Abstract
Thematic analysis (TA) is widely used in qualitative research, but its methodological flexibility has also led to inconsistent integration of hermeneutic principles. In many studies, concepts such as pre-understanding or the hermeneutic circle are invoked at a general or declarative level, while analytic procedures remain descriptive or pattern oriented. As a result, the dialogical, historically situated, and meaning-constituting nature of interpretation, the core of hermeneutic philosophy, often remains underdeveloped. This article introduces Hermeneutic Thematic Analysis (HTA), a methodological model that systematically grounds TA within philosophical hermeneutics and extends reflexive thematic analysis. Drawing on Gadamer’s account of dialogical understanding and Ricoeur’s theory of distanciation and refiguration, HTA reframes TA as an iterative movement of pre-understanding, part–whole interpretation, fusion of horizons, and interpretive synthesis. Developed through an abductive process combining hermeneutic reading and conceptual clarification, HTA retains the accessible structure of TA while reconceptualizing the analytic work often referred to as coding, theme development, and interpretation in explicitly hermeneutic terms. An empirical example illustrates how HTA uncovers existential meaning embedded in everyday narrative expressions. HTA offers a philosophically coherent, transparent, and practically applicable framework for researchers who wish to conduct TA within hermeneutic traditions. By operationalizing hermeneutic principles as analytic guidelines, HTA advances interpretive qualitative methodology and strengthens the methodological foundations for meaning-oriented inquiry.
Keywords
1. Introduction
Thematic Analysis (TA) is widely used across qualitative research and is often presented as a flexible analytic method that can be adapted to a range of epistemological and theoretical perspectives (Ahmed et al., 2025; Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021). This flexibility has contributed to TA’s broad appeal across disciplines. At the same time, Braun and Clarke emphasize that TA is a method rather than a methodology: it does not, in itself, provide an epistemological or ontological foundation. Instead, coherence depends on how researchers articulate and enact their philosophical commitments through analytic decisions across the research process (Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2022; Tracy, 2020).
In recent years, TA (particularly in its reflexive formulation) has increasingly been used within interpretive and hermeneutically oriented research. Reflexive TA foregrounds researcher subjectivity, reflexivity, and theoretical positioning, and explicitly rejects the notion that themes “emerge” from data independent of interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2013, 2019, 2021; Pearson et al., 2025). These features make reflexive TA broadly compatible with hermeneutic perspectives. Consequently, a growing body of empirical and conceptual work combines TA with hermeneutic or hermeneutic–phenomenological traditions (e.g., Alsaigh & Coyne, 2021; Brenner, 2009; Hanssen, 2013; Ho et al., 2017), and recent contributions have further explored epistemic integration between hermeneutics and reflexive TA (Fonsêca & Dourado, 2024). While TA is sometimes used as an umbrella term, the present article primarily engages reflexive TA as articulated by Braun and Clarke.
Despite this growing interest, the integration of hermeneutic principles into TA often remains under-specified at the level of analytic practice. Core hermeneutic concepts, such as pre-understanding, the hermeneutic circle, or dialogical interpretation, are frequently invoked to describe the overall orientation of a study, while the analytic work itself continues to follow largely descriptive or pattern-oriented logics. When hermeneutic principles are referenced without being made analytically operative, interpretive decisions may appear opaque, and the relationship between philosophical commitments and analytic outcomes can remain unclear. Recent critical and methodological discussions of reflexive TA caution against unreflective or insufficiently articulated analytic practices and emphasize the researcher’s responsibility for transparent and theoretically coherent interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2024; Hole, 2024). Methodological reviews of TA have also identified recurring challenges related to epistemological ambiguity and insufficient transparency in analytic reasoning (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Finlay, 2021; Nowell et al., 2017; Ozuem et al., 2022).
This gap is particularly salient when TA is used within hermeneutic traditions, where interpretation is understood as a historically situated, dialogical, and meaning-constituting process rather than as the identification of recurrent patterns alone. Hermeneutic inquiry emphasizes movement between parts and whole, the productive role of pre-understanding, and the transformation of meaning through interpretive engagement (Gadamer, 2004; Ricoeur, 1976, 1991). Recent methodological discussions further emphasize that hermeneutic interpretation requires explicit analytic articulation rather than philosophical referencing in isolation (Finlay, 2021; Hole, 2024). Without explicit methodological guidance on how such commitments shape the analytic work often referred to as coding, theme development, and interpretive synthesis, researchers may struggle to align TA with hermeneutic epistemology in a coherent and transparent manner.
