Abstract
For many qualitative researchers and evaluators using qualitative methods, the names ‘Braun and Clarke’ roll off the tongue as easily as their own. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke have become synonymous with ‘thematic analysis’ (TA), an analytic method (or rather, a family of methods) for identifying patterns of meaning across qualitative data sets. Their article ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006) put TA on the map as a clearly demarcated and legitimate method of data analysis. As of writing, that article has received over 114,000 citations according to Google Scholar.
Since 2006, Braun and Clarke have written extensively on thematic analysis, refining their thinking and approach, culminating in a new book, Thematic analysis: A practical guide (2021, SAGE). For researchers and evaluators alike, thematic analysis is a ‘go to’ method for analysing and synthesising qualitative data such as stakeholder interviews and focus groups. However, as Braun et al. (2019) have noted, TA is not a homogenous approach and is better understood as an umbrella term under which can be found a range of different thematic approaches to data analysis. More recently, Braun and Clarke (2020) refer to TA ‘methods’ rather than TA as a single method, to emphasise the existence of different approaches to conducting TA. It is important for anyone seeking to use TA to make an unambiguous and reflexive decision on the type of TA they wish to employ when analysing qualitative data.
Thematic analysis: A practical guide is the first book-length exposition of Braun and Clarke’s version of TA, which they refer to as ‘reflexive TA’. They have previously written about the differences between other approaches such as coding reliability and codebook TA and reflexive TA (Braun et al., 2019). Here again, they include a chapter on these differences (Chapter 8). The authors suggest this chapter is a good place to start for those new to TA, to help the reader position reflexive TA within the broader family of TA methods. This chapter would also be a suitable entry point for evaluators who have used thematic analysis in the past but may be unfamiliar with the wide range of approaches to TA. Given the predominant focus on reflexive TA throughout the book, however, the book title (which suggests a broad focus on TA) may be slightly misleading for potential readers.
The book is intended primarily for those seeking to learn to do reflexive TA and secondarily for those teaching it (with an open access companion website housing extensive resources to support both audiences). It is possible for readers to engage with the book in a non-linear fashion depending on their existing levels of knowledge and expertise, and specific areas of interest (see the various reading pathways suggested in the ‘Scene setting’ chapter). The book is divided into two sections. Section 1 is a practical step-by-step guide to doing reflexive TA, especially pitched at the novice researcher. More seasoned researchers, however, can also benefit from this section, particularly those who still cite the 2006 paper for the use of TA, because the ‘Braun and Clarke’ approach to TA has been developed considerably since then. Section 2 is a deeper dive into interpretation and theory, important concepts to understand to produce valid and quality reflexive TA.
True to its promise of practicality, the book uses example datasets to demonstrate reflexive TA in action. Section 1 works through each of the six phases of reflexive TA whilst making it clear that reflexive TA is not necessarily a clear cut, step-by-step process. These feature boxes provide a fascinating glimpse into the analytic process for reflexive TA. The expositions of doing reflexive TA—from a set of notes responding to data familiarisation through to coding, theme development and naming—demonstrate the organic yet systematic nature of the method. There are also insightful reflections from other researchers on their experiences of using TA throughout. Further on in Section 1, the authors discuss one of the fundamental concepts of reflexive TA, namely, what constitutes a ‘theme’. Understanding this point is vital to producing quality reflexive TA—themes are not simply summaries of content or topics to capture patterns of ‘shared meaning, united by a central organising concept’ (p. 77). Quality reflexive TA is characterised by an analytic depth which is not evident in mere topic summaries (see Chapter 9 in Section 2 for a fulsome discussion of how to ensure the quality of reflexive TA). If a commissioner of an evaluation prefers topic or content summaries of qualitative data rather than deep, theoretically grounded analysis, then reflexive TA will not be the appropriate method. Section 1 wraps up with a chapter on writing the TA report and contains excellent advice on why writing is fundamentally important to the analytic process.
In addition to the later chapters already mentioned, Section 2 contains very accessible discussions on the use of theory and the importance of interpretation to reflexive TA (again, something which needs to be understood if the analysis is to go beyond mere description). Braun and Clarke come into their own when they write to democratise the role of theory in qualitative research. The ‘not so scary’ theory chapter (Chapter 6) unpacks ‘Big Theory’ with a light-hearted and even irreverent tone that demystifies some of the more obtuse concepts in qualitative research. Yet another key point to grasp about TA is that it is not—and should not be presented as—atheoretical. A hallmark of quality TA and reflexive TA in particular is that it is based on and presents a clear explication of theoretical orientation and assumptions.
One of my favourite aspects of this book is the ‘Alerts’ throughout which highlight things to watch out for, common pitfalls and points of clarification. ‘Practice points’ and ‘Key concepts’ sections also draw out the most important points for the reader to build understanding of reflexive TA and its practice. The chapter on interpretation, for example, contains an alert, ‘The wider context of data shapes our interpretation of their meaning’. This is a point for all evaluators to keep top of mind, and Braun and Clarke have peppered their book throughout with pithy statements like this. These nuggets will undoubtedly be written on many a sticky note and attached to the computer monitors of qualitative researchers everywhere!
A key difference between reflexive TA and other approaches to thematic analysis is the role of the analyst, and this has implications for its use in an evaluation context. Whilst other coding reliability approaches to TA maintain some claim to objectivity, reflexive TA is avowedly ‘Big Q’ Qualitative (Kidder & Fine, 1987) because the researcher’s subjectivity is viewed as an analytic and interpretative resource to be mined and applied, as opposed to a liability which must be managed (Braun et al., 2019). 1 Reflexive TA requires the analyst to ‘both interrogate and harness the value of’ their own subjectivity (Braun & Clarke, 2021, p. 6). Evaluation comprises both evaluative thinking and reasoning; deductive and inductive processes, and ultimately, evaluators are required to ‘render judgment’ on the subject matter at hand (Scriven, 1980), drawing on the available evidence as well as their own values and beliefs (Markiewicz & Patrick, 2016). Adopting reflexive TA brings these subjective elements to the fore in analysis, synthesis and reporting, which ultimately (if adequately explained and justified) can lend transparency and credibility to the qualitative data analysis, evaluation findings, recommendations and lessons learned. The ability to be transparently reflexive when engaging with stakeholders right through to data analysis and reporting can help build and maintain the evaluator’s professional credibility in the eyes of commissioners and stakeholders (for more on professional credibility, see Moretti, 2021). Finally, the skills and orientations which Braun and Clarke identify as critical to a qualitative sensibility fundamental to reflexive TA are also relevant to the contextualised sense-making required in much evaluation where evaluators must arrive at an ‘understanding that is about nuance, complexity and even contradiction, rather than finding a nice tidy explanation’ (Braun & Clarke, 2021, p. 7).
As with their previous publications, Braun and Clarke write in an invitational style, welcoming and accommodating a wide readership including those who are neurodivergent by, for example, contextualising and explaining jokes in the text or clearly sign-posting passages the reader is not to take too seriously. I believe it is their highly accessible style of writing and their ability to unpack complex ideas and communicate them clearly and succinctly which has played a large role in building their notable profiles within qualitative research circles.
The book is reasonably priced for an academic text ($79.95 AUD for paper back and around $50–$60 AUD for an eBook version—note, this review was of the eBook version). One small criticism I do have of the eBook version (which was accessed through SAGE’s online platform, VitalSource Bookshelf) is that the footnotes appear interspersed throughout the body of the text, which does detract somewhat from readability. This minor point aside, the book and open access companion website represent excellent value for money. Thematic analysis: A practical guide is set to become a classic within qualitative research and is an essential addition to the evaluator’s toolkit.