Talk:Thematic analysis

This is great! The only thing I would change is that I would add a comparison to narrative analysis in your advantages and disadvantages. For instance, when you mention that you may miss details in thematic analysis you might want to mention that many of these details can be captured through narrative analysis but can find larger themes that otherwise be missed by the other method. I just see those two as being very closely related. I also would probably put advantages and disadvantages at the bottom, but that's really minor.Zakdavid18 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I like the idea of discussing different methods of analysis that could counteract the shortfalls of thematic analysis. I also agree that "advantages and disadvantages" should go at the bottom!--Emjwolfe (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The page looks really good. I think my one critique is the organization of the information. I would suggest placing the advantages and disadvantages after your more descriptive information. Other than that, I like it. Anbingham (Anbingham (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for the suggestion. We have moved the section!--Emjwolfe (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a really good page. I found the information helpful, and did not have any big issues following or understanding the information. There is a great deal of information in this page, but it is broken up in a way is easy to comprehend (as I mentioned before). Like the other two comments, my only suggestion would be to consider changing the layout of your information. I think that the Advantages and Disadvantages should be located towards the end of the article. I hope you find these suggestions helpful as you continue to develop this article. M.devia.psych. (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest changing the Potential Pitfalls to avoid to "Potential Pitfalls". Your information is good, but it is a lot of material. I would break up the text by adding a chart or table. I don't think you need to get rid of your information, but a reference chart would be helpful. I hope this helps! M.devia.psych. (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, using a chart/table is much more effective in helping people to get a good sense of what is really going on!--Emjwolfe (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a lot of information and a great start on a new page. Hear are my questions and suggestions for improvement: 1) Break apart and discuss further the processes of data reduction and data complication - they have different goals and thus different processes 2) Be sure to explain what you mean with certain terms - for example, what does it mean that the coding process is cyclical? How does that play out during the coding process? Check for other similar problems and address. 3) Integrate the pitfalls section into the appropriate sections above, explaining how they may occur, why they are a problem and how to avoid or fix. 4) How does the set of "Questions to consider" relate to the material above? Are they coding questions- & if so for what phase of coding? Reflexivity journal questions - then specify and explain briefly why this information is necessary. 5) Keep in mind that themes are answers to the questions the researcher posed in the data complication phase - this is specified in one of the starting articles I gave you. 6) Needs richer citations Heather Adams (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I really like your article and appreciate that you've had to build it from the ground up. However, there are a couple of issues that I had with it. In many ways I felt like the tone was a bit different than the encyclopedic tone that wikipedia articles tend to have. This is a really simple fix, but think like "as mentioned above" that starts out "what is thematic analysis" feels wrong for some reason (I don't know if this is just me). I also feel like you could be a little more concise. I'm sure there is a simpler way of stating what thematic analysis is, even after reading the section on "what is thematic analysis" I feel like it's a little muddled and unclear. Other than tone/writing issues, there are a few areas where you could add some more citations, particularly in "what is a theme" and "defining and naming themes." As frustrating and unnatural as it seems, nearly every sentence should be cited. I'm also a little confused when you drop the last names of what I'm guessing are researchers or theorists but don't link to their pages or explain who they are. Again, this might just be my own personal issue and not something you need to change, but it's something I'd add if it were my page. It is good that after reading this page I have an idea of how to conduct thematic analysis, though again there's a mess of information that I feel could be simplified. Zakdavid18 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what is unclear in the sections that you mention? This specificity will help us clear up any confusion. Also, we do not link the researchers to their pages because they do not have pages. I have seen this done in other pages. Thank you for your feedback and if you have any specific suggestions, please let us know!Emjwolfe (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to change anything, personally I would focus on re-working the "what is thematic analysis" section and trying to make it simpler and more concise. I just found it a bit muddled. Sorry if that isn't terribly specific. I just read that section without coming away with a clear idea of what thematic analysis is. Your article is great at telling me how to do it, but what exactly is it? It might help if you added a little background information like major researchers who have used thematic analysis or projects that are good examples of it. You're doing a great job, though. What I'm suggesting is not crucial to the project because I do think it's great. Zakdavid18 (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The information you have included is very informative, in my opinion. However, there is a great deal of text and quite lengthy. I do not think it necessary to delete material because I feel that all the information you have is necessary, but I would suggest creating a table for the Phases of Thematic Analysis. This will break up the text and creates a nice, quick reference for the reader. You could give a brief overview of each phase and then use the paragraphs to expand on those points. I would also suggest toying with the idea of converting the Advantages and Disadvantages from bullet points to a chart. I'm not sure if I find, again personal preference and opinion, the bullet points appropriate. Play around with the chart idea and maybe you will like the way the information is presented through that format.I would go back and add a citation after the last sentence in the fourth paragraph of "What is thematic analysis". This is really nit-picky, but I don't want your information to be deleted because it is missing a small citation. These are my only big suggestions. M.devia.psych. (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea of using a table for the phases. We are currently working on the advantages/disadvantages section to put more information in it. Perhaps that will make the bullet points more suitable. --Emjwolfe (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so much information. I think you guys did a great job of covering your topic thoroughly and with a great flow. My only real suggestion is more aesthetically based. I would suggest bolding, bulleting, or charting wherever possible to break up the text a little more. It is quite an intimidating article to look at, but very well written and organized. (Jlmahan (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

Good call. I definitely thinking breaking information up further will help with the clarity of the page!--Emjwolfe (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Instructor Notes

You have put together a great, in-depth page. You have a great table for phases & good specification of what analysis codes can include. You have some further developments to work on:

1. You need to address initial research questions – is there a Wikipedia page that covers this and if so, link to it.
2. You need to improve the clarity throughout your article. For example, themes are generated from the data, what do you me by “encoding data”, how is the quote from Charmaz helpful, the “big picture” semantic themes and latent themes, and semantic coding / content coding.
3. You have subtle value and universalizing statements throughout – read carefully and correct them.
4. Cite more than one source whenever possible and provide references for uncited sources.
5. You have some circular sentences, such as the opening sentence of what is thematic analysis. You also need to tighten up sentence structure – apply word count to help you with this.
6. You need to address the role of the researcher – how their knowledge, biases, etc shape the process.
7. Is there a Wikipedia page for transcription protocol? You need to address this in some manner.
8. Advantages and disadvantages needs further development, as does epistemological positions.
9. Under phases, discuss a phase first and then incorporate the reflexivity journal. Also, incorporate questions to consider as you code into the presentation of coding – they make no sense in their current location.
10. respond to all other critiques from reviewers Heather Adams (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

    My edits

    Hi there, I am editing this page to improve its accuracy and ensure the generic claims apply to all forms of thematic analysis (currently not the case - this applies to all of the content I have removed so far). The original version was heavily plagarised from my own work with Virginia Braun and some of this problematic original content lingers.Drvicclarke (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)