This article introduces Hermeneutic Thematic Analysis (HTA), a methodological model that reorients reflexive TA through philosophical hermeneutics. HTA does not propose a new procedural technique, nor does it seek to replace existing forms of TA. Rather, it specifies how core hermeneutic principles such as pre-understanding, part–whole movement, fusion of horizons, and Ricoeurian distanciation and refiguration, can be made analytically operative across phases of thematic work. Epistemologically, HTA aligns with interpretivism and conceptualizes meaning as co-constituted through dialogical engagement between researcher and text.
By structuring TA around hermeneutic commitments, HTA aims to enhance analytic transparency and interpretive depth while retaining the accessibility that has contributed to TA’s widespread use. In HTA, pre-understanding is articulated as an initial interpretive horizon rather than treated as bias; analytic work proceeds through documented part–whole movement; and themes are formulated as interpretive syntheses that reflect transformed understanding rather than clusters of similarity. In this way, HTA provides a coherent framework for conducting TA within hermeneutic traditions.
The aim of this article is to develop and present Hermeneutic Thematic Analysis (HTA) as a philosophically grounded and practically applicable approach to TA. The article first outlines the hermeneutic concepts that inform HTA and situates TA in relation to the hermeneutic tradition. It then describes the development of the HTA model, presents its analytic phases, and illustrates its application through an empirical example. Together, these elements clarify how hermeneutic principles can guide TA as an explicitly interpretive and meaning-oriented analytic practice.
2. Background
2.1. Hermeneutics as a Philosophical Foundation
Hermeneutics provides the philosophical grounding for the methodological model developed in this article. As a tradition concerned with how understanding becomes possible, hermeneutics conceptualizes interpretation as a historically situated, dialogical, and meaning-constituting process. Rather than treating meaning as something extracted from texts, hermeneutic inquiry emphasizes how meaning emerges through engagement between interpreter and text. For the purposes of HTA, a defined set of hermeneutic concepts is methodologically operative: pre-understanding, the hermeneutic circle, fusion of horizons, and distanciation/refiguration. These concepts are not presented as general sensibilities but as orientations that structure analytic judgment.
In Gadamer’s (2004) philosophical hermeneutics, understanding is always mediated by pre-understanding (Vorverständnis), the historically situated anticipations through which phenomena become intelligible. Pre-understanding is not a bias to be bracketed but a necessary condition for interpretation. Methodologically, this implies that interpretation never begins from a neutral position. In HTA, pre-understanding therefore functions as an explicit starting horizon that is articulated, documented, and revisited throughout the analytic process. Making pre-understanding visible enables the researcher to trace how interpretations develop and to distinguish between assumptions that are sustained, revised, or transformed through engagement with the material.
A central hermeneutic principle is the hermeneutic circle, the dynamic movement between parts and whole through which understanding is continually revised (Gadamer, 2004). This circularity is not a methodological flaw to be resolved but the very condition of interpretation. In analytic practice, the hermeneutic circle becomes operative when early readings inform later interpretations, which in turn reopen earlier understandings. Within HTA, this principle structures analytic movement: close engagement with particular passages is repeatedly tested against an evolving sense of the dataset as a whole. Interpretations are treated as provisional and remain open to revision as new connections, tensions, or ambiguities emerge. Analytic documentation, such as memos, records these part–whole movements and renders interpretive shifts traceable, supporting transparency and reflexive rigor (Finlay, 2021).
Gadamer’s notion of fusion of horizons further specifies how understanding develops through dialogue. Understanding arises not through the dominance of either the researcher’s perspective or the text’s presumed meaning but through their interaction. Methodologically, this implies that analytic claims must reflect a transformed horizon of understanding, rather than the simple application of prior concepts to the material. In HTA, themes are therefore conceptualized as dialogical syntheses: they articulate how meaning has been negotiated and reshaped through sustained engagement between researcher and text. Theme development thus marks moments where understanding has shifted in ways that can be analytically justified.
