emphasize researcher reflexivity, and reject the notion that coding can ever be accurate-as it is an inherently interpretative practice, and meaning is not fixed within data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Varpio et al., 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our thinking around TA has evolved since 2006, including now using the specific name reflexive TA (Braun & Clarke, 2019).”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Everything changes…
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Topic summaries as themes are common in coding reliability and some codebook TA, and thematic coding; themes in reflexive, and some codebook, TA are conceptualized as meaning-based, interpretative stories.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key to selecting methodologically coherent quality standards and tools is knowing practice-reasoning through the assumptions embedded in particular concepts and practices.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The practice requires depth of engagement, thinking creatively and reflexively about the data, an intensive and organic coding process designed to parse out different facets of data meaning, and to help the researcher move beyond the most obvious or superficial meanings in the data.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We originally stated that reflexive TA could be underpinned by (simple) realism (Braun & Clarke, 2006), but we now think the Big Q research values of reflexive TA make a simple or naive realist reflexive TA a tricky proposition.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2006 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Tracy (2010) highlighted the concept of member reflections as a Big Q alternative to member checking, which is not about verification, or accessing truth or reality.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tracy, 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, themes as interpretative stories built around uniting meaning cannot be developed in advance of analysis.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The procedures we and other TA methodologists have developed are thought-through manifestations of underlying research values”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We say closer to because the procedures and conceptualisations of key concepts associated with different iterations of TA reflect particular underlying paradigmatic assumptions or research values.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Notes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Luckily, qualitative methodologists have already done a lot of the heavy lifting here (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2021b;Smith & McGannon, 2018;Varpio et al., 2017Varpio et al., , 2021)), presenting thoughtful considerations of what's assumed and at stake in various supposedly universal criteria.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reflexive TA is premised on the researcher always shaping their research; it will always be infused with their subjectivity, and they are never a neutral conduit, simply conveying a directly-accessed truth of participants' experience.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simply put, topic summaries make no conceptual sense in reflexive TA, and the procedures have been designed to support the development of deep understanding and the telling of interpretative stories about meanings (sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle) that cut across a dataset and capture an important aspect of whatever you are trying to understand!”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This practice in theory controls for or corrects any subjective bias-misinterpretation, misemphasis-of the researcher (Smith & McGannon, 2018).”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith & McGannon, 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because TA is better understood as closer to a method than a methodology, and because of its theoretical flexibility, it's vital that researchers locate their use of TA theoretically”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Given that the purpose of our 2006 paper was precisely to do that, and it was the first place we outlined a clear six-phase approach to reflexive TA-and critiqued the use of grounded theory techniques to do TA”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Notes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2006 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the use of member checking is infused with assumptions about reality and knowledge production that sit (conceptually) uncomfortably with reflexive TA-including that there is a truth of participants' experiences that we can access if we can keep the potentially distorting effects of researcher influence in check (see Smith & McGannon, 2018).”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith & McGannon, 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TA cannot be conducted in a theoretical vacuum-researchers inescapably bring in assumptions about the nature of reality, about what constitutes meaningful knowledge and knowledge production, and what their data represent or give them access to, even if these are not discussed.”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > (Not) owning one's perspective
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They contain diversity, but they have a central idea that unifies the diversity”
§ Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing > Telling meaning-united stories or summarizing topics?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 20 papers reviewed are a sufficient and valid basis for identifying common problems in TA research published in IJTH.
“This commentary is based on a review of 20 papers published in IJTH citing our work”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Unthinking compliance with the RTARG will not necessarily improve reporting quality, because knowing practice is key.”
From Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine : A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG) (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Coding complex domains such as personal strength or relating to others involves a degree of researcher subjectivity, as these categories are not fixed entities but are instead co-constructed through the interaction between the participant’s narrative and the researcher’s interpretive lens [53].”
