A comparative tale of two methods: how thematic and narrative analyses author the data story differently

ABSTRACT

An interpretive qualitative approach insists on the plural and negotiated nature of the meanings that humans attach to their social realities. Thus, the qualitative researcher must navigate multiple and sometimes conflicting commitments to method, data, oneself, participants, and one’s reader. This can lead us to obscure the messiness of data analysis in final research reports and to downplay how methodological choices can make our participants ‘say things.’ In this article, we compare two interpretive methods, thematic and narrative analysis, including their shared epistemological and ontological premises, and offer a pedagogical demonstration of their application to the same data excerpt. However, our broader goal is to use the divergent results to critically examine how our choice of analytic method in interpretive research influences how we (researcher + method) ‘author’ data stories. Ultimately, researcher reflexivity must go beyond acknowledging how one’s position may influence the data analysis or the participant.

KEYWORDS:

• Interpretive research
• qualitative research
• thematic analysis
• narrative analysis
• researcher commitments

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. According to Tesch (2013), a meaning unit is a ‘segment of text that is comprehensible by itself and contains one idea, episode, or piece of information’ (p. 116).

2. As identification of these broader categories requires constant comparison with other related concepts, it is unsurprising that many thematic analyses claim to have used a grounded theory methodology. However, unlike thematic analysis, grounded theory requires its adherents to infer relationships among concepts in order to ‘build middle-range theoretical frameworks that explain the collected data’ (Charmaz, 2003, pp. 249–250). Braun and Clarke (2006) warn researchers who use thematic analysis without generating theory from the data gathered to avoid conducting ‘grounded theory lite’ instead of the ‘full fat’ version.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture, [2017-NP-198942].

Notes on contributors

Kirstie McAllum

Kirstie McAllum (Ph.D., University of Waikato) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. Her research examines topics related to volunteering, nonprofit organizing, and the professional identities of non-standard workers.

Stephanie Fox

Stephanie Fox (Ph.D., Simon Fraser University) is an Assistant Professor in health and organizational communication at the Université de Montréal. Her qualitative research focuses on the communicative practices of collaborative care and interprofessional collaboration in hospital and primary care contexts. She employs narrative, interaction, and discourse analysis.

Mary Simpson

Mary Simpson (Ph.D., University of Waikato) is a Senior Lecturer in health and organisational communication with the Waikato Management School at the University of Waikato. Her largely qualitative research focuses on the experiences of older people and their families with work, well-being, care, and palliative care in later life. She is currently working on an externally funded grant as part of a collaborative team of community and academic researchers focused on Kaumatua Mana Motuhake; the potential, capacity, and ability of Maori elders.

Christine Unson

Christine Unson (Ph.D., University of Connecticut) is a Professor in the Public Health Department at Southern Connecticut State University. Her scholarship focuses on caregiving of older adults, work-life extension in the United States, New Zealand, and the Philippines, and qualitative and quantitative research methods.