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
In the paper
“Methodological incoherence beckons when researchers seemingly unknowingly mash together different approaches to TA (see Braun & Clarke, 2022a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2022a source
hedgeddirect- 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.
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
“this stands as one of the many spurious claims that exist about TA”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/02692163241234800 · Cited by 954
Self-citationBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2022.2161594 · Cited by 582
“…re fl exive and thorough data engagement and the development of codes that are fi ne-grained enough to parse out research-relevant meaning from the dataset (similarly not conceptualising it as ‘ completing ’ coding but the point at which analysis progresses into another phase; Braun & Clarke, 2022c).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationReporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244 · Cited by 674
Self-citationA critical review of the reporting of reflexive thematic analysis in Health Promotion International
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daae049 · Cited by 490
Self-citationWutich, A., Beresford, M., & Bernard, H. R. (2024) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069241296206 · Cited by 416
“Braun and Clarke (2022a) argue it is impossible to estimate sample size a priori for re fl exive thematic analysis, but that an upper and lower limit for a sample range should be determined pragmatically based on the research goals and the time and resources available for the research.”
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
