(Re)Defining Engineers’ Resilience: Part II Reflexive Accounts Of Doing Reflexive Thematic Analysis

This work accompanies another paper which describes interpretivist qualitative research that made use of data from semi-structured interviews pertaining to how engineering educators conceptualize resilience and support students in its development. In that work, we utilized reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) for several reasons. Firstly, it is considered a useful method for under-researched areas. Secondly, its flexibility allows for inductive and deductive theme generation. Finally, it is considered a reasonably accessible method which we believe is important when considering 1.) the varied audience of engineering education research (EER) and 2.) the relative lack of consensus as to acceptable theoretical frameworks or methodologies for use within the space. In taking this approach, and in acknowledging its flexibility, I consider what that means for the process. RTA is not accompanied by a distinct theoretical framework, meaning researchers must clearly communicate methodological decision-making. In situating myself as an interpreter of meaning I recognize the need to share the role I play in knowledge production. Finally, being relatively new to qualitative research, I wanted to document my struggles and capture ways my practice has developed. I, therefore, document my reflexive process in relation to the six-stage process proposed by Braun and Clarke.