Multiple Case-Based Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Also known as: MC-RTA, multi-case reflexive thematic analysis, cross-case reflexive thematic analysis, multiple case RTA
Multiple case-based reflexive thematic analysis integrates Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) with a multiple case study framework. Qualitative data are collected from two or more bounded cases, RTA is applied within each case to generate case-specific themes, and the themes are then compared and synthesised across cases. The approach preserves the depth and interpretive richness of RTA while enabling cross-case pattern recognition that single-case designs cannot provide.
Key highlights
- Combines interpretive depth of reflexive thematic analysis with the comparative power of a multiple case design.
- Allows both within-case richness and cross-case pattern recognition in a single coherent study.
- Reflexivity is structurally embedded, making the researcher's influence explicit and auditable rather than hidden.
- Flexible across disciplines and case types — applicable to organisations, communities, individuals, or events.
- Produces findings that are transferable across comparable contexts, strengthening analytic generalisability.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use multiple case-based RTA when the research question requires both interpretive depth within contexts and comparative understanding across them — for example, comparing how a policy, phenomenon, or intervention unfolds in different organisations, communities, or participant groups. It is appropriate when at least two meaningfully distinct cases can be bounded, each yielding sufficient qualitative data for stand-alone analysis. Do not use it when a single-case design is more appropriate (unique or extreme case with no meaningful comparator), when the goal is statistical generalisation, or when the research question is best served by a single-tradition approach such as grounded theory or phenomenology that carries its own embedded logic incompatible with a case framework.
Strengths & limitations
- Combines interpretive depth of reflexive thematic analysis with the comparative power of a multiple case design.
- Allows both within-case richness and cross-case pattern recognition in a single coherent study.
- Reflexivity is structurally embedded, making the researcher's influence explicit and auditable rather than hidden.
- Flexible across disciplines and case types — applicable to organisations, communities, individuals, or events.
- Produces findings that are transferable across comparable contexts, strengthening analytic generalisability.
- Resource-intensive: full RTA for each case multiplies the time and analytic effort required compared to a single-case design.
- Findings are context-specific; statistical generalisation to a population is not a goal or outcome.
- Requires sufficient data richness within each case — thin within-case datasets undermine the integrity of cross-case synthesis.
- Balancing within-case depth against cross-case breadth demands sustained methodological decision-making and transparency.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
How many cases do I need?
Two cases are the minimum for cross-case comparison, but three to six cases is the typical range that balances analytic depth with feasibility. More than eight cases usually stretches the within-case RTA beyond what is practicable in a single study. Case selection should be purposive and theoretically justified — the goal is analytic variation, not representativeness.
Is this the same as comparative thematic analysis?
The terms overlap in everyday usage, but multiple case-based RTA has a specific methodological commitment: it applies Braun and Clarke's reflexive, researcher-positioned version of thematic analysis within a case study framework, and the reflexivity requirement is non-negotiable. Generic comparative thematic analysis may use any coding approach and does not necessarily require the reflexive audit that Braun and Clarke foreground.
Do I have to use the same data sources in every case?
Consistency in data sources across cases strengthens comparability and is generally recommended. However, a multiple case design can accommodate some variation in data sources if the case contexts genuinely differ — what matters is that each case yields sufficient richness for stand-alone RTA. Any differences in data sources should be explicitly justified and reported.
How is cross-case synthesis different from just combining all the data and running one RTA?
Combining all data into a single corpus erases case-level context and treats the cases as a homogeneous pool — this eliminates the comparative leverage that makes a multiple case design worthwhile. Proper cross-case synthesis preserves case-specific themes and then examines convergence and divergence across them, producing findings that are sensitive to both context and pattern.
What quality criteria apply to this approach?
The primary quality criterion is reflexive rigour: the researcher must document how interpretive decisions were made at every stage — case bounding, coding, theme construction, and cross-case synthesis. Additional markers of quality include theoretical saturation within cases, coherence and fit of themes with the data, and a transparent account of positionality in the written report.
Sources
- 1.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage.ISBN 978-1473953246
- 2.Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage.ISBN 978-1506336169
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Multiple Case-Based Reflexive Thematic Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/qualitative/multiple-case-based-reflexive-thematic-analysis