From The coexistence and trajectories of posttraumatic growth and depreciation: a 36-month longitudinal qualitative narrative analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [53]
In the citing paper
“We recognize that this composition concentrated our analytic gaze and that our shared identity as health professions education scholars predisposed us to read the data through a competency and curriculum lens. We treated these orientations as interpretive resources rather than biases to be eliminated [16], discussing them explicitly during analytic meetings to question candidate themes.”
From Role-Differentiated AI Competencies and Curriculum Implications for Health Professions Education: Qualitative Study (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“Sample size was determined through iterative monitoring of analytic stabilization—sometimes termed data saturation, though we use this term cautiously given the constructivist orientation of reflexive thematic analysis [16]—rather than a prespecified target.”
From Role-Differentiated AI Competencies and Curriculum Implications for Health Professions Education: Qualitative Study (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Self-citationReflecting on reflexive thematic analysis
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019) · Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health · doi:10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806 · Cited by 19,677
Self-citationGale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 · Cited by 10,865
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 · Cited by 9,727
Self-citationQualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research
Tracy, S. J. (2010) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 · Cited by 7,536
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022) · Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3470-2 · Cited by 5,890
Self-citationThematic Analysis: A Practical Guide
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022) · QMiP Bulletin · doi:10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46 · Cited by 5,438
Self-citationBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021) · Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health · doi:10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846 · Cited by 4,776
Self-citationConceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022) · Qualitative Psychology · doi:10.1037/qup0000196 · Cited by 4,502
Self-citationBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021) · Counselling and Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/capr.12360 · Cited by 3,198
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Finlay L., 2021, European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy,, 11, 103
- Hayes N., 2000, Doing psychological research: Gathering and analyzing data
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 801–900 of 2,869
Li, D. D., Jeyaraj, J. J., & Razali, A. B. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2559151 · Cited by 2
Rob, P., Goodwin, J., Rogers, A. F., Carling, S., & Rodgers, J. (2025) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.70106 · Cited by 2
“During data collection, the first and third authors reviewed and discussed the first parent interviews and the first education professional interviews, to ensure quality and sufficient depth in the responses to the interview questions (Braun and Clarke 2022).”
Walther, K., & Andersson, K. (2025) · Managing Sport and Leisure · doi:10.1080/23750472.2025.2557905 · Cited by 2
Conway-Lamb, W. (2025) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2025.2557058 · Cited by 2
Neadley, K. E., Downes, M., Chan, L., Poirier, B., Lynch, J., Boyd, M., & Shoubridge, C. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01702-9 · Cited by 2
“Codebook TA is philosophically incompatible with positivist quality control measures such as intercoder reliability [34].”
Risky or rigorous? Developing trustworthiness criteria for AI ‐supported qualitative data analysis
Lazarus, M. D., Zhao, L., Gibson, A., Martínez‐Maldonado, R., & Stephens, G. C. (2025) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.70125 · Cited by 2
“33 Reflexivity is thus vital to demonstrate the factors that inform researchers' interpreta - tion of the data.”
Wenzel, D., Creese, J., Wilson, E., Jones, M., & Faull, C. (2025) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.70091 · Cited by 2
Morgan-Duggan, C., Brooks, J. M., Graham‐Wisener, L., et al. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-24519-w · Cited by 2
“Reflexive thematic analysis does not aim for objectivity; instead, it emphasises awareness of how researcher experience shapes their perception of the data [67].”
Towards Understanding Waiting in Video Games
Tepponen, N., Bhatnagar, P., Väkevä, J., & Hämäläinen, P. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3748613 · Cited by 2
A data-driven analysis of industry-specific occupational injury risks and patterns
Liu, L., & Qin, S. (2025) · International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion · doi:10.1080/17457300.2025.2568563 · Cited by 2
“Complementarily, thematic analysis enables systematic examination of unstructured textual data, such as accident reports, capturing latent themes and evolving risk narratives across industries (Braun & Clarke, 2023; Lytvyn et al., 2019).”
