Student Examples of Good Practice
Sometimes it’s good to know what ‘doing a good job’ looks like… To help those wanting to understand what describing the reflexive TA process well might look like, we offer some good examples here, from student projects. This may be particularly helpful for students doing research projects, and for people very well-trained in positivism.
As well as the example(s) we provide here, you can find a much more detailed discussion in our book Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide (SAGE, 2022).
Suzy Anderson (Professional Doctorate)
The following sections are by Suzy Anderson, from her UWE Counselling Psychology Professional Doctorate thesis – The Problem with Picking: Permittance, Escape and Shame in Problematic Skin Picking.
An example of a description of the thematic analysis process:
Process of Coding and Developing Themes
Coding and analysis were guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013) guidelines for using thematic analysis. Each stage of the coding and theme development process described below was clearly documented ensuring that the evolution of themes was clear and traceable. This helped to ensure research rigour and means that process and dependability may be demonstrable.
I familiarised myself with the data by reading the transcripts several times while making rough notes. As data collection took place over a protracted period of time, coding of transcribed interviews began before the full dataset was available. Transcripts were read line-by-line and initial codes were written in a column alongside the transcripts. These codes were refined and added to as interviews were revisited over time. Throughout this process I was careful to note and re-read areas of relatively sparse coding to ensure they were not neglected. My supervisor also independently coded three of the interviews for purposes of reflexivity, providing an interesting alternative standpoint. I cross-referenced our two perspectives to notice and reflect on our differences of perspective.
Once initial coding was complete, I looked for larger patterns across the dataset and grouped the codes into themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). I found it helpful to think of the theme titles as spoken in the first person, and imagine participants saying them, to check whether they reflected the dataset and participants’ meanings. I tried not to have my coding and themes steered by ideas, categories and definitions from previous research, to allow a more inductive, data-driven approach, while recognising my role as researcher in co-creation of themes (Braun & Clarke, 2013). However, there were times when the language of previous research appeared a good fit, such as in the discussion of ‘automatic’ and ‘focussed’ picking. Given that the experience of SP is an under-researched area, particularly from a qualitative perspective, and that the aim is for this study to contribute to therapeutic developments, themes were developed with the entire dataset in mind (Braun & Clarke, 2006), such that they would more likely be relevant to someone presenting in therapy for help with SP. There was clear heterogeneity in the interviews, and in cases where I have taken a narrower perspective on an experience (such as when describing an experience only true for some of the participants), I have tried to give a loose indication of prevalence and alternative views.
I created a large ‘directory’ of themes and smaller sub-themes, with the relevant participant quotations filed under each theme or sub-theme heading. This helped me to adjust theme titles, boundaries and position, meant that I could check that themes were faithful to the data at a glance, and was of practical help when writing the analysis.
The process of coding and developing themes was intended to have both descriptive and interpretive elements (using Braun & Clarke’s definitions, 2013). The descriptive element was intended to represent what participants said, while the interpretative element drew on my subjectivity to consider less directly evident patterns, such as those that might be influenced by social context or forces such as shame. This interpretation was of particular value to the current study as participants often struggled to find words for their experience and several reported or implied that they did not understanding the mechanisms of their picking. An interpretative stance meant that I could develop ideas about what they were able to describe and consider the relationships between these experiences, making sense of them alongside previous literature (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Writing was considered an integral part of the analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013) and it helped me to adjust the boundaries of themes, notice more latent patterns and considered how themes and their content were related.
Given the known heterogeneity of picking I was keen to make sure my analysis did not become skewed towards one type of SP experience to the detriment of another. I actively looked for participant experiences that diverged from those of the developing themes (with similar intentions to a ‘deviant case analysis’; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) so that the final analysis would represent themes in context and with balance. When adding quotations to the prose of my analysis I re-read them in their original context to ensure that my representation of their words appeared to be a credible reflection of what was said.