Ricoeur’s hermeneutics complements Gadamer’s ontological account by offering methodological resources for explaining how interpretation proceeds through distanciation and refiguration (Ricoeur, 1976, 1984). Distanciation introduces the analytic distance that allows the text to be approached as something other than an extension of the researcher’s immediate understanding. This distance enables critical examination of initially compelling interpretations. In HTA, refiguration functions as an analytic moment in which thematic interpretations are integrated into a renewed understanding that both draws on and exceeds earlier readings.
Taken together, these concepts position HTA as an iterative, dialogical, and reflexive analytic practice. Gadamer provides an ontological account of understanding as historically situated and dialogical, while Ricoeur contributes methodological tools for explaining how meaning is distanced, reorganized and refigured through interpretation. Without Gadamer, HTA would lack philosophical grounding; without Ricoeur, it would lack analytic precision. Their integration enables HTA to form a coherent framework for TA that specifies how interpretive judgments are made, revised, and consolidated in empirical qualitative research.
2.2. The Origins of TA
TA, as originally articulated by Braun and Clarke (2006), was introduced as a flexible and accessible method for identifying patterns of meaning across qualitative datasets. Its early formulation emphasized systematic coding and the organization of data into overarching patterns or themes. Subsequent developments in reflexive TA further foreground researcher subjectivity, reflexivity, and theoretical positioning (Braun & Clarke, 2013, 2019, 2021), underscoring that themes are actively generated through interpretive engagement rather than passively “emerging” from data.
This coding-based heritage has contributed to TA’s clarity and teachability, and it continues to shape how the method is presented in many methodological texts and guidelines (Clarke & Braun, 2017; Terry et al., 2017). At the same time, several methodological reviews suggest that TA is often applied in ways that primarily emphasize pattern detection and descriptive summarization, with epistemological assumptions left relatively implicit (Byrne, 2021; Finlay, 2021; Nowell et al., 2017; Ozuem et al., 2022). Braun and Clarke themselves caution against viewing themes as naturally emerging from data, instead stressing the researcher’s active role in generating them through interpretive work (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021).
Understanding these origins is important for researchers who wish to work hermeneutically with TA. Assumptions embedded in early formulations of TA, such as viewing themes as discoverable patterns or conceptualizing analysis as a progression from coding to categorization, may need to be reinterpreted when TA is employed within hermeneutic frameworks that emphasize pre-understanding, part–whole movement, and dialogical interpretation. Because coding often relies on segmenting data into discrete units and following a linear, pattern-focused progression, it can conflict with hermeneutic commitments to holistic meaning, circular movement between parts and whole, and the co-constituted nature of interpretation. This does not render TA incompatible with hermeneutics but it does underscore the need for explicit methodological adaptation when hermeneutic commitments are central.
2.3. Positioning TA Within the Hermeneutic Movement
Although TA has become one of the most widely used qualitative methods, its relationship to the hermeneutic tradition remains underexplored. The hermeneutic movement, with intellectual roots in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, and Ricoeur, locates understanding in the dialogical, situated, and historically mediated process through which meaning emerges (Gadamer, 2004; Heidegger, 1962; Ricoeur, 1976). It emphasizes pre-understanding, the hermeneutic circle, relationality, and co-constituted meaning.
TA has typically been positioned as a flexible method for identifying patterned responses within qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Reflexive TA explicitly acknowledges researcher subjectivity and interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2021), and its broad epistemological openness allows it to be combined with a range of philosophical perspectives, including hermeneutics. However, its analytic lineage is still often expressed in terms of coding, categorization, and the identification of repeated patterns, features that require further elaboration when researchers wish to foreground hermeneutic principles such as horizon fusion or interpretive refiguration (Clarke & Braun, 2017; Terry et al., 2017).
