903890

research-article2020
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484320903890Human Resource Development ReviewLester et al.

Instructor’s Corner
Human Resource Development Review

Learning to Do Qualitative
2020, Vol. 19(1) 94­–106
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Data Analysis: A Starting sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1534484320903890
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320903890
Point journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd

Jessica Nina Lester1, Yonjoo Cho1 ,

and Chad R. Lochmiller1

Abstract
Given the vast and diverse qualitative analytic landscape, what might be a generative
starting point for researchers who desire to learn how to produce quality qualitative
analyses? This question is particularly relevant to researchers new to the field and
practice of qualitative research and instructors and mentors who regularly introduce
students to qualitative research practices. In this article, we seek to offer what we
view as a useful starting point for learning how to do qualitative analysis. We begin
by discussing briefly the general landscape of qualitative research methodologies
and methods. To contextualize our suggestions, we review the qualitative analytic
practices commonly used within human resource development (HRD). Following
this, we describe thematic analysis in more detail, including why we believe it is a
particularly useful analytic approach to consider when first learning about qualitative
analysis. We share seven common practices or important considerations for carrying
out a thematic analysis and conclude by highlighting key considerations for assuring
quality when conducting a thematic analysis.

Keywords
qualitative research, qualitative data analysis, HRD

For many researchers unfamiliar with qualitative research, determining how to con-
duct qualitative analyses is often quite challenging. Part of this challenge is due to the
seemingly limitless approaches that a qualitative researcher might leverage, as well as
simply learning to think like a qualitative researcher when analyzing data. From
framework analysis (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994) to content analysis (Schreier, 2012) to

1
Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

Corresponding Author:
Yonjoo Cho, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006, USA.
Email: choyonj@indiana.edu
Lester et al. 95

discourse analysis (Wood & Kroger, 2000), among many others, there are a plethora
of distinct ways in which a researcher might complete their qualitative analysis. Even
what many argue to be a mainstay qualitative analytic approach, that is, thematic anal-
ysis, has been conceptualized in varying ways and is arguably better understood as an
umbrella term that captures within it a set of very different approaches to analysis (see
Braun et al., 2019, for a discussion of the history of thematic analysis). Given this vast
and diverse qualitative analytic landscape, what might be a generative starting point
for researchers who desire to learn how to produce quality and useful qualitative
analyses? This question, we suggest, is particularly relevant to researchers new to the
field of qualitative research—our primary audience—as well as instructors and men-
tors who regularly introduce students to qualitative research practices.
In this article, we take up this open question as a point of departure and offer the-
matic analysis, an analytic method commonly used to identify patterns across lan-
guage-based data (Braun & Clarke, 2006), as a useful starting point for learning about
the qualitative analysis process. In doing so, we do not advocate for only learning the
nuances of thematic analysis, but rather see it as a useful beginning point. Arguably, it
is through exposure to diverse modes of analysis that researchers begin “to imagine
new possible configurations for research” (Freeman, 2017, p. 4). Thus, what we offer
in this article is an abbreviated roadmap for human resource development (HRD)
scholars and students who may be unfamiliar with qualitative analysis. Furthermore,
in this article, we do not aim to offer a new approach to qualitative analysis; rather, we
share a roadmap that we—along with many other scholars (see Clarke & Braun, 2013,
for an example, among many others)—have found useful when introducing people to
the practice of doing qualitative analysis.
To begin, we discuss the general landscape of qualitative research methodologies
and methods. Specifically, we briefly review the current state of qualitative analysis in
HRD. Following this, we describe thematic analysis in more detail, including why we
believe it is a particularly useful (but not the only) approach to consider, and outline
seven practices or important considerations for carrying out a thematic analysis. We
conclude by highlighting key considerations for assuring quality when conducting a
thematic analysis.