Swenson, K. S., & Breen, K. (2025) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112913 · Cited by 2
Węsierska, K., Wyrwas, K., & Zarzycki, M. (2025) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2025.106581 · Cited by 4
Pediatric Palliative Care Patient Transfers of Location at End-of-Life: A 7-Year Retrospective Study
Sun, V., Coombs, S., Armitage, N., Dowling, M., & Jaaniste, T. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13202576 · Cited by 2
“A recognition of this relatively high prevalence of patient transfers is important, given that it has been documented elsewhere that families of seriously ill children commonly find transfers in care location highly stressful [21,26].”
Understanding Data Usage when Making High-Stakes Frontline Decisions in Homelessness Services
Masrani, T. W., Messier, G. G., Voida, A., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757687 · Cited by 3
Workplace affordances for learning in rural primary care
Sjöström, T., Svensson, A., Karlsson, M., & Sorbring, E. (2025) · Journal of Workplace Learning · doi:10.1108/jwl-03-2025-0071 · Cited by 3
Haq, I. U., Khan, M. I., Muhammad, A., Ali, M., Hu, X., & Huang, G. (2025) · International Journal of Neonatal Screening · doi:10.3390/ijns11040095 · Cited by 2
“The Lincoln and Guba criteria were followed to ensure the credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability of the data [22].”
Wang, Y., & Horta, H. (2025) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2025.2573878 · Cited by 2
Asa, G. A., Fauk, N. K., Gesesew, H. A., et al. (2025) · The Journal of Men s Studies · doi:10.1177/10608265251388659 · Cited by 2
“Data were thematically analysed to identify and interpret patterns in the data set (Braun & Clarke, 2023).”
Mortimer, N., & Bromfield, N. (2025) · Australian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.70025 · Cited by 2
Wehrli, S., Hartner, A.-M., Boender, T. S., Bert Arnrich, A., & Irrgang, C. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/76309 · Cited by 2
“To this end, we used thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke’s [60,61] framework.”
Baker, E., Boardman, P., Kelly, A. L., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · doi:10.1177/17479541251389527 · Cited by 2
Ulum, Ö. G. (2025) · Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.31464/jlere.1715936 · Cited by 2
Pollock, A., & Krupka, Z. (2025) · Autism · doi:10.1177/13623613251386983 · Cited by 3
“Researchers recognised that knowledge is co-created through interactions with participants, placing participants’ lived experiences at the centre of the analysis to ensure findings reflect both their voices and the broader context (Braun and Clarke, 2022).”
Werbrouck, S., & Keer, H. V. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15111448 · Cited by 2
Reid, K., Olsen, A., Farwa, A., & Wyder, M. (2025) · Feminism & Psychology · doi:10.1177/09593535251387767 · Cited by 2
Jong, F. C.-D., Eberhardt, J., Oyeniyi, O. S., Ratcliffe, E., Kabuye, J., Kalemba, M., Nnyanzi, L. A., Murphy, M. K., & Robb, K. A. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-105803 · Cited by 3
“Qualitative data were analysed by two researchers (FC-dJ, ER) using thematic analysis 29 30 and intervention acceptability was explored using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability as it provides a structured approach to understanding how participants perceive and respond to an intervention…”
Tiwari, S., & Woodward, A. J. (2025) · Contemporary Family Therapy · doi:10.1007/s10591-025-09764-w · Cited by 2
“RTA, in alignment with social constructivist epistemology, was selected because it emphasises the co-construction of meaning between researcher and participant and explicitly acknowledges the researcher’s interpretive role (Braun & Clarke, 2022 ).”
Azizoddin, D. R., DeForge, S. M., Zhao, J., Chen, M., SMITH, K. G. V., Schreiber, K. L., Edwards, R. R., Allsop, M. J., Baltazar, A. R., Nipp, R. D., et al. (2025) · JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · doi:10.1200/cci-25-00228 · Cited by 3
Bist, R. B., & Kandel, R. K. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2584921 · Cited by 2
“The authors repeatedly read the transcripts to gain familiarity and identify initial insights (Braun & Clarke, 2023).”
