ABSTRACT An interpretive qualitative approach insists on the plural and negotiated nature of the meanings that humans attach to their social realities. Thus, the qualitative researcher must navigate multiple and sometimes conflicting commitments to method, data, oneself, participants, and one’s reader. This can lead us to obscure the messiness of data analysis in final research reports and to downplay how methodological choices can make our participants ‘say things.’ In this article, we compare two interpretive methods, thematic and narrative analysis, including their shared epistemological and ontological premises, and offer a pedagogical demonstration of their application to the same data excerpt. However, our broader goal is to use the divergent results to critically examine how our choice of analytic method in interpretive research influences how we (researcher + method) ‘author’ data stories. Ultimately, researcher reflexivity must go beyond acknowledging how one’s position may influence the data analysis or the participant.

中文翻译：

---

两种方法的比较故事：主题分析和叙事分析如何以不同的方式编写数据故事

摘要一种解释性的定性方法，坚持人类对自己的社会现实的意义具有多重性和协商性。因此，定性研究人员必须浏览对方法，数据，自己，参与者和读者的多项承诺，有时甚至是相互矛盾的承诺。这可能使我们难以掩盖最终研究报告中数据分析的混乱，而淡化了方法选择如何使我们的参与者“说些什么”。在本文中，我们比较了主题解释和叙事分析这两种解释方法，包括它们在认识论和本体论方面的共同前提，并对它们在相同数据摘录中的应用进行了教学论证。然而，我们更广泛的目标是使用不同的结果来严格审查我们在解释性研究中选择的分析方法如何影响我们（研究者+方法）“作者”数据故事。最终，研究者的反思性必须超越承认一个人的位置可能会影响数据分析或参与者的范围。