The Landscape of Qualitative Approaches to Analysis

Broadly, qualitative research is generally employed to support a researcher in generat-
ing a deep and nuanced understanding of a given phenomenon. The outcomes of such
research range from generating findings that can inform practice (e.g., Lochmiller,
2016) to providing detailed descriptions of a given problem of practice (e.g., Honig,
2006) to offering insights about professional practices within a given context (e.g.,
O’Reilly et al., 2015) and tackling issues related to the subjective nature of qualitative
research (e.g., Cho et al., 2016), among others. The potentiality of conducting qualita-
tive research is notable and yet dependent upon researchers being able to conduct
grounded, rigorous analyses, and more generally, understanding what it means to do
qualitative analysis.
96 Human Resource Development Review 19(1)

Broadly conceived, qualitative data analyses bring meaning to a data set (Anfara
et al., 2002), with qualitative data including a wide range of materials (e.g., conversa-
tional data, images, observations, and unstructured, semi-structured, or structured
interviews, among others). Indeed, qualitative data analysis means various things, as it
is often aligned with a particular methodology, theoretical perspective, research tradi-
tion, and/or field (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Coffey and Atkinson (1996) remind us
that “there is no single right way to analyze qualitative data; equally, it is essential to
find ways of using the data to think with” (p. 2). Miles and Huberman (1994) argued
that there are several common practices that often (but not always) persist across qual-
itative approaches to analysis, including the following:

•• Affixing codes to a set of field notes drawn from observations or interviews;

•• Noting reflections or other remarks in the margins;
•• Sorting and sifting through these materials to identify similar phrases, relation-
ships between variables, patterns, themes, distinct differences between sub-
groups, and common sequences;
•• Isolating these patterns and processes, commonalities and differences, and tak-
ing them out to the field in the next wave of data collection;
•• Gradually elaborating a small set of generalizations that cover the consistencies
discerned in the data;
•• Confronting those generalizations with a formalized body of knowledge in the
form of constructs or theories (p. 9).

Although there are certainly common analytic practices, there are also a range of
ways that one might analyze qualitative data, with each approach bringing unique
theoretical assumptions and expectations. Given that it is beyond the scope of this
article to overview the many different ways one might analyze qualitative data (see
Freeman, 2017, for a thorough discussion of analytic perspectives in qualitative
research), we instead provide an abbreviated snapshot of the approaches that some
scholars within HRD are engaging. Our aim in doing so is to contextualize our discus-
sion in relation to HRD in particular.
Thus, to capture a snapshot of the current state of qualitative research and qualita-
tive data analysis practices in HRD, we conducted a review of Human Resource
Development Quarterly (HRDQ) between 1990 and the current issue (Volume 33,
Issue 3) in 2019 and identified 59 qualitative articles. The types of qualitative research
included: 24 case studies, 19 generic qualitative studies, and eight phenomenological
studies. Notably, about half of the articles reported analyzing their qualitative data via
content analysis and a constant comparative method, which was also commonly
referred to as a grounded theory approach and/or inductive analysis. Four studies did
not identify data analysis methods, and no mention was made of using a qualitative
data analysis software package, such as NVivo or ATLAS.ti, until articles published in
2007 (see Table 1).
Across the articles identified, a grounded theory approach to analysis appeared to
be the go-to qualitative analysis method, with in-depth and semi-structured interviews
Lester et al. 97

Table 1.  Qualitative Data Analysis Methods Used in 59 Qualitative Studies in HRDQ.

Qualitative data analysis method Number (%)

Constant Comparative Analysis/Grounded Theory Approach/Inductive 20 (33.9)
Analysis
Content Analysis 12 (20.3)
Thematic Analysis 3 (5.1)
Basic Interpretive Analysis 2 (3.4)
Discourse Analysis 1 (1.7)
Not Available 4 (6.8)
Other (e.g., Template Analysis, Frame Analysis) 17 (28.8)
Total 59

Note. HRDQ = Human Resource Development Quarterly.

being the most common data types. It was not uncommon for some of the authors to
attribute analytic activities linked to grounded theory and the associated constant com-
parative method to thematic analysis, as evidenced in the literature we reviewed.
Relatedly, some scholars have argued for the importance of recognizing that thematic
analysis is not uniformly enacted (Braun & Clarke, 2016), as there is notable diversity
in how it is conceptualized and carried out (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2006; Boyatzis,
1998).

Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis is perhaps best defined as “an umbrella term, designating some-
times quite different approaches aimed at identifying patterns across qualitative data-
sets” (Braun et al., 2019, p. 844). Due to its broad and flexible nature, thematic analysis
has been widely used in diverse fields including psychology (Frith & Gleeson, 2004),
medicine (Cassol et al., 2018), health services (Norris et al., 2017), tourism (Costa
et al., 2016), HRD (Israel et al., 2017; Perkins, 2018; Tsai, 2016), and education
(Halverson et al., 2014).