Against this backdrop, TA occupies a promising but not yet fully articulated position in relation to hermeneutic inquiry. Its accessibility makes it attractive to researchers seeking interpretive approaches; yet without explicit integration of hermeneutic concepts, there is a risk that hermeneutic ideas remain rhetorical rather than analytic in practice, which can lead to superficial engagement with core principles and limit methodological transparency. Hermeneutics, understood as a philosophical orientation rather than a prescriptive method, encourages analytic approaches that embody its commitments to dialogue, situatedness, and meaning (Gadamer, 2004; Ricoeur, 1984). In this sense, TA can indeed find a legitimate place within the hermeneutic tradition when its analytic logic is reinterpreted through hermeneutic principles.
HTA responds to this opportunity. By reorganizing TA around concepts such as pre-understanding, part–whole movement, fusion of horizons, and interpretive refiguration, HTA reframes TA as a hermeneutic, interpretive, and meaning-oriented practice. Rather than relying on epistemological openness in isolation, HTA embeds hermeneutic principles as explicit analytic guidelines, thereby providing a structured and philosophically coherent framework for conducting TA within hermeneutic traditions.
3. Methodological Foundations of HTA Development
The methodological model for HTA was developed through an abductive, iterative, theory-driven process that combined hermeneutic reading (inspired by Koskinen & Lindström, 2013) with conceptual clarification. The development was informed by longstanding engagement with hermeneutic and caring science traditions, and by the recognition that researchers working within these paradigms commonly lacked a clearly articulated analytic approach aligned with hermeneutic epistemology. This recognition formed part of the researcher’s pre-understanding and provided the reflexive point of departure for HTA.
The process began with a review of studies that identified themselves as hermeneutic or interpretive while employing TA. Analytic notes documented how TA was operationalized across these studies. Although many authors referenced hermeneutic concepts such as pre-understanding or the hermeneutic circle, their analyses often relied on generic or descriptive, pattern-oriented versions of TA, with limited discussion of how hermeneutic principles shaped interpretive decisions. This highlighted the need for a methodologically coherent model that could integrate hermeneutic reasoning explicitly into the thematic analytic process.
To address this need, foundational texts in philosophical hermeneutics were examined to clarify how key concepts such as pre-understanding, dialogical engagement, part–whole movement, and refiguration might inform concrete analytic practices. Gadamer’s contributions (2004) provided epistemological grounding for understanding interpretation as historically situated and dialogical, while Ricoeur’s work (1976, 1984) offered conceptual tools for describing how meaning is refigured through iterative engagement with texts. The abductive movement between empirical observations, conceptual resources, and emerging methodological insights enabled the rethinking of the practical activities that constitute TA.
Core hermeneutic concepts were then mapped onto recognizable elements of TA as part of the model development process. Immersive reading was reframed as dialogical engagement with the whole; analytic activity traditionally described as “coding” was reconceptualized as the articulation of interpretive meaning units through part–whole movement within the hermeneutic circle; and theme development was understood as a fusion of horizons in which the researcher and the material co-constitute meaning. Throughout this process, analytic choices were documented through memos and reflexive notes to maintain transparency and trace the evolving interpretive horizon. This documentation ensured analytic transparency and enabled critical examination of the evolving interpretive horizon. This theory-driven development inevitably reflects the author’s interpretive horizon, underscoring the importance of reflexive documentation during model construction.
The resulting model retains the structural familiarity of TA while embedding each phase within hermeneutic reasoning. HTA thus offers a structured, transparent, and philosophically grounded approach that transforms TA into an explicitly hermeneutic practice.
4. The Hermeneutic Thematic Analysis (HTA) Model
4.1. HTA: Phases, Interpretive Logic, and Practical Application
HTA is grounded in philosophical hermeneutics and conceptualizes qualitative analysis as an interpretive, dialogical, and iterative movement between parts and the whole. The model, summarized in Figure 1, integrates core hermeneutic principles into the practice of TA and positions interpretation, rather than pattern recognition, as the primary analytic task. In contrast to conventional or reflexive forms of TA, HTA emphasizes how meaning unfolds through the researcher’s dialogical engagement with the material. Before outlining the analytic phases, Table 1 summarizes the key ways in which HTA extends reflexive TA by operationalizing core hermeneutic principles. The comparison in Table 1 is anchored primarily in reflexive TA as articulated by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2019, 2021). This overview provides a conceptual framework for the phase descriptions that follow. Methodological Model of Hermeneutic Thematic Analysis (HTA) Key Ways in Which HTA Extends Reflexive TA
HTA is organized into five interrelated phases. These phases are presented in a structured sequence for clarity, but in practice they overlap, recur, and inform one another in accordance with the hermeneutic circle. What follows is a consolidated presentation of each phase, its interpretive logic, and the practical considerations involved in applying HTA in empirical research.