An example of researcher reflexivity in relation to analysis process
Subjectivity as a Resource
I considered my subjectivity to be a resource when conducting interviews and analysing data (Gough & Madill, 2012). It guided my judgement when interviewing, helping me to respond to participants’ explicit, implicit and more verbally concealed distress. I allowed aspects of my own experience to resonate with those of participants meaning that I could listen to their stories with empathy and a genuine curiosity. During analysis, themes were actively created and categorised, demanding my use of self (DeSantis & Ugarriza, 2000). I sought to interpret the data rather than simply describe it, which necessarily requires acknowledgement of both researcher and participant subjectivity. I strongly feel that we can only make sense of another’s story by relating it to our own phenomenology (Smith & Shinebourne, 2012), and that we re-construct their stories on frameworks formed by our own subjective experience. As such it is useful to be aware of my personal experiences and assumptions.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
DeSantis, L., & Ugarriza, D. N. (2000). The concept of theme as used in qualitative nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22(3), 351-372.
Gough, B., & Madill, A. (2012). Subjectivity in psychological research: From problem to prospect. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 374-384.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inquiry, 289(331), 289-327.
Smith, J. A., & Shinebourne, P. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (p. 73–82). American Psychological Association.
Gina Broom (Research Master's)
The following extract is by Gina Broom, from her University of Auckland Master’s thesis (2020): “Oh my god, this might actually be cheating”: Experiencing attractions or feelings for others in committed relationships.
A detailed description of reflexive TA analytic approach and process
I analysed data through a process of reflexive thematic analysis (reflexive TA), as outlined by Braun, Clarke, Hayfield, and Terry (2019), who describe reflexive TA as a method by which a researcher will “explore and develop an understanding of patterned meaning across the dataset” with the aim of producing “a coherent and compelling interpretation of the data, grounded in the data” (p. 848). I utilized Braun and colleagues’ reflexive approach to TA, as opposed to alternative models of TA, due to my alignment with critical qualitative research. I did not select a coding reliability TA approach, for example, due to its foundation of (post)positivist assumptions and processes (such as predetermined hypotheses, the aim of discovering ‘accurate’ themes or “domain summaries”, and efforts to ‘remove’ researcher bias while evidencing reliability/replicability), which were not suitable for the critical realist epistemology underpinning this thesis. In contrast, Reflexive TA is a ‘Big Q’ qualitative approach, constructing patterns of meaning as an ‘output’ from the data (rather than as predetermined domain summaries) while valuing “researcher subjectivity as not just valid but a resource” (Braun et al., 2019, p. 848). As the critical realist and feminist approaches of this thesis theorize knowledge as contextual, subjective, and partial, with reflexivity valued as a crucial process, a reflexive TA was the most appropriate method for this analysis.
Braun and colleagues’ (2019) reflexive TA process involves six-phases, including familiarization with the data, generating codes, constructing themes, revising and defining themes, and producing the report of the analysis. I outline my process for each of these below:
Phase 1, familiarization: Much of my initial engagement with the data was done through my transcription of the interviews, as the process provided extended time with each interview, both listening to the audio of the participant, and in the writing of the transcript. Some qualitative researchers describe transcription as an essential process for a researcher to perform themselves, as “transcribing discourse, like photographing reality, is an interpretive practice” (Riessman, 1993, p. 13), and as a result, “analysis begins during transcription” (Bird, 2005, p. 230). Braun and Clarke (2012) suggest certain questions to consider during the process of familiarization: “How does this participant make sense of their experiences? What assumptions do they make in interpreting their experience? What kind of world is revealed through their accounts?” (p. 61). During transcription, I took notes of potential points of interest for the analysis, using these types of questions as a guide. In exploring attractions or feelings for others in committed relationships, these questions (and my notes) often related to the meaning participants applied to their feelings and relationships, particularly in terms of morality and social acceptability, while the ‘world’ of their accounts was conveyed through their discourse of the contemporary relational context.