Why Thematic Analysis?

Importantly, in forwarding thematic analysis, we are not suggesting that it is useful for
all qualitative research designs or even that it is the most innovative approach. In fact,
we caution against viewing thematic analysis as the end all, be all approach for ana-
lyzing qualitative data, agreeing with Wang and Roulston’s (2007) assessment that
“the diverse field of qualitative inquiry offers many other data analysis techniques that
have yet to be taken up by qualitative inquirers in HRD” (p. 181). Instead, we argue
that learning how to conduct a thematic analysis serves as an important foundation for
eventually making sense of other, more specialized forms of analysis. Furthermore,
like Clarke and Braun (2013), in our own teaching of qualitative methods, we have
98 Human Resource Development Review 19(1)

found thematic analysis to be “a useful—and a relatively easy to teach and learn—

basic introduction to qualitative analysis” (p. 120).
We thus view thematic analysis as a useful starting point for learning and doing
rigorous qualitative analyses for several reasons. First, we view thematic analysis as
offering tremendous “theoretical flexibility” and potentially being used as “just an
analytic method, rather than a methodology, which most other qualitative approaches
are” (Clarke & Braun, 2013, p. 120). This theoretical flexibility allows researchers
across a range of disciplines to engage disciplinary theories and perspectives when
conducting a thematic analysis, potentially generating a more meaningful and relevant
analysis for a given field. Accordingly, thematic analysis can result in a theory-driven
or data-driven set of findings and engage a range of research questions (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). Second, thematic analysis engages with analytic practices that are fairly
common with other approaches to qualitative analysis. For instance, when conducting
a thematic analysis, it is common to sort and sift through the data set to identify similar
phrases and/or relationships, a practice that has been described as being common
across many qualitative analytic approaches (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Third, the-
matic analysis can be used when analyzing various kinds of data, as well as a range of
data set sizes.

Conducting a Thematic Analysis

Qualitative data analysis is generally described as a nonlinear, iterative process. Thus,
it is common for researchers not to list out a stepwise analytic process. We suggest,
however, that it is quite useful to think about the process in relation to phases—which
are certainly often overlapping. These phases can be pursued in a systematic way,
while also recognizing that qualitative analysis is fundamentally flexible and even a
bit messy. The value of structuring data analysis in phases is that it creates a transpar-
ent process for both the qualitative researcher and (ultimately) the reader of a given
research report. Borrowing from Lochmiller and Lester’s (2017) earlier work, we offer
here seven phases to engage when completing a qualitative analysis. These phases, we
suggest, are particularly well-suited for thematic analysis, wherein the researcher aims
to produce broad descriptive statements that reflect their overall understanding of the
data and in response to their research questions. These phases include preparing and
organizing the data, transcribing the data, becoming familiar with the data corpus,
memoing the data, coding the data, producing categories and themes from underlying
coded passages, and making the analysis process transparent. We describe these phases
as follows.

Phase 1: Preparing and organizing the data for analysis.  Qualitative fieldwork often gen-
erates a considerable data corpus. Hours of interviews or focus groups, pages of obser-
vational notes, and countless documents can be retrieved during the data collection.
The amount of data collected is often conditioned on the length of the fieldwork phase.
Thus, one of the first steps in qualitative analysis is to prepare and organize the data
for thematic analysis. In practice, this typically involves gathering all of the audio- or
Lester et al. 99

video-recorded interview files into one location, converting observational notes to

electronic format (e.g., MS Word documents or Adobe PDF), and scanning documents
retrieved in paper form. We recommend that this process include a structured naming
protocol for each file, as well as the production of a master data catalog that lists each
data source, its storage location, its creator, and the date of its collection. Although
simplistic, this stage is important as it is at this point that scholars begin developing the
data corpus from which they will complete their thematic analysis. Furthermore, it
serves as an opportunity to set up the data set so that it can be imported into a qualita-
tive data analysis software package, such as ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA, or NVivo.

Phase 2: Transcribing the data.  Given that audio or video data are commonly collected
in qualitative research, qualitative researchers generally allocate time to transcribing
the data in preparation for further analysis. There are several different kinds of tran-
scripts used in qualitative research (e.g., multimodal transcript, gisted transcript, ver-
batim transcript), which links closely to the methodology used and purpose of a given
study. For thematic analysis, verbatim transcripts are quite common; that is, transcripts
that aim to capture every utterance from the participant and serve as an accurate record
of the conversation.
Transcribing a data set can feel overwhelming and it may be tempting (and at times
necessary) to outsource this activity to a professional transcriptionist. Yet, transcrip-
tion serves as an opportunity to become familiar with a data set. This familiarity deep-
ens a researcher’s understanding of the participants’ perspectives and supports them in
understanding the data set in a way that accelerates analysis later on. Thus, we strongly
encourage scholars to generate their own transcripts as opposed to hiring a profes-
sional transcriptionist to transcribe the audio or video files. At the same time, we rec-
ognize that there are a growing number of automated transcription options (e.g., Temi,
Trint) that are changing the place and practice of transcription, as well as possibilities
for directly coding audio and video files within QDAS packages (Paulus et al., 2014).
Importantly, then, we encourage qualitative researchers to consider technological
innovations related to transcription when determining how and to what degree they
transcribe their data set.

Phase 3: Becoming familiar with the data.  Once organized and transcribed, researchers
must become familiar with the data they collected. It can be helpful to think of this step
as light or initial analysis, wherein scholars take note of the ideas or experiences
described by participants that appear in interviews, recorded in observation notes, or
described in documents. These initial understandings can often inform a researcher’s
later, more detailed analysis. Thus, it is important to be aware of and chronicle in detail
these early reactions to the data. It also helps to become familiar with the corpus of data
so that a researcher is aware of the limitations or gaps in the collected data. This might
inspire further data collection or marking of these gaps as areas for further research.

Phase 4: Memoing the data.  As researchers review their data, it can be helpful to gener-
ate memos that describe initial reflections about the data, as well as any emergent
100 Human Resource Development Review 19(1)

interpretations. These memos are, in simple terms, a “conversation with ourselves

about our data” (Clarke, 2005, p. 202). They are designed to capture emergent under-
standings, as well as to denote potential biases that may influence the interpretation of
the data. Memos can also capture places in the data where there is—or will be—state-
ments or experiences that are potentially of analytic importance. For instance, an HRD
professional’s reflection on a new professional development program might be of ana-
lytic importance in a study of the effectiveness or impact of the program. A researcher
may wish to construct a memo which documents their early interpretation of the sig-
nificance of this reflection, as well as its connection to other aspects of the study (e.g.,
theoretical framework). Importantly, memos “should be suggestive; they needn’t be
conclusive” (Dey, 1993, p. 89). Thus, memos serve as an invitation for further analy-
sis. Given the advent of qualitative data analysis software packages, these memos can
be generated electronically and be directly linked to specific segments of the data; that
is, researchers can attach memos directly to primary data sources. This allows a
researcher to retrieve both their written memo and the segment of data that prompted
its development.

Phase 5: Coding the data.  A particularly important part of the thematic analysis process
involves coding the data. A code is simply a short, descriptive word or phrase that
assigns meaning to the data related to the researcher’s analytic interests. Although cod-
ing is often completed in an unstructured manner, we argue that for a thematic analysis
it is important to think of coding as occurring in multiple phases (see Saldana, 2016,
for further discussion of coding in cycles).
Although we do not advocate for a particular number of coding phases or cycles,
we suggest thinking about at least three phases. In the first phase, a researcher gener-
ally assigns codes to the entire data set. This layer of coding serves to identify impor-
tant statements, experiences, and reflections. As such, the first layer of coding is
primarily about priming the data set and seeking to reduce the size of the data corpus
by denoting those statements, experiences, and reflections that are of analytic impor-
tance. The codes assigned in the first phase are often descriptive in nature and reflect
a relatively low level of inference. In the second phase, researchers frequently return
to the passages/data segments they assigned codes to in the first phase and assign
additional codes. Codes at this stage begin moving to a higher level of inference, par-
ticularly as a researcher begins reflecting concepts and/or ideas that are more directly
related to the focus of the study. The aim of the second phase of coding is to begin
connecting statements, experiences, and reflections offered by research participants to
the study’s analytic interests. Finally, researchers generally complete a third phase of
coding wherein they make explicit connections to the study’s conceptual and/or theo-
retical ideas. In this phase, coding typically reaches its highest level of inference.
Although earlier phases of coding sought to identify what was happening in the data
set for the purposes of reducing the data set in size and complexity, codes at this phase
connect these statements, experiences, and reflections with specific conceptual or
theoretical ideas. For example, a statement or comment coded in prior rounds of cod-
ing may be specifically highlighted as an example of a conceptual or theoretical idea.
Lester et al. 101