Hoff, C. H., & Strømme, H. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1720110 · Cited by 3
Sprague, N. L., Meltzer, G., Dandeneau, M., Santos, D. D. L., O’Neil, D., Kim, A. K., Parisi, A., Araujo, S., Ekenga, C. C., Siegel, E., et al. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su172310459 · Cited by 2
Triviño, J. B., Cue, J. A. T., Lu, L. B. G., et al. (2025) · SN Business & Economics · doi:10.1007/s43546-025-00998-2 · Cited by 2
“The researchers used direct quotations from the in-depth interviews as supporting evidence for the identified themes and propositions to fortify the qualitative rigor (Yin 2018; Braun and Clarke 2022).”
Chueng, T. A., Culbertson, K., James, K., Estes, D., Ciraldo, K. J., Suarez, E., Tookes, H., Bartholomew, T. S., & Nowotny, K. M. (2025) · Health & Justice · doi:10.1186/s40352-025-00382-0 · Cited by 3
Advancing context-specific urban indicators for African cities: a systematic review
Afinowi, T. A., & Monkam, N. (2025) · npj Urban Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s42949-025-00292-y · Cited by 2
“Appraising the quality and relevance of studies through thematic analysis To synthesise insights from the fi nal dataset (53 documents), thematic analysis was applied manually using an inductive approach 103,104 .”
Outsiders in feminized spaces: fathers’ marginalized experiences in postpartum wellness hotels
Wang, H., & Lee, T. J. (2025) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2025.2582761 · Cited by 2
Studying Cartographic Game Maps: Video Game Maps Matter.
Dormann, C., & Wallner, G. (2025) · Interaction design & architecture(s)/ID&A Interaction design & architecture(s) · doi:10.55612/s-5002-065-001 · Cited by 2
First-time fathers’ inclusion in, and engagement with, perinatal primary care: An integrative review
Richard, P., Kalembo, F. W., Kuliukas, L. J., Kothari, A., Kendall, G. E., Priest, R., & Steen, M. (2025) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2025.104685 · Cited by 2
“Brain health”—the emergence of a new healthy construct and its role in everyday life
Siette, J., Knaggs, G. T., & Singh, S. (2025) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnaf288 · Cited by 4
Khozaei, F., Carbon, C., Al-Abed, N., Hassan, A. S., Nikpour, M., Islam, Q. U., & Tadayon, Z. (2025) · Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering · doi:10.1080/13467581.2025.2600724 · Cited by 2
Alghanaim, N., Rogers, S., Hart, J., & Finn, G. M. (2025) · Advances in Simulation · doi:10.1186/s41077-025-00393-9 · Cited by 5
“This study followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach [39, 43]: familiarisation, coding, theme generation, reviewing, refining and defining themes and reporting.”
Ngo, H., Maarsingh, O. R., Slottje, P., Blanker, M. H., Bont, J., & van Vugt, V. A. (2025) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.1080/13814788.2025.2600144 · Cited by 2
“We used the template analysis, in which a coding template is developed and a priori themes may be defined. template analysis is not bound to a specific philosophical stance, allowing emphasis on data reliability and transparency [23,24].”
Baah, B., Ayarkwa, J., Osei‐Asibey, D., Acheampong, A., Sosu, J., Ampomah, R., & Atanga, R. A. (2025) · International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/10803548.2025.2596518 · Cited by 2
Navigating care and compromise: A qualitative study of medical staff roles in German elite handball
Reussner, A. K., & John, J. M. (2025) · Journal of science and medicine in sport · doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2025.12.010 · Cited by 2
Affectivating Positionality. Autoethnography of an Extreme Field
Modugno, R. (2025) · Human Arenas · doi:10.1007/s42087-025-00541-7 · Cited by 2
“…of reflexivity, which has the possibility to lead the researcher to maintain a focus on how s/he engages with, observes and interprets the field and the possible bias s/he could apply in the process (Massoud, 2022 ; Braun & Clarke, 2022 ; Holmes, 2020 ; Laura Vazquez Maggio & Westcott, 2014 ).”
Alotaibi, J. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-06345-y · Cited by 3
Power, A., Chinn, D., Brickley, K., Levitan, T., & Ali, S. (2025) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104513 · Cited by 2
Logie, C. H., Sivan, O., Leggett, R., Okumu, M., Loutet, M. G., MacKenzie, F., Lukone, S. O., Kisubi, N., Gittings, L., Kyambadde, P., et al. (2025) · SSM - Mental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmmh.2025.100579 · Cited by 3
Drysdale, K., & Lupton, D. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13924-x · Cited by 2
“Aligning with what Braun and Clark [39] describe as ‘big Q’ qualitative research, our reflexive thematic analytical approach was post-positivist, recognising the situated subjective and contextual nature of the conduct of interviews and the thematic analysis.”
Maternal birth experience at operative vaginal birth
Skinner, S., Bradford, B. F., Kippen, E., Neil, P., Neesham, I., Mol, B. W., Hodges, R. J., Rolnik, D. L., & Kumar, A. (2025) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2025.102149 · Cited by 3
Slatman, S., Ostelo, R., van Goor, H., Satink, T., Staal, J. B., & Knoop, J. (2025) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2025.103475 · Cited by 2
Sun, H., Chen, X., Huang, X., Qin, L., Zhu, H., Wacharasin, C., Hengudomsub, P., Zhen, Z., & Qin, Y. (2025) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.apjon.2025.100847 · Cited by 3
“39 After each interview the two interviewers (HS & XC) wrote reflexive field notes and uploaded the verbatim transcript to the study's secure shared folder within one day.”
Exploring Manifold-Based Clustering Techniques for Enhanced Inductive Thematic Analysis
Beltran, J. A., Mofid, H., Parikh, H., Gondaliya, J., Guzman, D., Shah, J., Escobedo, L., & Cibrian, F. L. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08977-9_29 · Cited by 2
Ghaith, A., Alshirbini, M. H., & Ma, H. (2026) · Journal of Robotic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11701-025-03116-4 · Cited by 3
“To enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of our findings, we employed multiple validation techniques grounded in established qualitative methodology standards interpretations [11].”
Orchard, R. J., Scarbrough, E., Crow, A., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1656241 · Cited by 2
(Not) “just your nature”. Diagnostic journeys of adults with neurofibromatosis type 1 in Poland
Kowal, K., & Domaradzki, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2025.1713304 · Cited by 2
Creevy, N., & Boocock, R. C. (2026) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.70191 · Cited by 2
Millet, N., Karsten, R., Bosman, B. W., Albader, S., Kreukels, B. P. C., & Doyle, D. M. (2026) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069251381898 · Cited by 2
Ahlgren, J. Á., Annerstedt, K. S., Elinder, L. S., & Andermo, S. (2026) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/s13690-026-01835-0 · Cited by 8
“This methodology allowed for an in-depth exploration and understanding of the participants’ perspectives, and subsequent identification of success factors and barriers, acknowledging how researchers participate in shaping knowledge in their interaction with participants and data [41].”
Qi, C. H. E. N., Donovan, E. E., Zhou, L., Noel, L., & Jones, B. L. (2026) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/79893 · Cited by 2
“…member checking assumes the existence of a single, verifiable truth and seeks to “correct” researcher subjectivity—an assumption that sits conceptually at odds with reflexive thematic analysis, where researcher subjectivity is viewed as an analytic resource, not a bias to eliminate [27].”
Health-seeking behaviour in adults with musculoskeletal conditions: A scoping review
Greenhalgh, S., Ghorbankhani, M., & Yeowell, G. (2026) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2026.103499 · Cited by 2
Ferolino, A. J. P., Villamero, D. M. B., & Espinosa, M. A. S. (2026) · Industry and Higher Education · doi:10.1177/09504222261417789 · Cited by 2
“4.68 5 .59 thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022), participant responses were examined to identify recurring themes in participants ’ experiences about the workshop.”
