One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
复制
发表时间：
2020-08-14
影响因子：
19
通讯作者：
Clarke, Victoria
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Braun, Virginia;Clarke, Victoria
由于存在着大量的主题分析迭代，这些迭代在范式、哲学和程序上都存在差异，因此制定主题分析的普遍质量标准变得复杂。编辑、审稿人或作者往往没有认识到技术翻译中的这种多元性，他们将“编码可靠性度量”作为高质量技术翻译的普遍要求。我们特别关注我们的反思性翻译方法，并参考我们在引用或声称遵循我们指导的已发表的翻译研究中发现的十个常见问题来讨论翻译质量。许多常见的问题都是基于TA的同质性假设。最后，我们以20个关键问题的形式为审稿人和编辑概述了指导方针，以支持他们提高技术分析研究的高（er）标准，并将更多的深思熟虑和反思性参与作为方法和实践。
Developing a universal quality standard for thematic analysis (TA) is complicated by the existence of numerous iterations of TA that differ paradigmatically, philosophically and procedurally. This plurality in TA is oftennotrecognised by editors, reviewers or authors, who promote 'coding reliability measures' as universal requirements of quality TA. Focusing particularly on ourreflexiveTA approach, we discuss quality in TA with reference to ten common problems we have identified in published TA research that cites or claims to follow our guidance. Many of the common problems are underpinned by an assumption of homogeneity in TA. We end by outlining guidelines for reviewers and editors - in the form of twenty critical questions - to support them in promoting high(er) standards in TA research, and more deliberative and reflexive engagement with TA as method and practice.