Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches
Thematic analysis methods, including the reflexive approach we have developed, are widely used in counselling and psychotherapy research, as are other approaches that seek to develop ‘patterns’ (themes, categories) across cases. Without a thorough grounding in the conceptual foundations of a wide variety of across‐case analytic approaches, and qualitative research more broadly—something rarely offered in counselling training—it can be difficult to understand how these differ, where they overlap, and which might be appropriate for a particular research project. Our aim in this paper is to support researchers in counselling and psychotherapy to select an appropriate across‐case approach for their research, and to justify their choice, by discussing conceptual and procedural differences and similarities between reflexive thematic analysis (TA) and four other across‐case approaches. Three of these are also widely used in counselling and psychotherapy research—qualitative content analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis and grounded theory. The fourth—discourse analysis—is less widely used but importantly exemplifies the critical qualitative research tradition. We contextualise our comparative approach by highlighting the diversity
within
TA. TA is best thought of as a spectrum of methods—from types that prioritise coding accuracy and reliability to reflexive approaches like ours that emphasise the inescapable subjectivity of data interpretation. Although reflexive TA provides the point of comparison for our discussion of other across‐case approaches, our aim is not to promote reflexive TA as ‘best’. Rather, we encourage the knowing selection and use of analytic methods and methodologies in counselling and psychotherapy research.
No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →
Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke
Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke
Joanna M. Brocki, Alison J. Wearden
Showing 50 of 87 references
Parveen Ali, Ahtisham Younas · 2026
Nomsa Moloeloe, Guidance Mthwazi · 2026
Devin E. Banks, Kaytryn D. Campbell · 2026
Jennifer M. Snaman, Maria Laura Requena · 2026
Ayşe Saki Demirel · 2026
Jennifer F. Zepf, Elizabeth Koltz · 2026
Wen Xu · 2026
Eline L. Lenne, Ben Anderson-Nathe · 2026
Kamila Pilch, Norbert Laurisz · 2026
Antonio Escamilla, Javier Melenchón · 2026
Jacob Tant, Jackie Buckthought · 2026
Lina Charlotte Jeran, Anne Blawert · 2026
Anne-Marie Martin, Mohamad M. Saab · 2026
Elizabeth Parker, Lamprini Mangiorou · 2025
Jennifer V. Chavez, Leah Davis Ewart · 2025
Conor Whelan, Lisa Ryan · 2025
Helen Pearson, Michelle Myall · 2025
Tracy Tabvuma, Ya‐Ling Huang · 2025
Jan Aasen, Fredrik Nilsson · 2025
Jodie Crooks, Gareth Davis · 2025
- Published
- Oct 18, 2020
- Vol/Issue
- 21(1)
- Pages
- 37-47
- License
- View
You May Also Like
Michael Priestley, Emma Broglia · 2021
84 citations
Shayesteh Sharifpour, Gholam Reza Manshaee · 2020
41 citations
Kristina O. Lavik, Marius Veseth · 2018
40 citations
Günter Schiepek, Omar Gelo · 2020
39 citations
Sophie Leuchtenberg, Daniel Gromer · 2022
26 citations