Introduction

In the nearly two decades since Braun and Clarke’s 2006 paper transformed the qualitative landscape, thematic analysis (TA) has not stood still. The clarity and accessibility of that original framework gave researchers a powerful tool, but also demonstrated a deeper truth: TA is not a monolith. It’s a family of approaches, with distinct philosophical roots and divergent analytic aims. In this post, I explore how TA has evolved and why that evolution matters.

From Accessibility to Alignment

The early appeal of TA was its flexibility, across topics, disciplines, and paradigms. But as use grew, so did questions. What counts as a theme? Where does theory come in? Is coding a mechanical task or a creative one?

These questions highlighted a key insight: flexibility is not the same as neutrality. As Braun and Clarke have argued, doing TA well means making deliberate, transparent choices, choices that align with one’s research question(s), aims, epistemological stance, and analytic goals. Without this alignment, TA risks becoming a methodological mash-up: incoherent, ungrounded, and analytically problematic.

The Rise of Reflexive TA

In response to this growing complexity, Braun and Clarke articulated their approach ‘Reflexive Thematic Analysis’ (RTA). Unlike more structured approaches that rely on codebooks or inter-coder agreement, RTA places the researcher at the heart of the analytic process. It’s not about discovering themes that ‘emerge,’ but about constructing meaning through reflective, interpretive engagement with the data.

Here, subjectivity is not a threat to validity — it’s the engine of insight. Themes are not summaries of what participants said; they are shared meanings shaped by the researcher’s theoretical and contextual lens. RTA belongs firmly within what is often called ‘Big Q’ qualitative research: a paradigm embedded in qualitative values and practices, with researcher reflexivity front and centre.

Understanding the Landscape: A Necessary Typology

One of Braun and Clarke’s major recent contributions has been to map out the diverse ‘family’ of TA approaches. They identify three main types:

1. Codebook TA
   A middle-ground approach, often used in applied research, that uses predefined coding frameworks while allowing for some reflexive interpretation. It’s practical and structured, but not entirely aligned with ‘Big Q’ principles (note that codebook is actually a cluster of approaches encompassing framework analysis, template analysis, network analysis and matrix analysis)
2. Coding Reliability TA
   Anchored in (post)positivist values, this approach emphasizes structured codebooks, objectivity, and inter-coder reliability. It treats the analyst as a neutral observer and aims for replication.
3. Reflexive TA
   A fully interpretive approach that emphasises the active role of the researcher in coding and theme development. The researcher’s insights and reflections play a crucial role in shaping the analysis. RTA values the researcher’s subjective engagement with the data, considering it as a key strength rather than a limitation.

This typology does more than organise. It warns us: blending incompatible assumptions, for example, objectivity and reflexivity, leads to conceptually incoherent research. TA’s flexibility is a strength only when paired with methodological coherence and integrity.

Conceptual Shifts That Matter

As TA has matured, so too has our understanding of good practice. Some of the key developments include:

• Design Coherence Over Convenience
  This is not a plug-and-play approach. A TA project must align its research questions, theoretical assumptions, and analytic procedures. Without coherence, research lacks rigour.
• Beyond Saturation
  The idea of ‘data saturation’ — drawn from grounded theory — is challenged within RTA. Instead, researchers are encouraged to think in terms of meaning sufficiency and conceptual depth.
• Themes as Meaning, Not Topic
  Reflexive TA redefines themes. They are not simply topics or summaries. They are patterns of meaning, underpinned by a central organising concept — and they do not ‘reside’ in the data, waiting to be found.
• Responsibility in Flexibility
  TA can work across paradigms, but not all at once! Mismatch between key aspects of research design such as ontological, epistemological and theoretical positions results in poor practice and weak insights.

A Framework for Today: RTARG

In 2024, Braun and Clarke introduced the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG). Designed to support researchers using RTA, RTARG promotes reporting that aligns with the method’s interpretive nature and theoretical commitments. Key elements include:

• Explicit researcher reflexivity and positionality
• Conceptual rather than procedural rigor
• Avoidance of positivist terminology (e.g., inter-coder reliability)
• Emphasis on transparency, coherence, and depth

RTARG offers a practical framework that firmly resists the pressure to measure qualitative work against inappropriate criteria.

Closing Reflection

If the 2006 paper made thematic analysis accessible, today’s developments demand we make it accountable. Reflexive TA urges us to be clear in our decision making, to align better, and to write transparently. It further situates TA as a key qualitative method, capable of yielding rich, meaningful, responsible, and theoretically grounded insights.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology, 9(1), 3.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024). Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis

reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG). Palliative medicine, 38(6), 608-616.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.