How to Avoid It<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Treating the phases as a rigid linear checklist<\/td>\n | Thematic analysis is recursive; forcing linearity produces shallow analysis<\/td>\n | Move back and forth between phases; revisit earlier decisions as understanding deepens<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Using themes as topic labels rather than analytic claims<\/td>\n | A theme called “Communication” describes a topic, not a pattern of meaning<\/td>\n | Write theme names as claims: “Communication as a site of power and exclusion”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Quoting without analyzing<\/td>\n | Listing extracts without interpretation is description, not analysis<\/td>\n | Follow every extract with a sentence that explains what it shows and why it matters<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Forcing every code into a theme<\/td>\n | Not all data will form a coherent theme; forcing it produces incoherent analysis<\/td>\n | Allow some codes to remain as miscellaneous or to be set aside<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Applying ICR to reflexive TA<\/td>\n | Inter-coder reliability is philosophically incompatible with reflexive TA<\/td>\n | Use reflexivity, transparency, and evidential richness as quality criteria instead<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Ignoring negative cases<\/td>\n | Disconfirming evidence is as analytically important as confirming evidence<\/td>\n | Actively search for data that does not fit the emerging themes and engage with it<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/span>Frequently Asked Questions |