Introduction
In a remarkable achievement, Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke’s 2006 paper ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’ has joined the academic pantheon: it’s now ranked among the top ten most cited scholarly papers of all time, and third most cited of the 21st century. For a paper on qualitative methodology — historically sidelined in some scientific circles — this recognition signals a profound shift in how we understand and value knowledge.

A Defining Contribution
When Braun and Clarke first published their guide to thematic analysis (TA), qualitative researchers were navigating murky waters. TA was widely used but poorly defined, often with poor methodological articulation, leaving the analytic process vague and opaque.

The 2006 paper introduced a clear, structured, and accessible guide to doing TA, demystifying the process and legitimising it as a rigorous method in its own right. The six-phase framework encouraged researchers to make their analytic decisions visible, to explain their theoretical orientation and approach, to describe the process of coding, and theme development and to move away from vague (and positivist) claims like ‘themes emerged.’

Importantly, this clarity arrived at a time when qualitative research itself was facing systemic marginalisation. A stark reminder came in 2016, when 77 senior academics published an open letter urging the British Medical Journal to reconsider its policy of sidelining qualitative research as ‘low priority’ or ‘unlikely to be cited.’ The letter underscored a wider cultural tendency to treat interpretive inquiry as secondary to positivist science, the very backdrop against which Braun and Clarke’s paper helped reposition thematic analysis as both accessible and epistemologically important.

More than a manual, the paper positioned thematic analysis as a method in conversation with theory, rather than a passive technique. It laid the foundation for what would later become known as reflexive thematic analysis — a term and philosophy the authors would go on to refine into a non-positivist, theoretically transparent, ‘Big Q’ approach that centres researcher subjectivity and interpretive depth.

Why It Still Resonates
Much of the paper’s enduring power lies in its lucid, student-friendly writing. It doesn’t speak in abstractions; it explains. It doesn’t gatekeep; it invites. This accessibility has made it a mainstay on methods syllabi and a trusted reference in diverse contexts, from mental health to media studies, with their work translated into multiple languages.

Moreover, its methodological flexibility made it adaptable. Researchers could tailor it to their data, questions, and paradigms. And in doing so, many began not just applying a method, but rethinking what it means to interpret qualitative data well.

Citation as Legacy
To be so widely cited is not merely a metric of visibility. It’s evidence of scholarly reach, methodological resonance, and cross-disciplinary utility. From psychology and health research to education, sociology and business, Braun and Clarke’s approach has enabled countless researchers to craft meaningful interpretations from rich – and messy – qualitative data.

That the paper has taken on ‘a life of its own,’ as Clarke puts it, reflects its wide appeal. But it also speaks to a deeper truth: researchers were hungry for clarity, guidance, and validation in qualitative inquiry, and this paper delivered exactly that.

The legacy

Here are three powerful ways Braun and Clarke’s work has helped reshape the landscape of qualitative research.

1. Democratizing Qualitative Methods
Before this paper, thematic analysis was widely used but poorly understood. Many researchers, especially those without deep training in qualitative methodology, were left unsure how to analyse qualitative data rigorously. Braun and Clarke’s step-by-step framework offered clear, non-jargon-laden guidance, opening the door for a wider range of scholars, students, and practitioners to confidently conduct and publish qualitative research.

Impact: It made qualitative analysis more approachable and teachable, especially in disciplines and settings where qualitative literacy was previously low.

2. Legitimising Thematic Analysis as a Standalone Method
By formally naming and structuring thematic analysis, Braun and Clarke did more than just provide a method. Prior to their work, TA was often seen as a vague or secondary technique, something you might do ‘informally’ or alongside other methods. The 2006 paper positioned TA as a robust method in its own right, deserving of the same respect and scrutiny as other qualitative analytic approaches such as grounded theory or phenomenology.

Impact: The paper elevated TA from a fuzzy concept to a legitimate, publishable, and fundable approach, especially important in applied fields like health, education, and social work.

3. Shifting the Paradigm Toward Reflexivity and Theoretical Transparency
Even in its early form, the paper encouraged researchers to make their analytic decisions visible. This emphasis on reflexivity and clarity set the stage for later developments in reflexive thematic analysis, where researcher subjectivity is embraced rather than minimized.

Impact: It helped create a culture of methodological transparency and reflexive openness, countering positivist tendencies that had crept into some qualitative traditions.

A Closing Reflection
Braun and Clarke’s paper did not just describe a method — it redefined the standards for how we talk about, teach, and practice qualitative research. It gave legitimacy to interpretive methods, broadened access for novice researchers, and laid the groundwork for a more reflective and inclusive qualitative culture.

The legacy of Braun and Clarke’s paper is not just in citations or translations. It’s in the mindset shift it helped catalyse; one in which qualitative analysis is not lesser, looser, or less scientific, but rather, thoughtful, rigorous, and essential.

Their recent introduction of the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG) continues this legacy — offering researchers and reviewers a conceptually coherent framework for reporting reflexive TA today.

To Come
In the next blog I explore how thematic analysis continues to shape qualitative research today, and how we can keep that legacy alive with integrity and insight.

References

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

Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakley A et al. An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research BMJ 2016; 352 :i563 doi:10.1136/bmj.i563

Loder E, Groves T, Schroter S, Merino J G, Weber W. Qualitative research and The BMJ BMJ 2016; 352 :i641 doi:10.1136/bmj.i641

Pearson, H., Ledford, H., Hutson, M., & Van Noorden, R. (2025). Exclusive: the most-cited papers of the twenty-first century. Nature, 640(8059), 588-592.

Van Noorden, R. (2025). These are the most-cited research papers of all time. Nature, 640(8059), 591.