Held online, 1-2pm, Thu 12/03/26, 1-2pm
Reflexive Thematic Analysis on researcher’s position as an “in-betweener”
Claire Hadfield, Senior Lecturer and PhD researcher in Education at Plymouth Marjon University
Reflecting on my journey using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) in a qualitative
longitudinal study of early career secondary teachers’ professional identities, I draw on my position as an “in-betweener”—moving from school teaching into initial teacher education. This role placed me close enough to share aspects of participants’ experiences while also able to view them from a different perspective. Working with interviews, viva reflections, and journals, I returned to the data repeatedly in an iterative process of theme development. RTA supported deep engagement through analytic journaling and participant discussion. I will discuss how insider knowledge both enriched and complicated the analysis, how slowing the process helped avoid premature conclusions, and how reflexivity was essential in managing bias. The session will share practical strategies and honest reflections on the challenges and insights that came from applying RTA in a long-term, identity-focused study.
How to prioritise participant voice in data analysis when a third voice is present – the use of advocates in research
Kim Collett, Lecturer in Education at The Open University
For my PhD I conducted interpretivist research, using research driven photo elicitation interviews and thematic analysis, comparing experiences of inclusion in the classroom. For some of the participants adjustments were needed to ensure the research was accessible. This included having advocates present during data collection. One of the under explored, issues with advocacy in research is how to deal with advocate voices in the data. The words of advocates will appear in verbatim transcripts and removing them can change meaning/context. However, keeping them means they become part of the analysis and introduce a third voice.
I kept the voices of advocates and analysed these along with the words of the
participants. However, careful consideration was needed to determine if the data was really reflecting the experiences/thoughts of the participant when the advocate was speaking. Sometimes it was clear as the participant would verbally or non-verbally agree/disagree, or the content would reflect other parts of the conversation. However, sometimes there was no confirmation. Reflexivity was key to assessing this and the findings chapter had to carefully cover the use of advocates when a finding was based on or informed by the advocate.