Сравнение методов

	Сравнительный тематический анализ	Рефлексивный тематический анализ
Область	Качественные методы	Качественные методы
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Год появления	2000s–2010s (as an explicit comparative variant of thematic analysis)	2006 (seminal paper); explicitly named 'reflexive' from ~2019
Автор метода	Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (thematic analysis foundation); comparative extension developed in applied policy and cross-cultural qualitative research traditions	Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke
Тип	Qualitative comparative analytical strategy	Qualitative research method
Основополагающий источник	Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.	Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Другие названия	cross-group thematic analysis, comparative TA, multi-group thematic analysis, comparative qualitative thematic analysis	RTA, reflexive TA, Braun and Clarke thematic analysis, qualitative thematic analysis
Связанные	6	6
Сводка	Comparative Thematic Analysis applies the structured procedures of thematic analysis across two or more distinct groups, sites, or time points, with the explicit aim of identifying both shared patterns and meaningful differences. Rather than producing a single composite account of experience, it yields a layered analysis that maps where themes converge and diverge across comparison units — making it especially valuable for policy-relevant, cross-cultural, or multi-site qualitative studies.	Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) is a widely used qualitative method for identifying, analysing, and interpreting patterns of shared meaning — called themes — across a dataset. Developed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke, it is theoretically flexible, works across epistemological positions, and foregrounds the researcher's active, interpretive role rather than treating themes as features that simply emerge from data. It differs from older 'codebook' approaches by treating the analyst's subjectivity as a resource rather than a source of bias to be suppressed.