Braun & Clarke (2006), Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2) · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Seen in use in Fused Spectatorship (CHI PLAY ‘23), on twelve participants in the wild.
Status: not yet read. The most overdue item on this page.
What it is for
A six-phase procedure for getting from raw transcripts to named themes without pretending the themes were lying there waiting to be found. Reach for it with interview text, observation notes or open-ended questionnaires, when the aim is to induce themes rather than test a framework already in hand.
It is the default fixture in qualitative HCI work. That matters practically rather than intellectually: using it means a reviewer does not have to be persuaded the analysis is legitimate before considering what it found.
Which version
The 2006 paper is the citable classic. It later developed into Reflexive TA (2019 onwards), which treats the researcher’s own position as part of the instrument rather than as contamination to be minimised.
For a practice-based thesis written by the same person who made the works being studied, that is not a footnote. It is the difference between a bias to apologise for and a stated condition of the method.
Cite 2006. Work from the 2021 practical guide when actually coding — Braun & Clarke, Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide (Sage, ISBN 9781526417299), which is the step-by-step companion rather than the argument. Free supporting material at thematicanalysis.net.
When it will be reached for
The Sion Cao interview, already done, and whatever interviews follow it. Then the audience responses from the ZHdK prototype in autumn 2026.
Which sets the deadline: this has to be read before that autumn, not after the data exists. Choosing an analysis method after collecting the data is how the data turns out to be the wrong shape.