4.1.1. Phase 1: Engaging Pre-Understanding and Establishing the Interpretive Horizon
HTA begins with the explicit articulation of the researcher’s pre-understanding. Rather than bracketing assumptions, the researcher reflects on experiences, theoretical influences, and disciplinary traditions that shape the initial interpretive horizon. This reflexive grounding is maintained throughout the analysis and documented through notes or analytic memos and dialogue with co-researchers. Making pre-understanding visible enhances transparency and establishes the interpretive stance from which meaning can be developed.
4.1.2. Phase 2: Immersive Reading and Dialogical Engagement with the Whole
The analytic process proceeds with slow, immersive, and repeatedly attentive readings of the dataset. The aim is to cultivate a dialogical relationship with the material, to listen to tone, rhythm, narrative structure, tensions, and implicit meanings, before any analytic articulation begins. Early impressions are treated as provisional, and the reading process invites complexity, ambiguity, and openness to what the text may reveal.
4.1.3. Phase 3: Articulating Interpretive Meaning Units Through Part–Whole Movement
In HTA, the analytic work often referred to as “coding” is treated as the articulation of interpretive meaning units rather than the assignment of fixed labels. A meaning unit is a passage (or segment) that becomes analytically consequential because it reorients, complicates, or deepens the developing understanding of the whole. Meaning units are identified through movement between detail and an evolving sense of the dataset, consistent with the hermeneutic circle.
The purpose of this phase is therefore not to fragment or reduce the material into categories, but to make interpretive claims traceable: the researcher formulates provisional articulations of what a passage may be disclosing (e.g., tensions, ambiguities, implicit commitments, or shifts in positioning). These articulations function as interpretive signposts and remain open to revision as subsequent readings transform the horizon of understanding.
Practically, the researcher works back and forth between (a) close reading of selected passages and (b) repeated returns to the whole dataset and the evolving thematic account. Reflexive memos document (a) why a passage was treated as a meaning unit, (b) how the interpretation relates to pre-understanding, and (c) how later readings confirm, nuance, or reconfigure earlier articulations. In this way, part–whole movement is not merely invoked but recorded as analytic work.
4.1.4. Phase 4: Developing Hermeneutic Themes Through Fusion of Horizons
Themes in HTA are formed through interpretive synthesis and dialogue between the researcher’s evolving horizon and the horizon of the text. Unlike themes formed through similarity-based clustering, hermeneutic themes articulate how meaning is negotiated and transformed during analysis. The researcher pays attention to contradictions, latent meanings, and interpretive shifts. Through this dialogical process, themes crystallize as expressions of an expanded interpretive horizon of understanding.
4.1.5. Phase 5: Interpretive Integration, Refiguration, and Articulation of Meaning
In the final phase, themes are woven into a coherent interpretive whole. Drawing on Ricoeur’s notion of refiguration, the analysis reorganizes the material into a new meaning structure that remains grounded in the data while extending interpretive insight. The researcher revisits initial pre-understandings to illuminate how the interpretive horizon has shifted. The analytic narrative presents themes as interpretive constructions and makes visible the hermeneutic movements through which meaning was co-constituted. The return to the researcher’s pre-understanding at this stage is not merely reflexive transparency, but an expression of hermeneutic circularity, where understanding is refigured through Ricoeur’s concept of refiguration.
4.2. Hermeneutic Circularity and Reflexivity in HTA
HTA is inherently cyclical and dialogical, even when presented in discrete phases. The analytic process moves fluidly between holistic reading, analytic articulation (often referred to as coding), theme development, and repeated engagement with pre-understanding. These movements are not optional deviations from procedure but expressions of HTA’s hermeneutic foundations, where understanding develops through continual part–whole negotiation and dialogical interaction with the text. HTA therefore prioritizes openness and responsiveness over procedural linearity, aiming for epistemological coherence and interpretive depth rather than methodological standardization.