Phase 2, generating initial codes: Following transcription, I systematically coded each interview, searching for instances of talk that produced snippets of meaning relevant to the topic of attractions or feelings for others. I coded interviews using the ‘comment’ feature in the Microsoft Word document of each transcript, highlighting the relevant text excerpt for each code comment. I used this approach, rather than working ‘on paper’, so that I would later be able to easily export my coded excerpts for use in my theme construction. The coding of thematic analysis can be either an inductive ‘bottom up’ approach, or a deductive or theoretical ‘top down’ approach, or a combination of the two, depending on the extent to which the analysis is driven by the content of the data, and the extent to which theoretical perspectives drive the analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013). Coding can also be semantic, where codes capture “explicit meaning, close to participant language”, or latent, where codes “focus on a deeper, more implicit or conceptual level of meaning” (Braun et al., 2019, p. 853). I used an inductive approach due to the need for exploratory research on experiences attractions or feelings for others, as it is a relatively new topic without an existing theoretical foundation. The focus of my coding therefore developed throughout the process of engaging with the data, focusing on segments of participants’ meaning-making in relation to general, personal, or partner-centred experiences of: attractions or feelings for others in the contemporary relational context, implied moral and/or social acceptability (or unacceptability), related affective experiences and responses, and enacted or recommended management of attractions or feelings for others. At the beginning of the process, I mostly noted semantic codes such as ‘feels guilty about attractions or feelings for others’, particularly as my coding was exploratory and inductive, rather than guided by a knowledge of ‘deeper’ contextual meaning. As I progressed, however, I began to notice and code for more latent meanings, such as ‘love = effortless emotional exclusivity’ or ‘monogamy compulsory/unspoken relationship default’. When all interviews had been systematically and thoroughly coded (and when highly similar codes had been condensed into single codes), I had a final list of roughly 200 codes to take into the next phase of analysis.
Phase 3, constructing themes: When developing my initial candidate themes, I utilized the approach described by Braun and colleagues (2019) as “using codes as building blocks”, sorting my codes into topic areas or “clusters of meaning” (p. 855) with bullet-point lists in Microsoft Word. From this grouping of codes, I produced and refined a set of candidate themes through visual mapping and continuous engagement with the data. These candidate themes were grouped into two overarching themes: the first encompassed 2 themes and 6 sub-themes evidencing pervasive ‘traditional’ conceptions of committed relationships (as monogamous by default with an assumption of emotionally exclusivity), and the way attractions or feelings for others were positioned as an unexpected threat within this context; the second encompassed four themes and eight sub-themes exploring modern contradictions (which problematized the quality of the relationship or the ‘maturity’ of those within it, rather than the attractions or feelings), and the way attractions or feelings for others were positioned as ‘only natural’ or even positive agents of change. This process of candidate theme development was still explorative and inductive, as I worked closely with the coded data and had only brief engagement with potentially relevant theoretical literature at this stage. Further engagement with contextually relevant literature, and a deductive integration of it into the analysis, was developed in the next phases.
Phases 4 and 5, revising and defining themes: My process of revising and defining themes started by using a macro (that was developed for this project) to export all of my initial codes and their associated excerpts into a single master sheet in Microsoft Excel, with columns indicating the source interview for each excerpt, as well as relevant participant demographic information (e.g. age, gender, relationship as monogamous or non-monogamous). This master sheet contained 6006 coded excerpts. In two new columns (one for themes and one for sub-themes), I ‘tagged’ excerpts relevant to my candidate analysis by writing the themes and/or sub-themes that they fit into. I was then able to export these excerpts, using the macro designed for this project, sorting the relevant data for each theme and sub-theme into separate tabs. I then reviewed all the excerpts for each individual theme and sub-theme, which allowed me to revise and define my candidate themes into my first full thematic analysis for the writing phase.