Phase 6: Moving from codes to categories and categories to themes.  Broadly, thematic
analysis involves inductive engagement with the data, with researchers moving from
isolated cases to broader interpretations. This process involves the application of
codes, development of categories, and ultimately the production of themes. Patton
(1980) noted that “inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories
of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed
on them prior to data collection and analysis” (p. 306). Thus, codes represent the earli-
est stage in the analytic process. Metaphorically, codes can be thought of as individual
puzzle pieces which, as a collection, contribute to a researcher’s depiction of the data.
Individually, codes do not tell the entire story. Rather, for that to occur, the researcher
must understand how codes (inter)relate and contrast with one another. These (inter)
relationships and contrasts are encapsulated in the categories. Categories aggregate
individual codes that are related analytically or conceptually. This aggregation repre-
sents an important intermediate step in the production of themes.
Once categories have been developed, then researchers aim to produce their themes.
This involves two steps. First, a researcher must bring together various related catego-
ries. This involves recognizing the similarities, differences, and relationships across
categories. Second, with these similarities, differences, and relationships acknowl-
edged, the researcher then assigns a statement to these categories. This theme name
should be inclusive of all of the underlying categories, as well as descriptive of their
content, the relationships between them, as well as being responsive to any similarities
or differences observed. Themes are generally aligned with the conceptual or analytic
goals of the study and therefore are designed in response to the study’s primary
research questions or focus.

Phase 7: Making the analytic process transparent. An important consideration when

conducting a thematic analysis is to present information about the analytic process in
a transparent and verifiable manner. There are indeed a range of ways that researchers
might pursue this, and we only offer three possibilities here.
First, we have found creating a map of the analytic process to be a particularly
useful way by which to share one’s process of moving from codes to categories to
themes. Mapping the process supports a researcher in being open about the devel-
opment of themes and allows for outside readers/evaluators of a given research
study to discern how a researcher went about making key analytic choices (Anfara
et al., 2002).
Second, to support transparency, we recommend that researchers develop a detailed
audit trail that delineates the connection between data sources, codes, categories, and
themes. Many researchers have taken to presenting this audit trail in tabular form and
including the information in the published manuscript. This approach involves select-
ing a few representative segments from a data set, indicating which codes were ini-
tially applied to this segment, and then articulating which categories and themes the
segment is responsive to. This approach ensures that the researcher’s interpretation
and coding process is visible to an outside reader/evaluator and thus builds trustwor-
thiness in relation to the interpretations of the data set.
102 Human Resource Development Review 19(1)

Finally, another strategy involves reporting coding usage in frequencies. Although

reporting frequencies may not be preferred by all researchers, in some disciplines
and venues, it is valued and even preferred. This process can be greatly assisted by
the use of qualitative data analysis software packages. These packages not only tab-
ulate coding frequencies but also allow these tabulations to be exported in publica-
tion-ready formats. Coding frequencies illustrate how densely codes were applied to
the data set and thus enable readers to understand the extent to which codes were
used to derive the qualitative themes. More importantly, reporting coding frequen-
cies can provide some indication about how representative a theme may be in rela-
tion to the larger data set.

