Reflexive Thematic Analysis vs Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Which should you use?

You’ve picked your topic. You’ve settled on qualitative research. You’re feeling good, until you hit a decision nobody warned you about:

How are you going to analyse your data?

For many PhD students, it comes down to two big contenders:

• Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA)

• Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

They both involve coding. They both use themes. But they are very different underneath, and choosing the wrong one can lead to messy data, muddled write-ups, and confused examiners.

In this post, we’ll walk you through:

• The similarities (and important differences) between RTA and IPA

• What each method is best used for

• How to choose the one that actually fits your research

Let’s get into it.

First, the similarities (that might be misleading)

On the surface, RTA and IPA seem similar:

• Both analyse qualitative data

• Both involve coding and identifying themes

• Both are interpretive methods

• Both ask you to reflect on your role as a researcher

But the similarities stop there. Underneath, these methods are doing very different things.

What Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) is really about

RTA, developed by Braun and Clarke, focuses on identifying patterns of meaning across a dataset. You are actively constructing themes to answer your research question. They don’t magically “emerge”, you build them.

RTA is ideal if you want to explore:

• Perceptions

• Attitudes

• Cultural or social discourse

• Shared experiences

• The language people use to talk about something

Think of RTA like storytelling with structure. You're crafting themes that help the reader make sense of your dataset, based on your reflexive interpretation. Put simply, you're looking for patterns in what people said, and turning those patterns into themes.

What Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is really about

IPA is focused on how individuals make sense of specific experiences. It’s deeply rooted in:

• Phenomenology – studying lived experience

• Hermeneutics – interpretation

• Idiography – zooming in on individual cases

You're not just summarising what happened, you're interpreting what the experience meant to the participant. And then reflecting on your interpretation of their meaning.

Think of IPA like using a magnifying glass. You’re looking closely at one person’s story to understand what their experience meant to them, and what you can learn from it.

Side-by-side examples

Let’s break this down with two real-world examples.

Example 1: Returning to work after maternity leave

RTA question: “What themes emerge across women's experiences of returning to work after maternity leave?” You're looking for shared patterns like flexible working, stress, or identity shifts.

IPA question: “How does one woman make sense of her return to work after maternity leave, and what that means for her identity?” You're going deep into one individual’s personal interpretation of the transition.

Example 2: Living with chronic illness

RTA question: “What are the common challenges and coping strategies described by people with chronic fatigue syndrome?” You’re identifying broad themes across accounts, patterns, not just stories.

IPA question: “How does one person make sense of their changing body and daily challenges with chronic fatigue syndrome?”

You’re zooming in on how they interpret their experience, and how you interpret that.

The role of the researcher

Both RTA and IPA value reflexivity, but they do it differently.

In RTA: Your subjectivity is part of the process, you reflect on your assumptions and interpretive lens, you’re upfront about how you’re constructing meaning.

Example:

“My training in health psychology led me to initially prioritise medically framed coping strategies. Through reflexive journaling, I realised I was underplaying emotional themes, which I later revisited and coded with greater nuance.”

In IPA: You stay close to the participant’s world, you’re deeply conscious of how your values shape interpretation, and the focus is on how they make sense of their experience — and how you make sense of that.

Example:

“Not living with chronic illness myself, I had to carefully interrogate my interpretation of this metaphor. I returned to the transcript multiple times to stay grounded in the participant’s language and avoid overlaying my own assumptions.”

Sample size and depth

This is where things really diverge.

RTA: Can handle large samples: 10, 15, even 30+ participants and it’s scalable - great for exploring patterns across a group.

IPA: Small samples by design: 3–6 participants is typical at PhD level. In addition, you go deep, not wide. Hours per transcript. It’s about nuance, emotion, and identity - all within a single case.

What the analysis actually looks like

RTA based on Braun & Clarke’s six phases:

1. Familiarisation

2. Coding

3. Constructing themes

4. Reviewing themes

5. Defining/naming themes

6. Writing up

You’re building central organising concepts that tell a coherent, reflexive story about the data.

IPA:

1. Read and re-read one transcript

2. Note metaphors, emotions, contradictions

3. Develop case-specific themes

4. Repeat for each participant

5. Carefully draw connections across cases

You're interpreting, not just describing.

Example:

A participant says, “Crossing that marathon finish line felt like being reborn.” You’re asking: Why that metaphor? What role does that moment play in their life story? How does their identity or culture shape that meaning?

Which one should you choose?

Ask yourself these three questions:

1. What are you trying to understand?

• Shared patterns across a group? → RTA

• Personal meaning-making of individuals? → IPA

2. What kind of sample are you working with?

• 10+ participants? → RTA

• 3–6 participants with shared experience? → IPA

3. How philosophical do you want to get?

• Comfortable with flexible interpretation? → RTA

• Ready to dive into phenomenology and hermeneutics? → IPA

Want help writing your methodology chapter?

If this post helped clarify your thinking, you’ll love our Methodology Pack — part of the PhD Survival Guide series. It helps you:

• Explain why you chose a specific method

• Avoid vague or confusing descriptions

• Show your examiner you know what you’re doing

You’ll also find a full guide to Braun and Clarke’s RTA in our shop if you’ve decided that’s the right fit for you.

PhD Survival Guide Part 7 – Writing Your Methodology Chapter

£31.00

Braun & Clarke’s Reflexive Thematic Analysis – Simplified Steps & Worksheets

£75.00