Quality

Quality really matters for research, and (reflexive) TA is no exception. But we have found that people can struggle to understand quality in relation to TA process (doing the research) and TA ‘outputs‘ – related both to writing about the research process – how I did my TA – and reporting the analysis – how best or congruently to report a reflexive TA.

In recently years we’ve focused more on questions of quality, and explored how reflexive TA is being used. This has led to a range of publications related to quality (visit the ‘quality’ section on our resources page). In terms of quality-oriented tools, we have developed a range of resources and guides that you can use – as a researcher, as a reviewer, or as an editor (or as a supervisor) – to reflect on, and guide practice related to, quality. This started with a series of questions to guide quality assessments, and most recently culminated in the development of our Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG).

You can watch Ginny giving two talks on quality that cover some related content – one from 2021, and one from 2024. And papers we link in our resources generally good offer examples of analysis. This page also provides some excellent examples from our students’ methodological write ups.

Qualitative scholars often grapple with expectations that don’t align with their qualitative methodological, epistemological and/or ontological positions (or paradigms) – something regularly encountered in peer review. To support quality practice in a wider way, we have produced a critique of COREQ – a very commonly used reporting checklist. Building on things we like and dislike of existing guidelines, we have also developed a set of guidelines to support researchers in excellent reporting of “fully qualitative” research. These Big Q Qualitative Reporting Guidelines (BQQRG) are designed as a reflexive tool for researchers to engage with rather than a checklist to respond to.