InfluentialIacobelli, N. P., Estrella, L., Owens, M. D., Bhatraju, E. P., Gojic, A. J., Kennedy, D., Chander, G., & Tsui, J. I. (2026) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01378-7 · Cited by 2
Interprofessional Collaboration Between Community Health Workers and Pharmacists
Bandiera, C., Darwood, M., Mistry, S. K., Harris, E., Harris, M., & Aslani, P. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70538 · Cited by 3
“We acknowledge the diversity in thematic analysis [36], and we followed Braun and Clarke's work to conduct a scientifically descriptive reflexive thematic analysis approach and an inductive process, acknowledging the researchers' subjectivity [37, 38].”
Mhonde, R. D. (2026) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-025-03239-0 · Cited by 2
Perone, A. K., Zhou, L., & Coldon, T. (2026) · Research on Aging · doi:10.1177/01640275261419531 · Cited by 2
Amin, J. R., Ekelin, E., Strid, E. N., Boersma, K., & Bergbom, S. (2026) · Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care · doi:10.1080/02813432.2026.2616517 · Cited by 4
Abidin, A., Hamied, F. A., Emilia, E., et al. (2026) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2026.2613702 · Cited by 2
Scher, B. D., Πουλόπουλος, Ν., Anastasiou, C., Chrisinger, B. W., Humphreys, D. K., & Shorter, G. W. (2026) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01371-0 · Cited by 2
Andersen, M. F., Jørgensen, R., Fuglsang, A. V., Sørensen, V., & Midtgaard, J. (2026) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.1080/17482631.2026.2621803 · Cited by 2
“Braun and Clarke encourage researchers using RTA to own their perspective , recognising it as an integral and important part of the analytical process (Braun & Clarke, 2023).”
Manning, V., Bell, M. C. L., Garfield, J. B. B., Paxie, J. C. B., Rubenis, A. J., Roxburgh, A. D., Piercy, H., Whelan, D., Lubman, D. I., & Savic, M. (2026) · Addiction Science & Clinical Practice · doi:10.1186/s13722-026-00646-6 · Cited by 2
Black, R., Owen, C., Bearman, M., et al. (2026) · Learning Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2026.2622344 · Cited by 2
Qian, M., Xu, Z., & Yan, C. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16020217 · Cited by 4
Nsaful, J., Attah, D. A., Sefogah, P. E., et al. (2026) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-026-01407-5 · Cited by 2
Sexuality in Older Adults Receiving Palliative Care: A Fundamental Dimension through the End of Life
Wallach, I., Beauchamp, J., Sussman, T., et al. (2026) · OBM Geriatrics · doi:10.21926/obm.geriatr.2601335 · Cited by 2
Jiang, X., Jiang, H., Tang, R., et al. (2026) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s581035 · Cited by 2
Validation of the Conceptual Framework
Adekunle, P., Aigbavboa, C. O., & Akinradewo, O. I. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12918-5_7 · Cited by 1
Syharat, C. M., & Zaghi, A. E. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1769327 · Cited by 3
The Human Factor: Assessing Ransomware Vulnerability in Developing Nations’ Governments
Vásquez-Méndez, P. B., Cuesta, D. C. A., & Zambrano-Martínez, J. L. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17020211 · Cited by 2
XIE, S., Yu, S., & Xu, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1794711 · Cited by 3
Scholarly discourse of systems thinking within and beyond STEM education
Trujillo, C., Momsen, J. L., Wyse, S. A., Speth, E. B., & Long, T. M. (2026) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-026-00603-4 · Cited by 2
Albaladejo, L., Cazzorla, F., Gauchet, A., Bosson, J., Betry, C., & Druart, L. (2026) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.70227 · Cited by 2
“This qualitative study employed a reflexive thematic analysis [27], informed by phenomenology, to explore how participants make sense of and experience restrictive dietary practices.”
