Comparative Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Also known as: Comparative RTA, cross-group thematic analysis, comparative TA, comparative qualitative thematic comparison
Comparative Reflexive Thematic Analysis (CRTA) applies Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis framework to data drawn from two or more distinct groups, time points, or contexts, with the explicit goal of contrasting thematic patterns across those groups. The reflexive element means the analyst continuously interrogates how their own perspectives and positioning shape the themes they construct, while the comparative element directs attention to differences and similarities between data sets rather than seeking a single unified account.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use comparative RTA when you have qualitative data from two or more distinct groups, contexts, or time points and your research question is explicitly about differences or similarities between them — for example, comparing experiences across professional roles, demographic groups, or intervention conditions. It is well suited to health research, education, organisational studies, and policy evaluation. It is not appropriate when your data come from a single homogeneous sample with no meaningful grouping variable, when group boundaries are arbitrary rather than theoretically motivated, or when the primary goal is to build a theory of social process (grounded theory is better suited) rather than to map and interpret experiential contrasts.
Strengths & limitations
- Makes cross-group comparison systematic and transparent, going beyond impressionistic claims that 'the groups differed'.
- The reflexive discipline makes the analyst's interpretive influence visible and accountable rather than hidden.
- Flexible enough to accommodate inductive, deductive, or hybrid coding, and any text-based qualitative data.
- Produces rich, nuanced accounts of both within-group patterning and between-group contrasts.
- Well suited to multi-site or multi-group research designs common in health, education, and policy evaluation.
- Constructing comparable coding frameworks across groups requires careful methodological planning; poorly aligned codes undermine the comparison.
- More time-intensive than single-group thematic analysis, as each dataset must be analysed thoroughly before comparison begins.
- Findings are context-specific and not statistically generalisable; comparison is analytic, not probabilistic.
- The reflexive requirement demands advanced skill; less experienced analysts may struggle to maintain consistent reflexive practice across a complex comparative design.
Frequently asked
How does comparative RTA differ from standard reflexive thematic analysis?
Standard reflexive thematic analysis typically analyses one dataset and produces a single set of themes. Comparative RTA analyses two or more datasets (groups, sites, or time points) independently and then systematically juxtaposes the resulting thematic structures to identify convergences and divergences. The reflexive principles are the same; the comparative layer is an additional analytic move.
Do I need to use the same codes across all groups?
The coding framework should be consistent enough to enable comparison, but forcing identical codes onto all groups risks flattening real differences. A practical approach is to develop a shared set of codes for themes relevant to all groups while allowing group-specific codes to emerge where the data warrant them. Analytical decisions about code alignment should be documented reflexively.
How many participants do I need per group?
There is no fixed rule, but each group needs enough data to support credible theme construction — typically at least 5–10 participants per group for interview data, or sufficient documents or responses to ensure thematic saturation within that group. Having very unequal group sizes can complicate comparison and should be acknowledged as a limitation.
Is this method compatible with mixed-methods research?
Yes. Comparative RTA can function as the qualitative strand in a mixed-methods design, for example providing interpretive depth alongside survey data comparing the same groups. In such designs, reflexive memos should also address how the quantitative framing may have shaped the researcher's interpretive priorities in the qualitative analysis.
What software can I use?
NVivo, ATLAS.ti, and MAXQDA all support multi-dataset coding and can assist with organising codes and extracts across groups. However, the intellectual work of constructing themes and conducting the cross-group comparison remains the analyst's responsibility. Software manages storage and retrieval; interpretation and reflexive reasoning are done by the researcher.
Sources
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage. ISBN: 978-1473953406
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Comparative Reflexive Thematic Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/qualitative/comparative-reflexive-thematic-analysis
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Comparative Case StudyQualitative↔ compare
- Framework AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
- Reflexive Thematic AnalysisQualitative↔ compare
- Thematic AnalysisQualitative Research↔ compare