Karen O'Reilly

In my book, Qualitative Research Methods for Everyone: An Essential Toolkit (25 March 2025), I introduce the new term ‘Interpretive Analysis’ and I don’t (just) use thematic analysis. 

My main reason for not using the term ‘Thematic Analysis’ is that when taken literally that simply means analysing and looking for things. A theme can be a meaning, understanding, insight, norm, psychological strategy, or almost any ‘thing’ you are interested in. 

Themes are just a sorting mechanism not analysis.

Thematic analysis – looking for or generating themes or things  – is a step within interpretive analysis, not an end in itself. And even then, it should not involve simply repeating the themes/things you already came up with in your topic guide and literature review.

Calling qualitative analysis ‘thematic analysis’ is like calling quantitative analysis ‘variable analysis’. There’s a bit more to it. 

“Interpretive Analysis as sense making begins as soon as data collection (or generation) begins… It employs a spiral logic of understanding that moves forward and closes down while curling back on itself as it goes.  This enables the voices of the participants to be heard and the insights we learn to be incorporated into our research, learning as we go.” (O’Reilly 2025: 164) 

“During analysis, in all its phases, remember, we also aim to be sympathetic, reflexive, iterative, inductive, ethical, and kind” (O’Reilly 2025: 165)

This is not to deny the phenomenal achievements of Braun and Clarke (2022). I have learned a great deal from them and I cite them with enthusiasm. But you will need to read my book (and check out my other blog posts) for a fuller understanding  of why I argue qualitative analysis is always interpretive. 

Please comment below. 

You might also enjoy the book’s accompanying Podcast series: Qualitative Research Methods for Everyone, wherever you get your podcasts.