Thematic analysis is a poorly demarcated, rarely acknowledged, yet widely used qualitative analytic method within psychology. In this paper, we argue that it offers an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data. We outline what thematic analysis is, locating it in relation to other qualitative analytic methods that search for themes or patterns, and in relation to different epistemological and ontological positions. We then provide clear guidelines to those wanting to start thematic analysis, or conduct it in a more deliberate and rigorous way, and consider potential pitfalls in conducting thematic analysis. Finally, we outline the disadvantages and advantages of thematic analysis. We conclude by advocating thematic analysis as a useful and flexible method for qualitative research in and beyond psychology.

Using thematic analysis in psychology

Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.

/pdf/three-approaches-to-qualitative-content-analysis-27iq0mo5bk.pdf

Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis

A hypothesized need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships is evaluated in light of the empirical literature. The need is for frequent, nonaversive interactions within an ongoing relational bond. Consistent with the belongingness hypothesis, people form social attachments readily under most conditions and resist the dissolution of existing bonds. Belongingness appears to have multiple and strong effects on emotional patterns and on cognitive processes. Lack of attachments is linked to a variety of ill effects on health, adjustment, and well-being. Other evidence, such as that concerning satiation, substitution, and behavioral consequences, is likewise consistent with the hypothesized motivation. Several seeming counterexamples turned out not to disconfirm the hypothesis. Existing evidence supports the hypothesis that the need to belong is a powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive motivation.

The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.

Part I Understanding Educational Change 1. A Brief History of Educational Change 2. Sources of Educational Change 3. The Meaning of Educational Change 4. The Causes and Problems of Initiation 5. The Causes and Problems of Implementation and Continuation 6. Planning Doing and Coping with Change Part II Educational Change at the Local Level 7. The Teacher 8. The Principal 9. The Student 10. The District Administrator 11. The Consultant 12. The Parent and the Community Part III Educational Change at Regional and National Levels 13. Governments 14. Professional Preparation of Teachers 15. Professional Development of Educators 16. The Future of Educational Change

The New Meaning of Educational Change

Although many critics are reluctant to accept the trustworthiness of qualitative research, frameworks for ensuring rigour in this form of work have been in existence for many years. Guba’s constructs, in particular, have won considerable favour and form the focus of this paper. Here researchers seek to satisfy four criteria. In addressing credibility, investigators attempt to demonstrate that a true picture of the phenomenon under scrutiny is being presented. To allow transferability, they provide sufficient detail of the context of the fieldwork for a reader to be able to decide whether the prevailing environment is similar to another situation with which he or she is familiar and whether the findings can justifiably be applied to the other setting. The meeting of the dependability criterion is difficult in qualitative work, although researchers should at least strive to enable a future investigator to repeat the study. Finally, to achieve confirmability, researchers must take steps to demonstrate that findings emerge from the data and not their own predispositions. The paper concludes by suggesting that it is the responsibility of research methods teachers to ensure that this or a comparable model for ensuring trustworthiness is followed by students undertaking a qualitative inquiry.

/pdf/strategies-for-ensuring-trustworthiness-in-qualitative-49m51pdmkn.pdf

Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects

past year has contained a good deal of impassioned argument at the paradigmatic level (Eisner, 1983; Phillips, 1983; Smith, 1983b; Tuthill & Ashton, 1983). The debate turns around the claim that epistemologies and procedures such as logical empiricism, scientism, the hypothetico-deductive method, realism, experimentalism, and instrumentalism all go together and are inherently different from-in fact, incompatible with--contrasting epistemologies and procedures of phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory, verstehen approaches, and artistic modes of knowing. It is argued (e.g., Norris, 1983, Smith, 1983b), that the quantitative and interpretive perspectives are irreconcilable; that claims of their complementary characteristics are unfounded; and that blending the two approaches will result in equivocal conclusions. This is a nontrivial battle, because it challenges the very foundations of the research enterprise, and particularly any given empirical study. But we are inclined to leave the battle to others, for several reasons. First, we continue to need working canons and procedures to judge the validity and usefulness of research in progress. Second, no one reasonably expects the dispute to be settled in any satisfactory way because it has come to rest on crystallized stances, each with its faithful, eager pack of recently-socialized disciples. Finally, if one looks carefully at the research actually conducted in the name of one or another epistemology, it seems that few working researchers are not blending the two perspectives.

Drawing Valid Meaning from Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft

Buku ini penting bagi para peneliti sarjana dan mahasiswa yang ingin memperoleh kesimpulan kesimpulan yang tidak samar samar dan meragukan tetapi yang beralasan kuat serta sahih

Matthew B. Miles

Papers

Drawing Valid Meaning from Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft

Analisis data kualitatif : buku sumber tentang metode - metode baru

Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Third Edition.

Analyse des données qualitatives: recueil de nouvelles méthodes /

Encounter groups : first facts