The thematic analysis at this stage included 13 themes and seven sub-themes, and these differed from the original candidate themes in a number of ways. In reviewing the collated data, I noted that some sub-themes were nuanced and prominent enough to be promoted to themes; the sub-theme ‘stay or go? (partner or other)’, for example, became the theme ‘you have to choose’. Similarly, I found other themes or sub-themes to be ‘thin’, and either removed them, or integrated them into other parts of the analysis; the sub-theme roughly titled ‘families at stake (marriage, children)’, for example, became a smaller part of the ‘safety in exclusivity’ theme. I also noted that the first overarching theme in the candidate analysis was ‘messy’, and in an effort to improve focus and clarity, I split this first overarching theme into three new ones, each with its own “central organizing concept” (Braun et al., 2019, p. 48): the first evidenced the contemporary relational context as one of default monogamy with an idealization of exclusivity; the second evidenced infidelity as an unforgivable offence, while associating attractions or feelings for others with this threat of infidelity; the third evidenced discourses in which someone must be to blame (either the person with the feelings or their partner). The second half of the candidate analysis became a fourth and final overarching theme, which encompassed a revised list of themes evidencing favourable talk of attractions or feelings for others.
Phase 6, writing the report: In writing my first draft of my analysis, I developed an even deeper sense of which themes and sub-themes were ‘falling into place’, and which did not fit so well with the overall analysis. At this point I was also engaging in a deeper exploration of relevant literature, and writing my chapter on the context of sexuality and relationships, which provided a foundation of theoretical knowledge that I could deductively integrate into my analysis. Through a process of supervisor feedback on my initial draft, engagement with literature, and revision of the data, I developed the analysis into the final thematic structure. My initial research question of ‘how do people make sense of attractions or feelings for others in committed relationships?’ also developed into three final research questions, each of which is explored across the three overarching themes of the final analysis:
Upon revision, both of the first two overarching themes from the second (revised) thematic map (‘the safety of default monogamy’ and ‘the danger of infidelity’) involved themes and sub-themes which situated attractions or feelings for others within the dominant contemporary relational context. I combined relevant parts of these into one overarching theme in the final analysis, which explored the research question: What is the contemporary relational context, and how are attractions or feelings for others made sense of within that context? Two themes and five sub-themes together evidenced attractions or feelings for others as a threat (by association with infidelity) within the mononormative sociocultural context.
The third overarching theme from the second (revised) thematic map (‘there’s gotta be someone to blame’) did not require much revision to fit with the final analysis. I refined information that was too similar or redundant in the original analysis, such as the sub-themes ‘partner is flawed’ and ‘deficit in partner’ which were combined into one sub-theme. I also added a third theme, ‘the relationship was wrong’, from a later part of the original analysis, as this also fit with the central organizing concept of wrongness and accountability. Together, these three themes and two sub-themes formed the second overarching theme of the final analysis, exploring the question: What accountabilities are at stake with attractions or feelings for others in committed relationships? This chapter also explores the affective consequences of these attributed accountabilities, as described by participants and interpreted by myself as researcher.
I revised and developed the final overarching theme most, in contrast to the analysis previously done, as my process of writing, feedback, and revision demonstrated that this section was the least coherent, and the central organizing concept required development. There were various themes and sub-themes across the initial analysis that explored imperatives or choices that were either made or recommended by participants. These parts of the original analysis were combined to produce the third overarching theme of the final analysis, including four (contradictory) themes and four sub-themes exploring the research question: How do people navigate, or recommend navigating, attractions or feelings for others?.