Mwogosi, A., Haruna, H., Simba, R., & Mambile, C. (2026) · Informatics and Health · doi:10.1016/j.infoh.2026.01.003 · Cited by 2
Cogan, N. A., Kirk, A. F., Couper, I. D., DeKock, H., Hodgson, W., Rasmussen, S. A., & Whittaker, S. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/83521 · Cited by 3
Putri, M. R. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Teacher Education (ICAITE) · doi:10.1109/icaite68636.2025.11442554 · Cited by 2
“Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s [14] reflective-thematic perspective, interpretation was iterative and recursive, moving between individual cases and the broader dataset to ensure analytic saturation and contextual validity.”
InfluentialEntrepreneurs in the kitchen: Chefs’ effectual logic in food waste management
Abylkassimova, Z., Khassenova, K. E., Kazhiyeva, Z., Zeinullina, A., & Filimonau, V. (2026) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2026.104704 · Cited by 3
Biton, N. (2026) · Sexuality Research and Social Policy · doi:10.1007/s13178-026-01339-0 · Cited by 2
Boven, L., Petegem, P. V., Pinxten, R., den Broeck, L. V., & Schrijver, J. D. (2026) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-026-00735-7 · Cited by 2
Okeke, D. E. (2026) · Feminist Media Studies · doi:10.1080/14680777.2026.2666542 · Cited by 2
Virtual and Augmented Reality: The Perceived Impact on Surgical Training, a Systematic Review
Haq, H., & Egbury, G. (2026) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/wjs.70394 · Cited by 2
Bahl, N. K. H., Brodahl, M., Nafstad, H. E., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.1080/17482631.2026.2673592 · Cited by 2
Building the Thematic Structure in Qualitative Research: The Theme Construction Tool
Coker, D. C. (2026) · American Journal of Qualitative Research · doi:10.66815/ajqr/18485 · Cited by 3
Dicken, S. J. (2026) · Current Nutrition Reports · doi:10.1007/s13668-026-00775-z · Cited by 4
“For detailed dietary tools such as food diaries or 24-hour recalls, product names, brands, food groups, and purchase locations can be themati - cally analysed to identify codes linked to the latent theme of the purpose of processing [53, 54 ].”
Towards a methodologically congruent framework for GenAI use in nonpositivist qualitative research
Nguyen‐Trung, K., & Friese, S. (2026) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2026.2703248 · Cited by 2
Fogarty, S., Heazell, A., Munk, N., & Hay, P. (2026) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2026.104989 · Cited by 1
Bull, M., Ball, R., & Livanou, M. (2023) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-023-02627-8 · Cited by 3
Henning-Pugh, M., Frith, H., & Troops, M. A. T. (2023) · Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/casp.2742 · Cited by 2
Queering Collective Dreaming: Weaving Métis Futures of Belonging
Toorenburgh, L., & Reid, H. (2023) · Pawaatamihk A Journal of Métis Thinkers · doi:10.36939/pawaatamihk/vol1no1/art22 · Cited by 2
Tasapainoilua, tilan antamista ja näkymätisöintiä
Kaukko, M., Petäjäniemi, M., Harju-Autti, R., et al. (2023) · Kasvatus & Aika · doi:10.33350/ka.127378 · Cited by 2
“Analysoimme molemmat aineistot refleksiivisen teema-analyysin (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Braun & Clarke, 2023) askelia mukaillen, aloittaen kyselyaineistosta: 1.”
Schults, J. A., Charles, K. R., Harnischfeger, J., et al. (2023) · Australian Critical Care · doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2023.09.008 · Cited by 2
The ongoing evolution of mentorship: Advancing the formal mentorship program at AKU-SONAM
Rehman, R., Ali, T. S., Khalid, S., et al. (2023) · Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.12669/pjms.40.3.8212 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- University of the West of England (GB)
- Venue
- International Journal of Transgender Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-10-25
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-6
- ISSN
- 2689-5269 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9879167
- OpenAlex
- W4307217168
- Semantic Scholar
- e28e41b67cfbb817d70b90cfab5436d012bb58ea
- Cited by
- 2,878
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1230 · 2025: 1016 · 2024: 486 · 2023: 123 · 2022: 8
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Transgender Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- thematic analysis, best practices, qualitative research methodology, mixed methods, research quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
