I don't see why not, because for better or worse you can use deconstruction with anything and everything.

What would thematic analysis add for your achieving your goals?

I do agree with David about the use of deconstruction theory. i would here add to know what would you like to achieve through thematic analysis of the plan?

Just to clarify Sabah - are you mainly referring to Jacque Derrida's method of deconstructionism? He is credited with original concept - at least in the post-modern context.  If so - it could accompany your ethnographic methodology - but it would be a separate arm to it. Your ethnographical approach, as you identify, would mainly be in the field through observation and perhaps interviews etc. Deconstructionism lies mainly with interpreting written existing narrative which, again, you have identified that you are collecting literature. What I would warn against is that ethnography is, for many, far more practical and pragmatic than deconstructionism - which is quite a complex philosophical approach.

I agree with David and Sheeraz - your field data is more the data that you would want to analyse thematically. That said - you can content/thematically 'review' using deconstructionism - but it is different. Your narrative deconstruction would most likely follow one of two broad classifications of textual discourse analysis - either 'linguistic units' or ' analysis of 'broad social concepts' - adopting a social literacy model. Derrida's approach is a concept-driven analysis to expose and subvert 'binary oppositions' or dichotomies in the literature. His critique is based on the philosophical tradition of 'logocentrism' - or 'meta-physics of presence (phallogocentrism)'. He argues that all dichotomies between subject and object or appearance and reality are untenable.

I've attached two articles that might elaborate. One is my own - and the other a good example of an article that I reviewed.

 Dear Dr Dean my target work entitled "Analysing subalternity of rural women of Sindh through selected fictional and real stories: A Postcolonial Critique" is theoretically supported by Guha's argument that "subalternity, subordination, constructs due to the discrimination of age, caste, culture, race, etc" and Spivak's argument that "in case of women some historical facts also construct subalternity due to which the women cannot be heard by the hegemonic or elite based authorities". Taking these two arguments I develop two questions as 1. How does subalternity construct in the lives of selected fictional and real women? 2. How far the selected women can be heard by their authoritative forces?

by answering first question I can analyse the factors of subalternity  and through second question I can criticize the hegemonic forces. Now the process of analyzing subalternity and criticizing hegemony will pave the way to voice the voiceless subalterns. To voice the voiceless is my goal..

As I mentioned earlier that my collected data is of dual nature. Fiction via English literature and Real data via interviews and observation... 

My supposed method for analysis is deconstruction. But i'm a bit confuse about its systematic application on my data, fictional stories and real stories. I select deconstruction method proposed by Spivak, the translator of Derrida's Grammatology. Spivak differentiates her approach from Derrida by following the deconstructive approach to breakdown the power politics of centralized discourses and thence she creates a space for the marginalized/subordinate people.  She asserts that deconstructive reading does not appropriate to undermine the main discourse and to find out errors. Error finding is not merely the end result of this critical approach while it is a way to reach to the truth. The task of a critic is to look inside the underlying layers of reality and to descend to the level to excavate the formation or construction of cultural and political truth.  Through the deconstructive strategy, she undermines power politics of colonialism and nationalism etc.  

Now what is my problem? My problem is the application of this method.. step by step method.. as in thematic analysis we first reduce data, then do coding, then create themes... etc. How should I follow the method of deconstruction... this question lead me to amalgamate this deconstructive approach with thematic analysis process..

M looking forward for the solution of my query.

It sounds like you want a version of deconstructionism that is as systematic as Thematic Analysis appears to be, with its six steps. Yet, I think that if you look carefully at the Braun & Clarke approach, you will find that it also relies on a great deal of intuition (particularly with regard to "coding" the data and transforming those codes into "themes").

In this regard, you might look at some of the discussion in a thread I started from last year:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_feel_about_Thematic_Analysis

 Sir David how do you feel about my research plan...  

Overall, it seems to me like you could just stick with deconstructionism, because it is so well matched to your goals. I'm not sure what the thematic analysis adds to that.

But there is also the question of what audience you want to reach, and perhaps thematic analysis would be relevant in that regard?

Sabah - agree with David. You seem to wanting to investigate an issue that is something along the lines of an 'emancipatory' approach. Ethnography doesn't usually have that intention in mind. I would also argue that you would be better to stick with deconstructionism. Spivak is useful - but translations of Derrida's work are sometimes just that 'translations'; and are not always accurate translations. Of Grammatology is one of Derrida's seminal works - but just one of them. Others, such as 'Writing and Difference', 'Positions', 'Rogues', 'Dissemination' etc may illuminate further. Caputo's work on Derrida is worth a read. I would also refer you to J.P. Gee's related texts on social linguistics.

As your topic seems grounded in institutional political oppression and hegemony you could, if you have not already done so, read further afield against the likes of Foucault, Levinas etc as well

Hi sir David and sir Dean. I agree with your suggestions. Yes deconstructionism is the suitable method for analysis. But pleases guide me how should I apply this method systematically. My fictional data is in written form while real data is in oral form in my voice recorder.. Here, first I will convert in written form...then etc... 

My approach is critical approach which is also called advocacy or transformatory approach. How it is advocacy..because I will advocate downtrodden against authorities..how it is transformatory because I will attempt to bring some reform in the existing hegemonic systems..

My critical paradigm coheres with subaltern studies paradigm. For the critics of subaltern concept desire to give some place to marginalized similarly critical/advocacy/transformative paradigm  is a sort of political approach by which researchers aim to give some space to marginalized...

My basic impulse behind this study is anger for hegemonic system and sympathy for marginalized/downtrodden..further the first question is to understand the process of construction of subalternity.. Here, when our research motivate due to some anger or sympathy and when we see the construction of some process in a cultural systenm so our research becomes ethnographic in nature.. see Gregory 2005, Creswell 2003.

Then case study because central issue is subalternity and cases are real and fictional stories..

Otherwise.. I'm so junior... I need further guidance and suggestions... M searching for an appropriate analysis process through deconstruction .. systematic..step by step.. clear and coherent.... My supervisors rarely understand my mental makeup.. n my research plan... m doing something against the tradition of my context..

A little trickier to proceed now Sabah for a few reasons. You have identified that you will be transcribing your collected oral data into the written form. From a deconstructionist per

Dr Dean kindly complete your sentences...

Hi Sabah,

Yes - sometimes this glitch happens on RG. I'm not sure if incomplete messages are linked to the fact that I was using a mobile device to answer you in my last response.

What I was wanting to say is that, with regard to your oral narrative data (especially if your 'voice' is in there) you would, in effect, be deconstructing and critiquing your own material and yourself - and that could appear a bit odd to an examiner. The other point that I made - was that I didn't realize that you were being supervised (I assume for doctoral studies). The likes of David and I can only offer opinions and advice. At the end of the day - if your supervisors either can't relate to the methodology that you want to adopt - or they insist that you adopt a different approach - then you would have to address that with them - or change them.

I definitely agree with Dean that your advisors come first -- there support (or criticism) counts far more than any suggestions you might get here.

Hi Dr David and Dr Dean.

Thanks for your critical remarks and your suggestions.. As a junior candidate, I really learn from your answers. 

Sabah.