Completing a Quality Analysis

Phase 7 addresses, at least in part, concerns related to quality. Nonetheless, given that
this is a particularly salient consideration for researchers across fields, we offer here a
few additional considerations for pursuing and completing a qualitative analysis.
The diversity and heterogeneity of qualitative research is reflected in the varying
arguments that exist about how to establish quality and claim rigor. The literature has
emphasized the importance of ensuring rigor and transparency in qualitative research,
calling for a revisit of the evaluation criteria on qualitative research, particularly con-
cerning qualitative data analysis. For instance, a recent analysis of 52 qualitative arti-
cles in the Strategic Management Journal revealed that none of the published studies
were sufficiently transparent, with insufficient transparency being potentially perva-
sive in qualitative research (Aguinis & Solarino, 2019). Furthermore, Anderson
(2017), in her article focused on evaluation criteria for qualitative research, argued that
qualitative researchers must pursue rigor in qualitative research (at least) to the same
degree as quantitative researchers do. To that end, she recommended 10 evaluation
criteria for rigor in qualitative research, and four of them are related to qualitative data
analysis: communication of methodological awareness (e.g., audit trail), member-
checking procedures, triangulation, and peer debriefing. Similarly, Rocco’s (2010)
criteria for evaluating qualitative studies included a data analysis process described in
detail with limitations reported. On the basis of Rocco (2010), Storberg-Walker’s
(2012) amended list on qualitative data analysis in research papers included the fol-
lowing: (a) the article should provide enough details so that reviewers could follow the
same analytical steps; (b) the analysis process selected should be logically connected
to the purpose of the study; and (c) the analysis process should be justified.
Indeed, there have long been discussions of how to establish criteria. Lincoln and
Guba (1985) offered the classic articulation of four criteria (i.e., credibility, transfer-
ability, dependability, and confirmability) and related techniques (e.g., prolonged
engagement in the field, thick descriptions, and audit trails) for establishing criteria. As
another example, Tracy (2010) more recently articulated eight markers for establishing
quality. Yet there remains very little consensus around what counts as quality in qualita-
tive research, with a range of positions taken—often related to unique theoretical per-
spectives, methodological preferences, and field-specific norms. When examining the
Lester et al. 103

qualitative methodological literature, O’Reilly and Kiyimba (2015) identified at least

four ways in which quality (sometimes referred to as validity, among other terms) has
been characterized. The first position on quality utilizes quantitative conceptualizations
and simply modifies and adapts the core notions of validity, reliability, and generaliz-
ability. The second position relates to the development of qualitative-specific universal
markers of quality (e.g., Tracy, 2010), which draws upon qualitative vocabulary (e.g.,
transferability rather than generalizability). The third position casts quality in terms of
specific methodological boundaries, arguing that universal criteria are not particularly
useful and thus unique (albeit often overlapping) quality criteria are needed which align
with the assumptions of a given qualitative methodology or analytic approach (e.g.,
thematic analysis). The fourth position denies the need for quality indicators.
We suggest when conducting thematic analysis that a useful starting point for
establishing quality is both taking into account discussions about universal criteria
(e.g., Tracy, 2010) and practices specific to thematic analysis (e.g., Terry et al.,
2017). For instance, in Terry et al.’s (2017) discussion of quality related to thematic
analysis—as conceptualized by Braun and Clarke (2006)—they noted several com-
mon inconsistencies that impact quality. These inconsistencies range from incongru-
ous use of a theoretical perspective when interpreting data to combining theoretically
and methodologically distinct approaches to thematic analysis to generating themes
that are nothing more than the very questions posed to participants, among others. A
particularly useful starting point for assessing the quality of a given thematic analy-
sis is to turn to Braun and Clarke’s (2006) 15-point checklist for conducting a quali-
tative thematic analysis. Importantly, this checklist is specifically related to the
approach to thematic analysis articulated by Braun and Clarke (2006) and thus
nuances across the various approaches to thematic analysis should always be closely
considered.

Conclusion
In this article, we have offered a roadmap for introducing individuals who are new to
qualitative research to the process of conducting analysis, specifically a thematic anal-
ysis. We have argued that thematic analysis is a useful starting point for learning how
to conduct qualitative analysis, as it provides a foundation for learning other
approaches. Notably, what we offer here is only one of many ways to think about com-
pleting a thematic analysis. Thus, we encourage readers to engage with the method-
ological and disciplinary literature (e.g., Freeman, 2017; Saldana, 2016) to acquire a
more nuanced understanding of the range of ways in which thematic analysis might be
completed.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
104 Human Resource Development Review 19(1)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iD
Yonjoo Cho https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2757-5712

