Hi, if your study is designed to use thematic analysis only on the data obtained, it means you will be interpreting the responses based on what you make out of it. Such a study is underpinned by an epistemological assumption of 'Constructivism' . On the other hand, if your data will require some deductive analysis alongside inductive, then an appropriate epistemological position is one of 'Pragmatism'. Literature is widely available on this, please check.

I really don't think that it is necessary to choose an epistemology or any other philosophical basis for your research. Frankly, that is a rather old-fashioned way of doing things. Instead, concentrate of having a worthwhile set of research questions and an effective set of methods for addressing those questions.

Thank you David L Morgan, I have learnt something from you, that it is rather old fashioned to build a research on the basis of its philosophical underpinning. Now I have something for an argument with peers who keep insisting on it. However, the domination of Positivism in the past as a tradition appears to persist among many senior researchers. Its persistence is still a source of tension with pure qualitative research or mixed methods such as in a Grounded theory approach. Your views sir?

Joseph Kipkorir Cheruiyot David L Morgan Thank you very much for your responses!! Your feedback is much appreciated! As a new researcher, some of these frameworks seem a bit challenging for me to fully grasp or perfectly apply. Also, I would like to note, David L Morgan you are right about the old-fashioned way of conducting such research (our Research Methodology professor recently commented that the new tendencies in qualitative research incline more into a "more free of frameworks" style of research), however, my supervisor unfortunately demanded from me to specify my epistimological framework, that's why I was so confused- we were never asked to do so before. Again, thank you very much both of you for your comments!! Hopefully, she will be pleased that I concluded in an inductive and contextualist TA informed both by realism and constructivism.

First, a bit of history. Starting in the middle of the 1980s (Guba & Lincoln, 1985), there was movement to promote qualitative research as relying on an alternative philosophy (constructivism) as compared to quantitative research (positivism). But the initial authors in this debate were always careful to say that it was about philosophical assumptions and not about the use of methods, which they considered to be a technical issue. This debate did a great deal to promote the legitimacy of qualitative research, but it also lead to a lot of confusion.

In particular, this debate somehow somehow got collapsed into being about qualitative and quantitative methods as well. Which leads to problems such as searching for a philosophical justification for a particular method, such as thematic analysis. And many older researchers who were trained back in the days of the "paradigm wars" still insist on such philosophical justifications.

If a power differential (usually advisor and student) is an issue, then the simplest answer is simply to put up with this outdated way of thinking when you really have no choice. In other words, tell the person what they want to hear, which in this case is that thematic analysis can be used within a constructivist paradigm.

Of course, Braun and Clarke actually say that their method does not depend on any particular philosophical basis, but notice how I have reworded this into "thematic analysis can be used within a constructivist paradigm."

Later, when you publish your work, you can delete all the references to philosophy and instead concentrate on explaining to your readers why your research questions are important and why your methods are appropriate for addressing them.

David L Morgan, thank you for that great piece