According to Braun and Clarke (2006) on thematic analysis, a deductive analysis is one way to use this method (although their own examples are all inductive). In practice, deductive thematic analysis can be very similar to content analysis, so it may be as much a matter of the label you attach to your procedures as the techniques you use. In that case, you need to think about which description of your methods would be most appropriate for your particular masters committee.

Yes, I agree with David. The approach you describe sounds closer to content analysis rather than thematic analysis

Thank you so much David L Morgan and Jo Barraket

I need to familiarize myself with content analysis.

Any thoughts on these methods (Integrative review or critical interpretative synthesis)?

My thesis is on Resilience/Occupational therapists (in their profession). I am interested to find themes that relates to the build up of resilience for these professionals.

Best wishes

Nubia

Research onion is to be used for more clarity

Research onion is to be used for more clarity

If you are using both qualitative and quantitative studies, you can choose either of the three types of mixed methods reviews: segregated (if you believe that both qualitative and quantitative approaches are distinct and should be analyzed separately), Contingent (if you believe that the qualitative and quantitative findings should be analyzed in a parallel manner and by moving back and forth), and integrated (if you believe that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not distinct, rather they qualify and complement each other) (Sandelowski, Voils, & Barroso, 2006). You can find the detailed process in the book by Heyvaert, Hannes, and Onghena, (2017). For quantitative analysis and synthesis, they usually recommend vote counting, narrative summaries, and meta-analysis (depending on your purpose and the nature of the studies included in the review). For qualitative analysis, they recommend meta-synthesis, meta-ethnography, or thematic synthesis. This thematic synthesis is different from Barun and Clark's (2006) approach and can be found in Thomas & Harden, (2008).

I used Thomas and Harden (2008) for a segregated review.

Hope these references are helpful.

References

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29-40.Article Defining and Designing Mixed Research Synthesis Studies

Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., & Onghena, P. (2017). Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews: The mixed methods research synthesis approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/using-mixed-methods-research-synthesis-for-literature-reviews/book243606

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1), 45. Article ‘Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research ...

Thank you so much Ahtisham Younas for your detailed answer.

Truly appreciated.

All the best

Nubia

Hello Nubia

If you already know the topics or categories that your analysis will have, evidently a deductive approach as content analysis is the most appropriate. On the other hand, if the categories to be used are not clear or you do not know them, the best approach is an inductive thematic approach.

Regards.

Thank you so much Jorge Cruz-Cárdenas

Best wishes

Nubia

Good advice from Jo and David earlier, and a nice reply too from Ahtisham drawing on literature that I’m personally not that familiar with, but sounds promising.

When you are undertaking a systematic review you need to set out your search protocol a priori, so effectively everything after that point is deductive (simplistically speaking) The approach to analysis and synthesis is, however, largely dependent on what you find (as is identifying the themes that emerge) so I would say that it is abductive rather than deductive (and certainly not inductive). Have a look at Timmermans and Tavory‘s (2012) paper to get your head around abductive inference. If you are synthesising a range of evidence, whether quant or qual then I would suggest that you follow the integrative review path as there is a lot of good guidance available.

I should also have mentioned that you should also look at the guidance covering the conduct of narrative synthesis by Popay et al. Even if you undertake statistical meta analysis you are going to have to synthesise the qualitative stuff somehow. Best of luck! Its a tough path to do a systematic review within a Master’s. (And don’t go anywhere near research onions!)

Thank you Michael J Roy

Michael J Roy sir, what's your advice on applying research onion at PhD level?

Its easy for me to say, because Saunders’ model is taught so ubiquitously around the world, but at PhD level, you are becoming a doctor of PHILOSPHY: there comes a point in every PhD when you have to grapple with the nature of reality. How we understand and study that reality, and convey knowledge of that reality is a crucial part of what makes a PhD. Saunders model does not really show how ontology links to epistomology links to methodology links to methods. Personally I think Saunders is too simplistic a tool for advanced degree level study. It is, however, a useful entry point. Finally, I don’t like it because it doesn’t account for realism. But don’t listen to me: it’s your advisor that matters!

Michael J Roy Sir, Thank you for your elaborate reply. As I plan to bring research onion in my PhD, I wanted your opinion on it. I am new to research onion.

Actually, Suanders' model isn't taught quite "all around the world," because it is virtually unknown in the U.S. As far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing because it totally mis-represent the position of mixed methods and strikes as incomplete at best when it comes to qualitative research. I'm not at all clear on what has made such an arbitrary tool so popular.

So, like Michael J. Roy, I think that PhD students should use it an opportunity to engage in critical thinking. Other than that, I would ignore it entirely.

That’s good to know David. I was trying to be diplomatic in my answer. Glad to hear that it’s not as ubiqutious as I had been told or heard!

Of course, we also have our own questionable "leading examples" here in the U.S.

As long as I'm being controversial, I'd nominate Creswell's "Five Traditions" book in that category. I'm sure its not entirely the author's fault, but far too many students seem to conclude that there are only five ways to do qualitative research, and that they have to fit their own study into one of those five. Sigh...

If you want to conduct a systematic review in a deductive approach, you could use the Grounded Theory Literature Review Method (https://orsociety.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1057/ejis.2011.51#.XG_5S-hKg2w). You will be able to follow a clear protocole :)

Thank you Kathleen Desveaud for the link.

Unfortunately I couldn't get assess to the full paper.

I will look for a book in the topic.

Best wishes

Nubia