Reflexivity is integral to this dialogical and cyclical process. In HTA, reflexivity involves ongoing examination of how pre-understanding, assumptions, theoretical commitments, and experience shape interpretation. Rather than treating subjectivity as something to bracket, HTA recognizes pre-understanding as an interpretive resource that must be made visible, interrogated, and revisited as the analysis unfolds. Reflexive engagement is enacted through analytic memos, dialogue with co-researchers, and iterative returns to the initial interpretive horizon as themes evolve. This systematic reflexive work enables the researcher to differentiate between interpretive insights grounded in the material and assumptions that require reconsideration, thereby enhancing transparency, rigor, and trustworthiness.
4.3. Practical Application of HTA in Empirical Research
Illustration of Hermeneutic Thematic Analysis (HTA) Using the “Two Coffee Cups” Example
While a reflexive TA could certainly yield an interpretive account, HTA makes the hermeneutic logic explicit by grounding the analytic work in part–whole movement and by defining theme development as a horizon-merging process rather than as a cluster of code similarities. Application of HTA in empirical research requires continuous integration of reflexivity, interpretive openness, and iterative movement between parts and whole. Before engaging in analytic articulation, the researcher formulates a reflexive account of pre-understanding, returning to it as new insights emerge. Immersive reading precedes coding and cultivates sensitivity to nuance, ambiguity, and the unfolding of meaning.
Analytic articulation in HTA is interpretive, provisional, and dialogical. It supports the evolution of understanding rather than constraining it. Theme development involves interpretive synthesis and attention to tensions, contradictions, and the ways in which participant meanings challenge the researcher’s horizon. Themes are articulated as interpretive claims grounded in the dialogical movement of understanding. In a more conventional reflexive TA, the extract above might well be coded and thematized as, for example, ‘difficulty letting go’ or ‘rituals of grief’. HTA, by contrast, explicitly leverages hermeneutic circularity and refiguration to reframe the gesture as an existential practice of sustaining relational continuity. This illustrates how HTA can lead to different thematic formulations and theoretical insights than pattern-oriented approaches. While reflexive TA certainly supports interpretive work, HTA makes the hermeneutic logic explicit and structurally central to theme development.
Throughout the process, analytic memos document interpretive decisions, shifts in understanding, and the dynamics of the hermeneutic circle. Dialogical validation, such as discussions with co-researchers or participants, can broaden interpretive horizons and strengthen analytic depth. Researchers wishing to apply HTA in their own work should, at minimum, write an initial pre-understanding memo, document part–whole shifts during analytic articulation, explicitly formulate themes as horizon-fusions, and provide a brief hermeneutic audit trail of refiguration in the analytic narrative.
Through its integration of phases, interpretive logic, and practical guidelines, HTA provides a transparent and philosophically grounded approach to TA. It supports qualitative inquiry that is attuned to situated, relational, and meaning-oriented aspects of human experience and offers a framework for interpretive research within hermeneutic traditions.
5. Discussion
The methodological model presented in this article positions HTA as a philosophically grounded elaboration of TA for studies situated within interpretive traditions. While reflexive TA offers a flexible and interpretively oriented framework, its openness places responsibility on the researcher to articulate explicitly the philosophical assumptions and interpretive commitments that guide the analysis, because the method itself does not prescribe an epistemological or ontological position. HTA directly addresses this need by anchoring the analytic process in the commitments of philosophical hermeneutics.
The discussion synthesizes the main contributions of HTA: it provides explicit epistemological coherence by aligning TA with hermeneutic understandings of interpretation; it strengthens methodological depth by translating hermeneutic principles into concrete analytic practices; and it clarifies HTA’s position in relation to other interpretive methodologies.
HTA builds on the strengths of reflexive TA, while addressing a gap that Braun and Clarke themselves emphasize, namely, the need for researchers to clarify the philosophical foundations of their analytic work. Although reflexive TA is compatible with hermeneutic inquiry, it does not provide a systematic account of how hermeneutic concepts can shape coding, theme development, or interpretive synthesis. HTA therefore functions not as a replacement for reflexive TA but as a hermeneutically grounded elaboration that operationalizes pre-understanding, the hermeneutic circle, fusion of horizons, and refiguration throughout the analytic process.