Combined, these three final overarching themes tell a story of (dominant or ‘normative’) initial sense making of attractions or feelings for others, subsequent attributions of accountability, and various (often contradictory and moralized) ways these feelings are navigated. Braun and Clarke (2006) describe thematic analysis as an active production of knowledge by the researcher, as themes aren’t ‘discovered’ or a pre-existing form of knowledge that will ‘emerge’, but rather patterns that a researcher identifies through their perspective of the data. My thematic analysis was influenced by my own social context, experiences, and theoretical positioning. In the context of critical research, ethical considerations are often complex, and researcher reflexivity is a crucial part of the process (Bott, 2010; L. Finlay, 2002; Lafrance & Wigginton, 2019; Mauthner & Doucet, 2003; Price, 1996; Teo, 2019; Weatherall et al., 2002). As the theoretical foundation of this thematic analysis was a combination of critical realism and critical feminist psychology, I engaged in an ongoing consideration of ethics and reflexivity throughout my data collection and analysis, which I discuss in the following section.
Bird, C. M. (2005). How I stopped dreading and learned to love transcription. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 226–248.
Bott, E. (2010). Favourites and others: Reflexivity and the shaping of subjectivities and data in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 159–173.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (Vol. 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological, pp. 57-71). APA books.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 843-860). Springer.
Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545.
Lafrance, M. N., & Wigginton, B. (2019). Doing critical feminist research: A Feminism & Psychology reader. Feminism & Psychology, 29(4), 534–552.
Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413–431.
Price, J. (1996). Snakes in the swamp: Ethical issues in qualitative research. In R. Josselson (Ed.), Ethics and Process in the Narrative Study of Lives (pp. 207–215). Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Sage.
Teo, T. (2019). Beyond reflexivity in theoretical psychology: From philosophy to the psychological humanities. In T. Teo (Ed.), Re-envisioning Theoretical Psychology (pp. 273–288). Palgrave Macmillan.
Weatherall, A., Gavey, N., & Potts, A. (2002). So whose words are they anyway? Feminism & Psychology, 12(4), 531–539.
Lucie Wheeler (Professional Doctorate)
The following sections are by Lucie Wheeler, from her UWE Counselling Psychology Professional Doctorate thesis – “It’s such a hard and lonely journey”: Women’s experiences of perinatal loss and the subsequent pregnancy.
An example of a description of the thematic analysis process:
Data from the qualitative surveys and interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within a contextualist approach, as this allows the flexibility of combining multiple sources of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2020). Both forms of data provided accounts of perinatal experiences, and therefore were considered as one whole data set throughout analysis, rather than analysed separately. The inclusion of data from different perspectives, by not limiting the type of perinatal loss experienced, and offering multiple ways to engage with the research, allowed a rich understanding of the experiences being studied (Polkinghorne, 2005). However, despite the data providing a rich and complex picture of the participants’ experiences, I acknowledge that any understanding that has developed though this analysis can only ever be partial, and therefore does not aim to completely capture the phenomenon under scrutiny (Tracy, 2010). An inductive approach was taken to analysis, working with the data from the bottom-up (Braun & Clarke, 2013), exploring the perspectives of the participants, whilst also examining the contexts from which the data were produced. Through the analysis I sought to identify patterns across the data in order to tell a story about the journey through loss and the next pregnancy. The six phases of Braun and Clarke’s (2006; 2020) reflexive thematic analysis were used through an iterative process, in the following ways:
Phase 1 – Data familiarisation and writing familiarisation notes:
By conducting every aspect of the data collection myself, from developing the interview schedule and survey questions, to carrying out the face-to-face interviews, and then transcribing them, I was immersed in the data from the outset. Particularly for the interviews, the experience allowed me to engage with participants, build rapport, explore their stories with them, and then listen to each interview multiple times through the transcription process. I therefore felt familiar with the interview data before actively engaging with analysis. I found the process of transcribing the interviews a particularly useful way to engage with the data, as it slowed the interview process down, with a need to take in every word, and therefore led me to notice things that hadn’t been apparent when carrying out the interviews. The surveys, as well as the interview transcripts, were read through several times. I used a reflective journal throughout this process to makes notes about anything that came to mind during data collection and transcription. This included personal reflections, what the data had reminded me of, led me to think about, as well as what I noticed about the participant and the way in which they framed their experiences.
