Reconciling computational rigor and interpretive depth: an augmented thematic analysis framework

In response to the call for papers of the EGPA Study Group XI, our proposal addresses a relevant methodological challenge in public management research. While recent analytical technologies offer new possibilities (Franken, 2022; Gehman et al., 2018) their application can sometimes come at the expense of interpretive depth, especially via standardised protocols (Chaney & Séraphin, 2023; Thomann & Maggetti, 2020). We propose an "augmented thematic analysis", a methodological innovation that reconfigures the relationship between computational analysis and interpretive practice. Developed within the strategy-as-practice paradigm (Jarzabkowski, 2004; Kohtamäki et al., 2022), this approach represents more than an incremental improvement; it offers a paradigmatic shift in how researchers can conceptualise the interplay between qualitative and quantitative dimensions of textual analysis. Extended thematic analysis advances methodological practice through three distinct, sequentially integrated processes. We begin with thematic analysis: a hybrid coding approach (combining data-driven and theory-driven methods) applied to a limited subset of data, following the methodological framework proposed by DeCuir-Gunby et al. (2011). This first step helps to structure our codebook. Secondly, we systematise this codebook in order to analyse our entire dataset. Finally, we use lexicometric analysis as an analytical extension to improve the analysis of previously coded data. This approach differs from conventional applications (Chaney & Séraphin, 2023), which position lexicometric analysis as a preliminary exploration. We have rigorously validated this innovative methodology by applying it to an extensive corpus of data on rural area governance, a complex domain characterised by multiple stakeholder perspectives, institutional complexity, and evolving governance structures. We integrated multiple data sources: stakeholder interviews, observation notes, researcher journal entries, and institutional documentation related to the evolution of territorial health governance. The results demonstrate three distinctive analytical capabilities that emerge from our methodological innovation. First, we transcend the artificial opposition between thematic and lexicometric approaches (Bernard et al., 2025) by demonstrating their profound complementarity when appropriately sequenced. Second, our contribution advances contemporary qualitative methods enhanced by analytical technologies without sacrificing the interpretive sensitivity essential for understanding public strategic dynamics. Third, our transparent analytical protocol contributes to what Turner et al. (2017) identify as a critical need for methodological transparency and procedural clarity in management research. This methodological innovation provides a pragmatic response to the ongoing debate between computational efficiency and hermeneutic sensitivity in qualitative research (Bernard et al., 2025). We provide valuable guidance for researchers seeking to harness technological advances while maintaining interpretive depth, a balance that is increasingly important in complex public management contexts. Bibliographie - Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2025). Analyzing Qualitative Data (2nd éd.). - Chaney, D., & Séraphin, H. (2023). A systematic literature review and lexicometric analysis on overtourism : Towards an ambidextrous perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 347, 119123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119123 - DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and Using a Codebook for the Analysis of Interview Data : An Example from a Professional Development Research Project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136‑155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468 - Franken, L. (2022). Digital Data and Methods as Extension of Qualitative Research Processes : Challenges and Potentials Coming From Digital Humanities and Computational Social Sciences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 23(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-22.2.3818 - Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding Theory–Method Fit : A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to Theory Building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284‑300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029 - Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as Practice : Recursiveness, Adaptation, and Practices-in-Use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529‑560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604040675 - Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E., & Rabetino, R. (2022). Making connections : Harnessing the diversity of strategy-as-practice research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 210‑232. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12274 - Thomann, E., & Maggetti, M. (2020). Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : Approaches, Challenges, and Tools. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(2), 356‑386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729700