The development of HTA also underscores the value of integrating Gadamerian and Ricoeurian perspectives. Gadamer contributes an ontological account of understanding as a historically situated and dialogical event, while Ricoeur offers methodological tools for conceptualizing distanciation and the refiguration of meaning. Together, these perspectives enable an analytic model that combines philosophical depth with practical clarity, making HTA conceptually rigorous, yet accessible for empirical qualitative research.
5.1. Epistemological Coherence Between Hermeneutics and Analytic Practice
HTA’s first major contribution lies in its explicit alignment with the epistemological assumptions of philosophical hermeneutics. As outlined in Sections 2.1-2.3, hermeneutics understands interpretation as a historically situated, dialogical, and continually evolving engagement between interpreter and text. While reflexive TA is compatible with such an orientation, it does not specify how hermeneutic principles should structure the analytic process. As noted in sections 2.2–2.3, TA has often been applied in descriptive ways. HTA directly addresses this by making hermeneutic commitments analytically operative. In practice, this means that pre-understanding and part–whole movement are explicitly operationalized across the analytic work often referred to as coding and through theme development (see Sections 2.1 and 4.1), thereby ensuring that interpretation remains iterative rather than linear.
5.2. Enhancing Methodological Depth in Interpretive Research
A second contribution of HTA is its capacity to enhance methodological depth in interpretive qualitative research. As discussed in Sections 2.2–2.3, many studies drawing on hermeneutic perspectives continue to employ analytic procedures oriented toward categorization or descriptive-level pattern detection. HTA responds to this gap by providing concrete analytic guidance that aligns procedure with hermeneutic philosophy.
By emphasizing dialogical reading, analytic articulation grounded in part–whole movement, and theme development as an explicit fusion of horizons, HTA encourages deeper engagement with nuance, contradiction, and contextual meaning. HTA does not reject the analytic function often referred to as coding, but reconceptualizes it as the articulation of interpretive meaning units within a hermeneutic part–whole movement. This approach resists fragmenting the material into discrete units and instead supports the development of themes as interpretive syntheses that articulate how understanding evolves through iterative engagement.
A further strength is HTA’s conceptualization of researcher subjectivity. As outlined in Section 2.1, HTA treats pre-understanding as a necessary and productive condition for interpretation, and the discussion here highlights how this principle becomes analytically operative.
5.3. Positioning HTA in Relation to Other Interpretive Approaches
HTA aligns with interpretive traditions that emphasize slow and attentive reading, openness to the text, and continual testing of pre-understanding through dialogue (Gadamer, 2004; Koskinen & Lindström, 2013). Such traditions offer rich philosophical guidance on how understanding unfolds, however they do not typically provide a structured framework for conducting TA across empirical qualitative datasets. HTA builds on this hermeneutic foundation by translating core hermeneutic principles into a systematic analytic model suitable for thematic inquiry.
In relation to reflexive TA, HTA should be understood as complementary rather than competing approaches. Both approaches foreground interpretation, reflexivity, and the active role of the researcher in generating themes (Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2021). Reflexive TA intentionally leaves epistemological grounding open to researcher choice. HTA contributes to this methodological space by explicitly situating TA within Gadamerian and Ricoeurian hermeneutics and by specifying how hermeneutic principles can guide analytic decisions across phases of analysis. The distinction between the approaches therefore concerns philosophical orientation and analytic emphasis rather than differences in quality or rigor.
HTA also occupies a distinct position in relation to other hermeneutic and phenomenological methodologies. Hermeneutic phenomenology (e.g., Lindseth & Norberg, 2004; van Manen, 1990) is primarily concerned with illuminating meanings and structures of lived experience, often with a focus on depth within particular experiential domains. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) emphasizes idiographic, case-centered analyses and detailed exploration of individual sense-making (Smith et al., 2009). HTA differs in analytic aim rather than interpretive intent: it is oriented toward thematic synthesis across a dataset, supporting the development of interpretive themes that articulate how meaning is negotiated and transformed across multiple accounts.
These differences should not be interpreted as hierarchical. Instead, they reflect distinct methodological responses to different research questions, datasets, and analytic purposes. HTA does not seek to replace phenomenological or idiographic approaches, nor does it claim broader applicability. Rather, it offers an analytically structured, hermeneutically grounded alternative for studies that require thematic integration while retaining interpretive depth and philosophical coherence.
By positioning HTA alongside reflexive TA, hermeneutic phenomenology, and IPA, the present model clarifies its methodological niche: HTA is a theme-oriented, dialogical, and meaning-oriented analytic approach that makes hermeneutic commitments explicit and analytically operative throughout the research process.
5.4. Challenges and Limitations
HTA, like all interpretive approaches, presents several challenges. Its emphasis on slow reading, iterative engagement, and dialogical interpretation requires time, conceptual sensitivity, and familiarity with hermeneutic thought, conditions that may be demanding for novice researchers or projects with limited resources.
The model’s interpretive openness also raises the potential risk of over-interpretation. Recent critical discussions of reflexive TA have highlighted the need for methodological caution and theoretical clarity, particularly when interpretive openness is not accompanied by explicit analytic articulation (Hole, 2024). Rigorous reflexive documentation, including analytic memos, justification of interpretive shifts, and careful grounding of claims in textual evidence, is therefore essential to maintain analytic integrity.
Because HTA is not a standardized procedural algorithm, substantial variation in application is possible. Clear articulation of epistemological commitments and analytic decisions is therefore crucial for ensuring methodological transparency. A further challenge is that adopting HTA may require supervisory teams or research groups to develop shared familiarity with hermeneutic philosophy, which may not always be readily available. These challenges are not unique to HTA but are shared across hermeneutic methodologies more broadly, reflecting the interpretive openness and philosophical depth that characterize hermeneutic inquiry.
5.5. Ensuring Rigor and Quality in HTA
Ensuring rigor in HTA depends on clear documentation of the hermeneutic movements through which understanding develops rather than on standardized procedural criteria. Reflexive memos, explicit accounts of pre-understanding, and careful tracing of interpretive shifts support analytic transparency. Recent guidance on reflexive TA underscores the importance of making analytic decisions and interpretive development explicit (Braun & Clarke, 2024). Dialogical validation, through discussion with co-researchers or, where appropriate, participants, broadens interpretive horizons and guards against overly idiosyncratic readings.
Dependability is strengthened by documenting how the development of interpretive meaning units, themes, and interpretations evolve through part–whole movement. These practices align HTA with established criteria for qualitative rigor while remaining faithful to hermeneutic epistemology, ensuring that analytic depth is achieved without sacrificing methodological clarity.
6. Conclusion
HTA contributes to qualitative methodology by offering a practically applicable and philosophically coherent approach to TA grounded in hermeneutic principles. The model responds to the longstanding need for clearer methodological articulation when TA is used within hermeneutic and interpretive paradigms. By integrating concepts such as pre-understanding, part–whole movement, fusion of horizons, and interpretive refiguration into the analytic process, HTA makes explicit the interpretive logic through which meaning is generated, negotiated, and synthesized.
HTA does not replace existing approaches to TA but extends them for researchers who wish to work explicitly within hermeneutic traditions. By emphasizing dialogical engagement, iterative movement, and reflexive transparency, HTA deepens the interpretive dimensions of TA and supports analytic practices that are attuned to context, situatedness, and the relational nature of meaning. The model preserves the accessibility of TA while strengthening its philosophical grounding for interpretive inquiry.
The article has outlined the philosophical foundations of HTA, described its analytic phases, and illustrated its practical application through an empirical example. Together, these contributions provide a framework for researchers seeking to integrate hermeneutic reasoning into qualitative analysis. Future research should further explore how HTA can be adapted across different hermeneutic traditions, applied to diverse forms of qualitative material, and developed in relation to interdisciplinary concerns in caring science, social science, and the humanities, particularly where Gadamerian and Ricoeurian perspectives already inform theoretical work.
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
This article is a methodological and theoretical contribution and does not involve human participants, patient data, or empirical material. Therefore, ethical approval and consent to participate were not required in accordance with institutional and national guidelines.
Author Contribution
The author conducted all aspects of this work, including conceptualization, literature analysis, methodological development, interpretation, drafting, and revising of the manuscript.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.