References
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research:
The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40, 1291–
1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
Anderson, V. (2017). Criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 28(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21282
Anfara, V. A. Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage:
Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2016). (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other prob-
lems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 739–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/136455
79.2016.1195588
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong
(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Sage.
Cassol, H., Pétré, B., Degrange, S., Martial, C., Charland-Verville, V., Lallier, F., Bragard, I.,
Guillaume, M., & Laureys, S. (2018). Qualitative thematic analysis of the phenomenology
of near-death experiences. PLOS ONE, 13(2), Article e0193001. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0193001
Cho, Y., Park, J., Ju, B., Han, S., Moon, H., Park, S., Ju, A., & Park, E. (2016). Women leaders’
work-life imbalance in South Korean companies: A collaborative qualitative study. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 27(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21262
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and devel-
oping strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research
strategies. Sage.
Costa, C., Breda, Z., Pinho, I., Bakas, F., & Durão, M. (2016). Performing a thematic analy-
sis: An exploratory study about managers’ perceptions on gender equality. The Qualitative
Report, 21(13), 34–47.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge.
Freeman, M. (2017). Modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis. Routledge.
Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and
appearance. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 40–48.
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A the-
matic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning
Lester et al. 105

research. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013

.09.004
Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office admin-
istrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028004357
Israel, T., Bettergarcia, J. N., Delucio, K., Avellar, T. R., Harkness, A., & Goodman, J. A.
(2017). Reactions of law enforcement to LGBTQ diversity training. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 28(2), 197–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21281
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lochmiller, C. R. (2016). Examining administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math
and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 75–109. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013161X15616660
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Norris, J. M., White, D. E., Nowell, L., Mrklas, K., & Stelfox, H. T. (2017). How do stakehold-
ers from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engage-
ment? A qualitative study. Implementation Science, 12(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13012-017-0625-5
O’Reilly, M., Karim, K., Stafford, V., & Hutchby, I. (2015). Identifying the interactional pro-
cesses in the first assessments in child mental health. Child and Adolescent Mental Health,
20(4), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12077
O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced qualitative research: A guide to using theory.
Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Sage.
Paulus, T., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. Sage.
Perkins, G. (2018). How does self-direction within learning operate to affect idea generation in
small-medium enterprise contexts? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29, 307–328.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21326
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research.
In A. Bryman, & B. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9
Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development
International, 13(4), 375–378.
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.
Storberg-Walker, J. (2012). Tips for publishing and reviewing qualitative studies in
applied discipline. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 254–261. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534484312436709
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. In C. Willing, &
W. S. Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 17–37). Sage.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(1), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Tsai, C.-J. (2016). Boredom at work and job monotony: An exploratory case study within the
catering sector. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27(2), 207–236. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hrdq.21249
106 Human Resource Development Review 19(1)

Wang, J., & Roulston, K. J. (2007). An alternative approach to conceptualizing interviews

in HRD research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(2), 179–210. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hrdq.1199
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action
in talk and text. Sage.

Author Biographies
Jessica Nina Lester is an associate professor of Counseling and Educational Psychology at
Indiana University. She received her PhD from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her
research strand focuses on the study and development of qualitative research methodologies and
methods at a theoretical, conceptual, and technical level. Her work in this area is wide ranging
and it has addressed a variety of issues common to qualitative research, including consideration
of the theoretical and practical challenges to engaging in qualitative research, the affordances
and limitations of using digital tools for qualitative inquiry, and the importance of centering
disability and critical disability studies in critical qualitative research.
Yonjoo Cho is an associate professor of Instructional Systems Technology focusing on human
resource development (HRD) at Indiana University. Her research interests include action learn-
ing in organizations, international HRD, and women in leadership. She serves as an associate
editor of Human Resource Development Review and served as a board member of the Academy
of Human Resource Development (2016-2018). She received her PhD in instructional technol-
ogy from the University of Texas at Austin.
Chad R. Lochmiller is an associate professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at
Indiana University. He received his PhD from the University of Washington (Seattle) with a
specialization in leadership, policy, and organizations. His research focuses on issues related to
K-12 educational leadership and policy and considers the politics of human and fiscal resource
investment in school systems; strategies to develop to human capital in schools, such as coach-
ing and professional learning; and continuous improvement processes, including Networked
Improvement Science.