Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology

Annelie J Sundler, Elisabeth Lindberg, Christina Nilsson, Lina Palmér, Annelie J Sundler, Elisabeth Lindberg, Christina Nilsson, Lina Palmér

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this paper was to discuss how to understand and undertake thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Methodological principles to guide the process of analysis are offered grounded on phenomenological philosophy. This is further discussed in relation to how scientific rigour and validity can be achieved.

Design: This is a discursive article on thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology.

Results: This paper takes thematic analysis based on a descriptive phenomenological tradition forward and provides a useful description on how to undertake the analysis. Ontological and epistemological foundations of descriptive phenomenology are outlined. Methodological principles are explained to guide the process of analysis, as well as help to understand validity and rigour. Researchers and students in nursing and midwifery conducting qualitative research need comprehensible and valid methods to analyse the meaning of lived experiences and organize data in meaningful ways.

Keywords: healthcare research; lifeworld; lived experiences; meanings; midwifery; nursing; phenomenology; qualitative; thematic analysis.

Conflict of interest statement

No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of thematic analysis
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of questions useful to the uphold reflexivity, credibility and transferability of the research process in the thematic analysis of meanings

References

    1. Braun, V. , & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
    1. Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), 253–263. 10.1097/DCC.0000000000000253
    1. Dahlberg, H. , & Dahlberg, K. (2003). To not make definite what is indefinite: A phenomenological analysis of perception and its epistemological consequences. Journal of the Humanistic Psychologist, 31(4), 34–50.
    1. Dahlberg, K. , Dahlberg, H. , & Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective lifeworld research. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
    1. Dowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen: A review of different phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1), 131–142. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026
    1. Dowling, M. , & Cooney, A. (2012). Research approaches related to phenomenology: Negotiating a complex landscape. Nurse Researcher, 20(2), 21–27. 10.7748/nr2012.11.20.2.21.c9440
    1. Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. London, UK: Continuum.
    1. Ho, K. H. M. , Chiang, V. C. L. , & Leung, D. (2017). Hermeneutic phenomenological analysis: The ‘possibility’ beyond ‘actuality’ in thematic analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(7), 1757–1766. 10.1111/jan.13255
    1. Holloway, I. , & Todres, L. (2003). The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 345–357. 10.1177/1468794103033004
    1. Kitto, S. C. , Chesters, J. , & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research. The Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4), 243–246.
    1. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. Lancet, 358(9280), 483–488.
    1. Matua, G. A. (2015). Choosing phenomenology as a guiding philosophy for nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 22(4), 30–34. 10.7748/nr.22.4.30.e1325
    1. Merleau‐Ponty, M. (2002/1945). Phenomenology of perception. London, UK: Routledge Classics.
    1. Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 1212–1222. 10.1177/1049732315588501
    1. Norlyk, A. , & Harder, I. (2010). What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological? An analysis of peer‐reviewed empirical nursing studies. Qualitative Health Research, 20(3), 420–431. 10.1177/1049732309357435
    1. Porter, S. (2007). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Reasserting realism in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), 79–86. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04360.x
    1. Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigor: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 304–310.
    1. Vaismoradi, M. , Turunen, H. , & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 5(3), 398–405. 10.1111/nhs.12048
    1. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice. New York, NY: Routlege.
    1. van Wijngaarden, E. , Meide, H. V. , & Dahlberg, K. (2017). Researching health care as a meaningful practice: Toward a nondualistic view on evidence for qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 1738–1747. 10.1177/1049732317711133
    1. Whittemore, R. , Chase, S. K. , & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522–537. 10.1177/104973201129119299

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe