In the context of thematic analysis in psychology, how does transparency in research influence the interpretation of participant perspectives compared to narrative analysis?

In thematic analysis, transparency means clearly showing how codes were chosen, how themes were built, and how decisions were made, so readers can see the logic behind interpreting participants’ words. This openness lets others judge whether the themes genuinely reflect the data or if the researcher’s biases shaped them, making the interpretation more trustworthy. Narrative analysis, by contrast, focuses on the story’s structure and often keeps the researcher’s interpretive lens less exposed, which can make it harder to assess how much the analyst’s perspective shaped the story. For example, if a therapist transparently shares that a theme “fear of judgment” emerged from several interview quotes, a reader can verify the link, whereas a narrative account might simply present the story of a client’s fear without showing the analytic steps. Thus, transparency in thematic analysis enhances credibility and allows a clearer, evidence‑based understanding of participants’ perspectives.