Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development

By K. Roberts, Anthony Dowell, J. Nie. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2019

756 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundNavigating the world of qualitative thematic analysis can be challenging. This is compounded by the fact that detailed descriptions of methods are often omitted from qualitative discussions. While qualitative research methodologies are now mature, there often remains a lack of fine detail in their description both at submitted peer reviewed article level and in textbooks. As one of research’s aims is to determine the relationship between knowledge and practice through the demonstration of rigour, more detailed descriptions of methods could prove useful. Rigour in quantitative research is often determined through detailed explanation allowing replication, but the ability to replicate is often not considered appropriate in qualitative research. However, a well described qualitative methodology could demonstrate and ensure the same effect.MethodsThis article details the codebook development which contributed to thematic analysis of qualitative data. This analysis formed part of a mixed methods multiphase design research project, with both qualitative and quantitative inquiry and involving the convergence of data and analyses. This design consisted of three distinct phases: quantitative, qualitative and implementation phases.Results and conclusionsThis article is aimed at researchers and doctoral students new to thematic analysis by describing a framework to assist their processes. The detailed description of the methods used supports attempts to utilise the thematic analysis process and to determine rigour to support the establishment of credibility. This process will assist practitioners to be confident that the knowledge and claims contained within research are transferable to their practice. The approach described within this article builds on, and enhances, current accepted models.

Subfields: Education, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f08a01cfe8a9ceb8f565d0a89cd931c6dd6734d1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Applying Thematic Analysis to Education: A Hybrid Approach to Interpreting Data in Practitioner Research (2020, background): “However, as two coders were engaged in the generation and testing of the codebook as well as reviewing themes, a clear trail of evidence for the validity and interrater reliability has been improved (Roberts et al., 2019).”
Education for AI, not AI for Education: The Role of Education and Ethics in National AI Policy Strategies (2021, methodology): “A best practice in qualitative research is to iterate and refine the code-book through testing on a small subset of the data (Roberts et al. 2019).”
Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines (2020, background): “Several practical how-to guides have been published to date (e.g., Attride-Stirling, 2001; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Charmaz, 2006; Joffe, 2012; Roberts et al., 2019; Smith et al., 1999).”
Beyond a coefficient: an interactive process for achieving inter-rater consistency in qualitative coding (2020, background): “…and most basically, our descriptions answer the call for researchers to be more transparent in relaying the steps taken in their treatment of qualitative data (e.g. Burla et al., 2008; Church et al., 2019; Hill et al., 2005; Hruschka et al., 2004; O’Connor and Joffe, 2020; Roberts et al., 2019).”