Phase 2 – Systematic data coding:
Coding of the data was done initially for the interviews, and then for the survey responses. I began by going line by line through each transcript, paying equal attention to each part of the data, and applying codes to anything identified as meaningful. The majority of coding was semantic, sticking closely to the participants’ understanding of their own experiences, however, as the process developed, and each transcript was re-visited, some latent coding was applied, that sought to look below the surface level meaning of what participants had said. Again, throughout this process, a reflective journal was used in order to make notes about my own experience of the data, to capture anything I felt may be drawing on my own experience, and to reflect on what I was being drawn to in the data.
Due to the quantity of data (over 70,000 words in the transcripts, and over 23,000 words of survey responses), this was a slow process, and required repeatedly stepping away from the data and coming back to it in a different frame of mind, reviewing data items in a different order, and discussions with peers and supervisors in the process. I noticed that my coding tended to be longer phrases, rather than one-to-two words, as it felt important to maintain some element of context for the codes, particularly as the stories being told had a sense of chronology to them, that seemed related to the way in which experiences were understood. The codes were then collated into a Word document. Writing up the codes in this way separately to the data, it was important to ensure that the codes captured meaning in a way that could be understood in isolation. Therefore, the wording of some of the codes was developed further at this stage. During the coding process I began to notice a number of patterns in the data, so alongside coding, I also developed some rough diagrams of ideas that could later be used in the development of thematic maps.
Phase 3: Generating initial themes from coded and collated data:
The process of generating themes from the data was initially a process of collating the codes from both the interviews and the surveys, and organising them in a way that reflected some of the commonality in what participants had expressed. Despite each of the participants having a unique story to tell, with details specific to their personal context, there was also commonality found in these experiences. Through reflecting on the codes themselves, going back to the data, and using notes and diagrams that had been made throughout the process in my reflective journal, I began to further develop ideas about the patterns that I had developed from the data. Related codes were collated, and developed into potential theme and sub theme ideas. I used thematic maps to develop my thinking, and changed these as my understanding of the data developed. I was conscious that in the development of codes and theme ideas, I wanted to ensure that my analysis was firmly grounded in the data, and therefore, repeatedly returned to the raw data during this process. The use of my reflective notes was also vital at this stage, to ensure that I did not become too fixated on limited ways of seeing the data, but was able to remain open and willing to let initial ideas go.
Phase 4: Developing and reviewing themes:
Theme development was an iterative process of going back and fore between the codes, and the way that patterns had been identified, and the data, collating quotes to illustrate ideas. A number of thematic maps were created that aimed to illustrate the way in which participants made sense of their experiences across the data set, including identifying areas of contradiction and overlap. The use of thematic maps was particularly useful as a visual tool of the way in which different ideas and patterns were connected and related.
Phase 5: Refining, defining and naming themes:
Through the process of developing thematic maps, areas of overlap became evident, which led to further refinement of ideas. There were many possible ways in which the data could be described, and therefore defining and articulating ideas to colleagues and supervisors brought helpful clarity about what could be defined as a theme, where related ideas fitted together into sub themes, and also where separation of ideas was necessary. The theme names were developed once there were clear differences between ideas, and with the use of participants’ quotes where appropriate, in order to keep close links between the themes and the data itself.
Phase 6: Writing the report:
Writing up each theme required further clarity as I sought to articulate ideas, and illustrate these through multiple participant quotes. The process of writing a theme report required further refinement of ideas, and rather than just a final part of the process, still required the iterative process of revisiting earlier phases to ensure that the ideas being presented closely represented the data whilst meeting the research aims. At this stage links were also made to existing literature in order to expand upon patterns identified in the data. Referring to relevant existing literature also helped me to further question my interpretation of the data, and to expand upon my understanding of the participants’ experiences.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: SAGE.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 1-25. [online first]
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837.