Themes do not emerge. An editor’s reflections on the use of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis

I have great admiration and respect for the authors Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke.Since their pivotal 2006 article, Using thematic analysis in psychology, they have written extensively to help researchers understand, undertake, and write about thematic analysis.In fact, I've lost count of the chapters, articles and books the two have published, both as a pair and with numerous collaborators.We were keen to review their most recent book, Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide (2022), and delighted with Sally Nieman's (2023) comprehensive review.Braun and Clarke are also very generous, sharing materials such as datasets, examples, and recordings, again to help researchers to use thematic analysis.In fact, I feel I know them via their recordings as I've watched them present online many times.They are also very funny -we will come on to that later.Despite these vast resources, my heart sinks when an article is submitted to QSW which states that they have used Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, but I can see that there is a sole reference to their 2006 article.This is not a rare occurrence.Unfortunately, basing a study on such a dated reference tends to invoke a desk rejection as it signals that the authors are unaware of the evolution of Braun and Clarke's understanding of thematic analysis formed over the past two decades.Thus, I hope this Editorial will encourage researchers to read beyond the 2006 article.In the spirit of transparency, I will highlight some of the elements that I'm looking for as an Editor when authors state they have used Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis.