phd thesis thematic analysis

• Login [Admin or PGR students only]
• Latest additions
• Simple search
• Advanced search
• Browse by Year
• Browse by Subject
• Browse by Department
• Browse by Author
• Open access
• Repository policies

Experiences of Living with a Partner with Depression: A Thematic Analysis

Priestley, Jemma (2015) Experiences of Living with a Partner with Depression: A Thematic Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Essex.

Copy to clipboard Copy Priestley, Jemma (2015) Experiences of Living with a Partner with Depression: A Thematic Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Essex.

According to the Office of National Statistics (2011), approximately six million people provide unpaid care to a family member. The growth of interest in the carer role has helped establish the idea that the provision of informal care warrants attention because of the relationship between caring and burden. It has been suggested that living with someone with depression is comparable to that of other serious mental health problems, such as schizophrenia or dementia. Furthermore, there is evidence that partners are most at risk of burden within the informal caregiving context. The meta-ethnography of existing research indicates that qualitative studies which specifically explore the experiences of living with a family member with depression are somewhat heterogeneous regarding types of relationship with the depressed individual. Combining different relationships (e.g. partners, siblings and parents) within the same study makes it difficult to disentangle data and therefore gaining an in-depth understanding of specific experiences is almost impossible. This study therefore aimed to explore the experiences of living with a partner with depression. In-depth interviews were conducted with nine female and four male participants who live with a partner with depression. A critical realist perspective was held and data was analysed using Braun and Clarke’s six phases of thematic analysis (2006), with the assistance of MAXQDA. Results identified five key themes: ‘making sense of the depression’; ‘the depression cannot be compartmentalised’; ‘a light at the end of the tunnel’; ‘learning to navigate the ‘depression’ maze’; and ‘gaining a new perspective’. The findings illustrate that living with a partner with depression is not a static process and that the needs of the depressed partner are constantly changing. Furthermore, although the findings outline a sequential process that appears cyclical in nature, recognition is given that the phases are dynamic and may overlap. Clinical implications and recommendations are discussed within the context of the Care Act (2014).

Item Metadata

Share and export, available files, --> --> unspecified -->.

Filename: Thesis Final with Amendments.pdf

View detailed statistics

A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis

• Open access
• Published: 26 June 2021
• Volume 56 , pages 1391–1412, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• David Byrne   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0587-4677 1  

479k Accesses

564 Citations

116 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Since the publication of their inaugural paper on the topic in 2006, Braun and Clarke’s approach has arguably become one of the most thoroughly delineated methods of conducting thematic analysis (TA). However, confusion persists as to how to implement this specific approach to TA appropriately. The authors themselves have identified that many researchers who purport to adhere to this approach—and who reference their work as such—fail to adhere fully to the principles of ‘reflexive thematic analysis’ (RTA). Over the course of numerous publications, Braun and Clarke have elaborated significantly upon the constitution of RTA and attempted to clarify numerous misconceptions that they have found in the literature. This paper will offer a worked example of Braun and Clarke’s contemporary approach to reflexive thematic analysis with the aim of helping to dispel some of the confusion regarding the position of RTA among the numerous existing typologies of TA. While the data used in the worked example has been garnered from health and wellbeing education research and was examined to ascertain educators’ attitudes regarding such, the example offered of how to implement the RTA would be easily transferable to many other contexts and research topics.

Similar content being viewed by others

Thematic Analysis

Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development

Doing Reflexive Thematic Analysis

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Although the lineage of thematic analysis (TA) can be traced back as far as the early twentieth century (Joffe 2012 ), it has up until recently been a relatively poorly demarcated and poorly understood method of qualitative analysis. Much of the credit for the recent enlightenment and subsequent increase in interest in TA can arguably be afforded to Braun and Clarke’s ( 2006 ) inaugural publication on the topic of thematic analysis in the field of psychology. These authors have since published several articles and book chapters, as well as their own book, all of which make considerable contributions to further delineating their approach to TA (see, for example, Braun and Clarke 2012 , 2013 , 2014 , 2019 , 2020 ; Braun et al. 2016 ; Terry et al. 2017 ). However, on numerous occasions Braun and Clarke have identified a tendency for scholars to cite their 2006 article, but fail to fully adhere to their contemporary approach to RTA (see Braun and Clarke 2013 , 2019 , 2020 ). Commendably, they have acknowledged that their 2006 paper left several aspect of their approach incompletely defined and open to interpretation. Indeed, the term ‘reflexive thematic analysis’ only recently came about in response to these misconceptions (Braun and Clarke 2019 ). Much of their subsequent body of literature in this area addresses these issues and attempts to correct some of the misconceptions in the wider literature regarding their approach. Braun and Clarke have repeatedly iterated that researchers who chose to adopt their approach should interrogate their relevant publications beyond their 2006 article and adhere to their contemporary approach (Braun and Clarke 2019 , 2020 ). The purpose of this paper is to contribute to dispelling some of the confusion and misconceptions regarding Braun and Clarke’s approach by providing a worked example of their contemporary approach to reflexive thematic analysis. The worked example will be presented in relation to the author’s own research, which examined the attitudes of post-primary educators’ regarding the promotion of student wellbeing. This paper is intended to be a supplementary resource for any prospective proponents of RTA, but may be of particular interest to scholars conducting attitudinal studies in an educational context. While this paper is aimed at all scholars regardless of research experience, it may be most useful to research students and their supervisors. Ultimately, the provided example of how to implement the six-phase analysis is easily transferable to many contexts and research topics.

2 What is reflexive thematic analysis?

Reflexive thematic analysis is an easily accessible and theoretically flexible interpretative approach to qualitative data analysis that facilitates the identification and analysis of patterns or themes in a given data set (Braun and Clarke 2012 ). RTA sits among a number of varied approaches to conducting thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke have noted that very often, researchers who purport to have adopted RTA have failed to fully delineate their implementation of RTA, of have confused RTA with other approaches to thematic analysis. The over-riding tendency in this regard is for scholars to mislabel their analysis as RTA, or to draw from a number of different approaches to TA, some of which may not be compatible with each other (Braun and Clarke 2012 , 2013 , 2019 ; Terry et al. 2017 ). In an attempt to resolve this confusion, Braun and Clarke have demarcated the position of RTA among the other forms of thematic analysis by differentiating between three principal approaches to TA: (1) coding reliability TA; (2) codebook approaches to TA, and; (3) the reflexive approach to TA (Braun et al. 2019 ).

Coding reliability approaches, such as those espoused by Boyatzis ( 1998 ) and Joffe ( 2012 ), accentuate the measurement of accuracy or reliability when coding data, often involving the use of a structured codebook. The researcher would also seek a degree of consensus among multiple coders, which can be measured using Cohen’s Kappa (Braun and Clarke 2013 ). When adopting a coding reliability approach, themes tend to be developed very early in the analytical process. Themes can be hypothesised based on theory prior to data collection, with evidence to support these hypotheses then gathered from the data in the form of codes. Alternatively, themes can be hypothesised following a degree of familiarisation with the data (Terry et al. 2017 ). Themes are typically understood to constitute ‘domain summaries’, or “summaries of what participants said in relation to a particular topic or data collection question” (Braun et al. 2019 , p. 5), and are likely to be discussed as residing within the data in a positivistic sense.

Codebook approaches, such as framework analysis (Smith and Firth 2011 ) or template analysis (King and Brooks 2017 ), can be understood to be something of a mid-point between coding reliability approaches and the reflexive approach. Like coding reliability approaches, codebook approaches adopt the use of a structured codebook and share the conceptualisation of themes as domain summaries. However, codebook approaches are more akin to the reflexive approach in terms of the prioritisation of a qualitative philosophy with regard to coding. Proponents of codebook approaches would typically forgo positivistic conceptions of coding reliability, instead recognising the interpretive nature of data coding (Braun et al. 2019 ).

The reflexive approach to TA highlights the researcher’s active role in knowledge production (Braun and Clarke 2019 ). Codes are understood to represent the researcher’s interpretations of patterns of meaning across the dataset. Reflexive thematic analysis is considered a reflection of the researcher’s interpretive analysis of the data conducted at the intersection of: (1) the dataset; (2) the theoretical assumptions of the analysis, and; (3) the analytical skills/resources of the researcher (Braun and Clarke 2019 ). It is fully appreciated—even expected—that no two researchers will intersect this tripartite of criteria in the same way. As such, there should be no expectation that codes or themes interpreted by one researcher may be reproduced by another (although, this is of course possible). Prospective proponents of RTA are discouraged from attempting to provide accounts of ‘accurate’ or ‘reliable’ coding, or pursuing consensus among multiple coders or using Cohen’s Kappa values. Rather, RTA is about “the researcher’s reflective and thoughtful engagement with their data and their reflexive and thoughtful engagement with the analytic process” (Braun and Clarke 2019 , p. 594). Multiple coders may, however, be beneficial in a reflexive manner (e.g. to sense-check ideas, or to explore multiple assumptions or interpretations of the data). If analysis does involve more than one researcher, the approach should be collaborative and reflexive, aiming to achieve richer interpretations of meaning, rather than attempting to achieve consensus of meaning. Indeed, in this sense it would be beneficial for proponents of RTA to remain cognisant that qualitative analysis as a whole does not contend to provide a single or ‘correct’ answer (Braun and Clarke 2013 ).

The process of coding (and theme development) is flexible and organic, and very often will evolve throughout the analytical process (Braun et al. 2019 ). Progression through the analysis will tend to facilitate further familiarity with the data, which may in turn result in the interpretation of new patterns of meaning. This is converse to the use of codebooks, which can often predefine themes before coding. Through the reflexive approach, themes are not predefined in order to ‘find’ codes. Rather, themes are produced by organising codes around a relative core commonality, or ‘central organising concept’, that the researcher interprets from the data (Braun and Clarke 2019 ).

In their 2006 paper, Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ) originally conceptualised RTA as a paradigmatically flexible analytical method, suitable for use within a wide range of ontological and epistemological considerations. In recent publications, the authors have moved away from this view, instead defining RTA as a purely qualitative approach. This pushes the use RTA into exclusivity under appropriate qualitative paradigms (e.g. constructionism) (Braun and Clarke 2019 , 2020 ). As opposed to other forms of qualitative analysis such as content analysis (Vaismoradi et al. 2013 ), and even other forms of TA such as Boyatzis’ ( 1998 ) approach, RTA eschews any positivistic notions of data interpretation. Braun and Clarke ( 2019 ) encourage the researcher to embrace reflexivity, subjectivity and creativity as assets in knowledge production, where they argue some scholars, such as Boyatzis ( 1998 ), may otherwise construe these assets as threats.

3 A worked example of reflexive thematic analysis

The data used in the following example is taken from the qualitative phase of a mixed methods study I conducted, which examined mental health in an educational context. This study set out to understand the attitudes and opinions of Irish post-primary educators with regard to the promotion of students’ social and emotional wellbeing, with the intention to feed this information back to key governmental and non-governmental stakeholders such as the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and the Department of Education. The research questions for this study aimed to examine educators’ general attitudes toward the promotion of student wellbeing and towards a set of ‘wellbeing guidelines’ that had recently been introduced in Irish post-primary schools. I also wanted to identify any potential barriers to wellbeing promotion and to solicit educators’ opinions as to what might constitute apposite remedial measures in this regard.

The qualitative phase of this study, from which the data for this example is garnered, involved eleven semi-structured interviews, which lasted approximately 25–30 min each. Participants consisted of core-curriculum teachers, wellbeing curriculum teachers, pastoral care team-members and senior management members. Participants were questioned on their attitudes regarding the promotion of student wellbeing, the wellbeing curriculum, the wellbeing guidelines and their perceptions of their own wellbeing. When conducting these interviews, I loosely adhered to an interview agenda to ensure each of these four key topics were addressed. However, discussions were typically guided by what I interpreted to be meaningful to the interviewee, and would often weave in and out of these different topics.

The research questions for this study were addressed within a paradigmatic framework of interpretivism and constructivism. A key principle I adopted for this study was to reflect educators’ own accounts of their attitudes, opinions and experiences as faithfully as was possible, while also accounting for the reflexive influence of my own interpretations as the researcher. I felt RTA was highly appropriate in the context of the underlying theoretical and paradigmatic assumptions of my study and would allow me to ensure qualitative data was collected and analysed in a manner that respected and expressed the subjectivity of participants’ accounts of their attitudes, while also acknowledging and embracing the reflexive influence of my interpretations as the researcher.

In the next section, I will outline the theoretical assumptions of the RTA conducted in my original study in more detail. It should be noted that outlining these theoretical assumptions is not a task specific to reflexive thematic analysis. Rather, these assumptions should be addressed prior to implementing any form of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2012 , 2019 , 2020 ; Braun et al. 2016 ). The six-phase process for conducting reflexive thematic analysis will then be appropriately detailed and punctuated with examples from my study.

3.1 Addressing underlying theoretical assumptions

Across several publications, Braun and Clarke ( 2012 , 2014 , 2020 ) have identified a number of theoretical assumptions that should be addressed when conducting RTA, or indeed any form of thematic analysis. These assumptions are conceptualised as a series of continua as follows: essentialist versus constructionist epistemologies; experiential versus critical orientation to data; inductive versus deductive analyses, and; semantic versus latent coding of data. The aim is not just for the researcher to identify where their analysis is situated on each of these continua, but why the analysis is situated as it is and why this conceptualisation is appropriate to answering the research question(s).

3.1.1 Essentialist versus constructionist epistemologies

Ontological and epistemological considerations would usually be determined when a study is first being conceptualised. However, these considerations may become salient again when data analysis becomes the research focus, particularly with regard to mixed methods. The purpose of addressing this continuum is to conceptualise theoretically how the researcher understands their data and the way in which the reader should interpret the findings (Braun and Clarke 2013 , 2014 ). By adhering to essentialism, the researcher adopts a unidirectional understanding of the relationship between language and communicated experience, in that it is assumed that language is a simple reflection of our articulated meanings and experiences (Widdicombe and Wooffiitt 1995 ). The meanings and systems inherent in constructing these meanings are largely uninterrogated, with the interpretive potential of TA largely unutilised (Braun et al. 2016 ).

Conversely, researchers of a constructionist persuasion would tend to adopt a bidirectional understanding of the language/experience relationship, viewing language as implicit in the social production and reproduction of both meaning and experience (Burr 1995 ; Schwandt 1998 ). A constructionist epistemology has particular implications with regard to thematic analysis, namely that in addition to the recurrence of perceptibly important information, meaningfulness is highly influential in the development and interpretation of codes and themes. The criteria for a theme to be considered noteworthy via recurrence is simply that the theme should present repeatedly within the data. However, what is common is not necessarily meaningful or important to the analysis. Braun and Clarke ( 2012 , p. 37) offer this example:

…in researching white-collar workers’ experiences of sociality at work, a researcher might interview people about their work environment and start with questions about their typical workday. If most or all reported that they started work at around 9:00 a.m., this would be a pattern in the data, but it would not necessarily be a meaningful or important one.

Furthermore, there may be varying degrees of conviction in respondents’ expression when addressing different issues that may facilitate in identifying the salience of a prospective theme. Therefore, meaningfulness can be conceptualised, firstly on the part of the researcher, with regard to the necessity to identify themes that are relevant to answering the research questions, and secondly on the part of the respondent, as the expression of varying degrees of importance with regard to the issues being addressed. By adopting a constructionist epistemology, the researcher acknowledges the importance of recurrence, but appreciates meaning and meaningfulness as the central criteria in the coding process.

In keeping with the qualitative philosophy of RTA, epistemological consideration regarding the example data were constructionist. As such, meaning and experience was interpreted to be socially produced and reproduced via an interplay of subjective and inter-subjective construction. Footnote 1

3.1.2 Experiential versus critical orientation

An experiential orientation to understanding data typically prioritises the examination of how a given phenomenon may be experienced by the participant. This involves investigating the meaning ascribed to the phenomenon by the respondent, as well as the meaningfulness of the phenomenon to the respondent. However, although these thoughts, feelings and experiences are subjectively and inter-subjectively (re)produced, the researcher would cede to the meaning and meaningfulness ascribed by the participant (Braun and Clarke 2014 ). Adopting an experiential orientation requires an appreciation that the thoughts, feelings and experiences of participants are a reflection of personal states held internally by the participant. Conversely, a critical orientation appreciates and analyses discourse as if it were constitutive, rather than reflective, of respondents’ personal states (Braun and Clarke 2014 ). As such, a critical perspective seeks to interrogate patterns and themes of meaning with a theoretical understanding that language can create, rather than merely reflect, a given social reality (Terry et al. 2017 ). A critical perspective can examine the mechanisms that inform the construction of systems of meaning, and therefore offer interpretations of meaning further to those explicitly communicated by participants. It is then also possible to examine how the wider social context may facilitate or impugn these systems of meaning (Braun and Clarke 2012 ). In short, the researcher uses this continuum to clarify their intention to reflect the experience of a social reality (experiential orientation) or examine the constitution of a social reality (critical orientation).

In the present example, an experiential orientation to data interpretation was adopted in order to emphasise meaning and meaningfulness as ascribed by participants. Adopting this approach meant that this analysis did not seek to make claims about the social construction of the research topic (which would more so necessitate a critical perspective), but rather acknowledged the socially constructed nature of the research topic when examining the subjective ‘personal states’ of participants. An experiential orientation was most appropriate as the aim of the study was to prioritise educators’ own accounts of their attitudes, opinions. More importantly, the research questions aimed to examine educators’ attitudes regarding their experience of promoting student wellbeing—or the ‘meanings made’—and not, for example, the socio-cultural factors that may underlie the development of these attitudes—or the ‘meaning making’.

3.1.3 Inductive versus deductive analysis

A researcher who adopts a deductive or ‘theory-driven’ approach may wish to produce codes relative to a pre-specified conceptual framework or codebook. In this case, the analysis would tend to be ‘analyst-driven’, predicated on the theoretically informed interpretation of the researcher. Conversely, a researcher who adopts an inductive or ‘data-driven’ approach may wish to produce codes that are solely reflective of the content of the data, free from any pre-conceived theory or conceptual framework. In this case, data are not coded to fit a pre-existing coding frame, but instead ‘open-coded’ in order to best represent meaning as communicated by the participants (Braun and Clarke 2013 ). Data analysed and coded deductively can often provide a less rich description of the overall dataset, instead focusing on providing a detailed analysis of a particular aspect of the dataset interpreted through a particular theoretical lens (Braun and Clarke 2020 ). Deductive analysis has typically been associated with positivistic/essentialist approaches (e.g. Boyatzis 1998 ), while inductive analysis tends to be aligned with constructivist approaches (e.g. Frith and Gleeson 2004 ). That being said, inductive/deductive approaches to analysis are by no means exclusively or intrinsically linked to a particular epistemology.

Coding and analysis rarely fall cleanly into one of these approaches and, more often than not, use a combination of both (Braun and Clarke 2013 , 2019 , 2020 ). It is arguably not possible to conduct an exclusively deductive analysis, as an appreciation for the relationship between different items of information in the data set is necessary in order to identify recurring commonalities with regard to a pre-specified theory or conceptual framework. Equally, it is arguably not possible to conduct an exclusively inductive analysis, as the researcher would require some form of criteria to identify whether or not a piece of information may be conducive to addressing the research question(s), and therefore worth coding. When addressing this issue, Braun and Clarke ( 2012 ) clarify that one approach does tend to predominate over the other, and that the predominance of the deductive or inductive approach can indicate an overall orientation towards prioritising either researcher/theory-based meaning or respondent/data-based meaning, respectively.

A predominantly inductive approach was adopted in this example, meaning data was open-coded and respondent/data-based meanings were emphasised. A degree of deductive analysis was, however, employed to ensure that the open-coding contributed to producing themes that were meaningful to the research questions, and to ensure that the respondent/data-based meanings that were emphasised were relevant to the research questions.

3.1.4 Semantic versus latent coding

Semantic codes are identified through the explicit or surface meanings of the data. The researcher does not examine beyond what a respondent has said or written. The production of semantic codes can be described as a descriptive analysis of the data, aimed solely at presenting the content of the data as communicated by the respondent. Latent coding goes beyond the descriptive level of the data and attempts to identify hidden meanings or underlying assumptions, ideas, or ideologies that may shape or inform the descriptive or semantic content of the data. When coding is latent, the analysis becomes much more interpretive, requiring a more creative and active role on the part of the researcher. Indeed, Braun and Clarke ( 2012 , 2013 , 2020 ) have repeatedly presented the argument that codes and themes do not ‘emerge’ from the data or that they may be residing in the data, waiting to be found. Rather, the researcher plays an active role in interpreting codes and themes, and identifying which are relevant to the research question(s). Analyses that use latent coding can often overlap with aspects of thematic discourse analysis in that the language used by the respondent can be used to interpret deeper levels of meaning and meaningfulness (Braun and Clarke 2006 ).

In this example, both semantic and latent coding were utilised. No attempt was made to prioritise semantic coding over latent coding or vice-versa. Rather, semantic codes were produced when meaningful semantic information was interpreted, and latent codes were produced when meaningful latent information was interpreted. As such, any item of information could be double-coded in accordance with the semantic meaning communicated by the respondent, and the latent meaning interpreted by the researcher (Patton 1990 ). This was reflective of the underlying theoretical assumptions of the analysis, as the constructive and interpretive epistemology and ontology were addressed by affording due consideration to both the meaning constructed and communicated by the participant and my interpretation of this meaning as the researcher.

3.2 The six-phase analytical process

Braun and Clarke ( 2012 , 2013 , 2014 , 2020 ) have proposed a six-phase process, which can facilitate the analysis and help the researcher identify and attend to the important aspects of a thematic analysis. In this sense, Braun and Clarke ( 2012 ) have identified the six-phase process as an approach to doing TA, as well as learning how to do TA. While the six phases are organised in a logical sequential order, the researcher should be cognisant that the analysis is not a linear process of moving forward through the phases. Rather, the analysis is recursive and iterative, requiring the researcher to move back and forth through the phases as necessary (Braun and Clarke 2020 ). TA is a time consuming process that evolves as the researcher navigates the different phases. This can lead to new interpretations of the data, which may in turn require further iterations of earlier phases. As such, it is important to appreciate the six-phase process as a set of guidelines, rather than rules, that should be applied in a flexible manner to fit the data and the research question(s) (Braun and Clarke 2013 , 2020 ).

3.2.1 Phase one: familiarisation with the data

The ‘familiarisation’ phase is prevalent in many forms of qualitative analysis. Familiarisation entails the reading and re-reading of the entire dataset in order to become intimately familiar with the data. This is necessary to be able to identify appropriate information that may be relevant to the research question(s). Manual transcription of data can be a very useful activity for the researcher in this regard, and can greatly facilitate a deep immersion into the data. Data should be transcribed orthographically, noting inflections, breaks, pauses, tones, etc. on the part of both the interviewer and the participant (Braun and Clarke 2013 ). Often times, data may not have been gathered or transcribed by the researcher, in which case, it would be beneficial for the researcher to watch/listen to video or audio recordings to achieve a greater contextual understanding of the data. This phase can be quite time consuming and requires a degree of patience. However, it is important to afford equal consideration across the entire depth and breadth of the dataset, and to avoid the temptation of being selective of what to read, or even ‘skipping over’ this phase completely (Braun and Clarke 2006 ).

At this phase, I set about familiarising myself with the data by firstly listening to each interview recording once before transcribing that particular recording. This first playback of each interview recording required ‘active listening’ and, as such, I did not take any notes at this point. I performed this active-listen in order to develop an understanding of the primary areas addressed in each interview prior to transcription. This also provided me an opportunity, unburdened by tasks such as note taking, to recall gestures and mannerisms that may or may not have been documented in interview notes. I manually transcribed each interview immediately after the active-listen playback. When transcription of all interviews was complete, I read each transcripts numerous times. At this point, I took note of casual observations of initial trends in the data and potentially interesting passages in the transcripts. I also documented my thoughts and feelings regarding both the data and the analytical process (in terms of transparency, it would be beneficial to adhere to this practice throughout the entire analysis). Some preliminary notes made during the early iterations of familiarisation with the data can be seen in Box 1. It will be seen later that some of these notes would go on to inform the interpretation of the finalised thematic framework.

Example of preliminary notes taken during phase one

3.2.2 Phase two: generating initial codes

Codes are the fundamental building blocks of what will later become themes. The process of coding is undertaken to produce succinct, shorthand descriptive or interpretive labels for pieces of information that may be of relevance to the research question(s). It is recommended that the researcher work systematically through the entire dataset, attending to each data item with equal consideration, and identifying aspects of data items that are interesting and may be informative in developing themes. Codes should be brief, but offer sufficient detail to be able to stand alone and inform of the underlying commonality among constituent data items in relation to the subject of the research (Braun and Clarke 2012 ; Braun et al. 2016 ).

A brief excerpt of the preliminary coding process of one participant’s interview transcript is presented in Box 2. The preliminary iteration of coding was conducted using the ‘comments’ function in Microsoft Word (2016). This allowed codes to be noted in the side margin, while also highlighting the area of text assigned to each respective code. This is a relatively straightforward example with no double-codes or overlap in data informing different codes, as new codes begin where previous codes end. The code C5 offers an exemplar of the provision of sufficient detail to explain what I interpreted from the related data item. A poor example of this code would be to say “the wellbeing guidelines are not relatable” or “not relatable for students”. Each of these examples lack context. Understanding codes written in this way would be contingent upon knowledge of the underlying data extract. The code C8 exemplifies this issue. It is unclear if the positivity mentioned relates to the particular participant, their colleagues, or their students. This code was subsequently redefined in later iterations of coding. It can also be seen in this short example that the same code has been produced for both C4 and C9. This code was prevalent throughout the entire dataset and would subsequently be informative in the development of a theme.

Extract of preliminary coding

Any item of data that might be useful in addressing the research question(s) should be coded. Through repeated iterations of coding and further familiarisation, the researcher can identify which codes are conducive to interpreting themes and which can be discarded. I would recommend that the researcher document their progression through iterations of coding to track the evolution of codes and indeed prospective themes. RTA is a recursive process and it is rare that a researcher would follow a linear path through the six phases (Braun and Clarke 2014 ). It is very common for the researcher to follow a particular train of thought when coding, only to encounter an impasse where several different interpretations of the data come to light. It may be necessary to explore each of these prospective options to identify the most appropriate path to follow. Tracking the evolution of codes will not only aid transparency, but will afford the researcher signposts and waypoints to which they may return should a particular approach to coding prove unfruitful. I tracked the evolution of my coding process in a spreadsheet, with data items documented in the first column and iterations of codes in each successive column. I found it useful to highlight which codes were changed in each successive iteration. Table 1 provides an excerpt of a Microsoft Excel (2016) spreadsheet that was established to track iterations of coding and document the overall analytical process. All codes developed during the first iteration of coding were transferred into this spreadsheet along with a label identifying the respective participant. Subsequent iterations of coding were documented in this spreadsheet. The original transcripts were still regularly consulted to assess existing codes and examine for the interpretation of new codes as further familiarity with the data developed. Column one presents a reference number for the data item that was coded, while column two indicates the participant who provided each data item. Column three presents the data item that was coded. Columns four and five indicate the iteration of the coding process to be the third and fourth iteration, respectively. Codes revised between iterations three and four are highlighted.

With regard to data item one, I initially considered that a narrative might develop exploring a potential discrepancy in levels of training received by wellbeing educators and non-wellbeing educators. In early iterations of coding, I adopted a convention of coding training-related information with reference to the wellbeing or non-wellbeing status of the participant. While this discrepancy in levels of training remained evident throughout the dataset, I eventually deemed it unnecessary to pursue interpretation of the data in this way. This coding convention was abandoned at iteration four in favour of the pre-existing generalised code “insufficient training in wellbeing curriculum”. With data item three, I realised that the code was descriptive at a semantic level, but not very informative. Upon re-evaluating this data item, I found the pre-existing code “lack of clarity in assessing student wellbeing” to be much more appropriate and representative of what the participant seemed to be communicating. Finally, I realised that the code for data item five was too specific to this particular data item. No other data item shared this code, which would preclude this code (and data item) from consideration when construction themes. I decided that this item would be subsumed under the pre-existing code “more training is needed for wellbeing promotion”.

The process of generating codes is non-prescriptive regarding how data is segmented and itemised for coding, and how many codes or what type of codes (semantic or latent) are interpreted from an item of data. The same data item can be coded both semantically and latently if deemed necessary. For example, when discussing how able they felt to attend to their students’ wellbeing needs, one participant stated “…if someone’s struggling a bit with their schoolwork and it’s getting them down a bit, it’s common sense that determines what we say to them or how we approach them. And it might help to talk, but I don’t know that it has a lasting effect” [2B]. Here, I understood that the participant was explicitly sharing the way in which they address their students’ wellbeing concerns, but also that the participant was implying that this commonsense approach might not be sufficient. As such, this data item was coded both semantically as “educators rely on common sense when attending to wellbeing issues”, and latently as “common sense inadequate for wellbeing promotion”. Both codes were revised later in the analysis. However, this example illustrates the way in which any data item can be coded in multiple ways and for multiple meanings. There is also no upper or lower limit regarding how many codes should be interpreted. What is important is that, when the dataset is fully coded and codes are collated, sufficient depth exists to examine the patterns within the data and the diversity of the positions held by participants. It is, however, necessary to ensure that codes pertain to more than one data item (Braun and Clarke 2012 ).

3.2.3 Phase three: generating themes

This phase begins when all relevant data items have been coded. The focus shifts from the interpretation of individual data items within the dataset, to the interpretation of aggregated meaning and meaningfulness across the dataset. The coded data is reviewed and analysed as to how different codes may be combined according to shared meanings so that they may form themes or sub-themes. This will often involve collapsing multiple codes that share a similar underlying concept or feature of the data into one single code. Equally, one particular code may turn out to be representative of an over-arching narrative within the data and be promoted as a sub-theme or even a theme (Braun and Clarke 2012 ). It is important to re-emphasise that themes do not reside in the data waiting to be found. Rather, the researcher must actively construe the relationship among the different codes and examine how this relationship may inform the narrative of a given theme. Construing the importance or salience of a theme is not contingent upon the number of codes or data items that inform a particular theme. What is important is that the pattern of codes and data items communicates something meaningful that helps answer the research question(s) (Braun and Clarke 2013 ).

Themes should be distinctive and may even be contradictory to other themes, but should tie together to produce a coherent and lucid picture of the dataset. The researcher must be able and willing to let go of codes or prospective themes that may not fit within the overall analysis. It may be beneficial to construct a miscellaneous theme (or category) to contain all the codes that do not appear to fit in among any prospective themes. This miscellaneous theme may end up becoming a theme in its own right, or may simple be removed from the analysis during a later phase (Braun and Clarke 2012 ). Much the same as with codes, there is no correct amount of themes. However, with too many themes the analysis may become unwieldy and incoherent, whereas too few themes can result in the analysis failing to explore fully the depth and breadth of the data. At the end of this stage, the researcher should be able to produce a thematic map (e.g. a mind map or affinity map) or table that collates codes and data items relative to their respective themes (Braun and Clarke 2012 , 2020 ).

At this point in the analysis, I assembled codes into initial candidate themes. A thematic map of the initial candidate themes can be seen in Fig.  1 . The theme “best practice in wellbeing promotion” was clearly definable, with constituent coded data presenting two concurrent narratives. These narratives were constructed as two separate sub-themes, which emphasised the involvement of the entire school staff and the active pursuit of practical measures in promoting student wellbeing, respectively. The theme “recognising student wellbeing” was similarly clear. Again, I interpreted a dichotomy of narratives. However, in this case, the two narratives seemed to be even more synergetic. The two sub-themes for “best practice…” highlighted two independently informative factors in best practice. Here, the sub-themes are much more closely related, with one sub-theme identifying factors that may inhibit the development of student wellbeing, while the second sub-theme discusses factors that may improve student wellbeing. At this early stage in the analysis, I was considering that this sub-theme structure might also be used to delineate the theme “recognising educator wellbeing”. Finally, the theme “factors influencing wellbeing promotion” collated coded data items that addressed inhibitive factors with regard to wellbeing promotion. These factors were conceptualised as four separate sub-themes reflecting a lack of training, a lack of time, a lack of appropriate value for wellbeing promotion, and a lack of knowledge of supporting wellbeing-related documents. While it was useful to bring all of this information together under one theme, even at this early stage it was evident that this particular theme was very dense and unwieldy, and would likely require further revision.

Initial thematic map indicating four candidate themes

3.2.4 Phase four: reviewing potential themes

This phase requires the researcher to conduct a recursive review of the candidate themes in relation to the coded data items and the entire dataset (Braun and Clarke 2012 , 2020 ). At this phase, it is not uncommon to find that some candidate themes may not function well as meaningful interpretations of the data, or may not provide information that addresses the research question(s). It may also come to light that some of the constituent codes and/or data items that inform these themes may be incongruent and require revision. Braun and Clarke ( 2012 , p. 65) proposed a series of key questions that the researcher should address when reviewing potential themes. They are:

Is this a theme (it could be just a code)?

If it is a theme, what is the quality of this theme (does it tell me something useful about the data set and my research question)?

What are the boundaries of this theme (what does it include and exclude)?

Are there enough (meaningful) data to support this theme (is the theme thin or thick)?

Are the data too diverse and wide ranging (does the theme lack coherence)?

The analysis conducted at this phase involves two levels of review. Level one is a review of the relationships among the data items and codes that inform each theme and sub-theme. If the items/codes form a coherent pattern, it can be assumed that the candidate theme/sub-theme makes a logical argument and may contribute to the overall narrative of the data. At level two, the candidate themes are reviewed in relation to the data set. Themes are assessed as to how well they provide the most apt interpretation of the data in relation to the research question(s). Braun and Clarke have proposed that, when addressing these key questions, it may be useful to observe Patton’s ( 1990 ) ‘dual criteria for judging categories’ (i.e. internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity). The aim of Patton’s dual criteria would be to observe internal homogeneity within themes at the level one review, while observing external heterogeneity among themes at the level two review. Essentially, these two levels of review function to demonstrate that items and codes are appropriate to inform a theme, and that a theme is appropriate to inform the interpretation of the dataset (Braun and Clarke 2006 ). The outcome of this dual-level review is often that some sub-themes or themes may need to be restructured by adding or removing codes, or indeed adding or removing themes/sub-themes. The finalised thematic framework that resulted from the review of the candidate themes can be seen in Fig.  2 .

Finalised thematic map demonstrating five themes

During the level one review, inspection of the prospective sub-theme “sources of negative affect” in relation to the theme “recognising educator wellbeing” resulted in a new interpretation of the constituent coded data items. Participants communicated numerous pre-existing work-related factors that they felt had a negative impact upon their wellbeing. However, it was also evident that participants felt the introduction of the new wellbeing curriculum and the newly mandated task of formally attending to student wellbeing had compounded these pre-existing issues. While pre-existing issues and wellbeing-related issues were both informative of educators’ negative affect, the new interpretation of this data informed the realisation of two concurrent narratives, with wellbeing-related issues being a compounding factor in relation to pre-existing issues. This resulted in the “sources of negative affect” sub-theme being split into two new sub-themes; “work-related negative affect” and “the influence of wellbeing promotion”. The “actions to improve educator wellbeing” sub-theme was folded into these sub-themes, with remedial measures for each issue being discussed in respective sub-themes.

During the level two review, my concerns regarding the theme “factors inhibiting wellbeing promotion” were addressed. With regard to Braun and Clarke’s key questions, it was quite difficult to identify the boundaries of this theme. It was also particularly dense (or too thick) and somewhat incoherent. At this point, I concluded that this theme did not constitute an appropriate representation of the data. Earlier phases of the analysis were reiterated and new interpretations of the data were developed. This candidate theme was subsequently broken down into three separate themes. While the sub-themes of this candidate theme were, to a degree, informative in the development of the new themes, the way in which the constituent data was understood was fundamentally reconceptualised. The new theme, entitled “the influence of time”, moves past merely describing time constraints as an inhibitive factor in wellbeing promotion. A more thorough account of the bi-directional nature of time constraints was realised, which acknowledged that previously existing time constraints affected wellbeing promotion, while wellbeing promotion compounded previously existing time constraints. This added an analysis of the way in which the introduction of wellbeing promotion also produced time constraints in relation to core curricular activities.

The candidate sub-themes “lack of training” and “knowledge of necessary documents” were re-evaluated and considered to be topical rather than thematic aspects of the data. Upon further inspection, I felt that the constituent coded data items of these two sub-themes were informative of a single narrative of participants attending to their students’ wellbeing in an atheoretical manner. As such, these two candidate sub-themes were folded into each other to produce the theme “incompletely theorised agreements”. Finally, the level two review led me to the conclusion that the full potential of the data that informed the candidate sub-theme “lack of value of wellbeing promotion” was not realised. I found that a much richer understanding of this data was possible, which was obscured by the initial, relatively simplistic, descriptive account offered. An important distinction was made, in that participants held differing perceptions of the value attributed to wellbeing promotion by educators and by students. Further, I realised that educators’ perceptions of wellbeing promotion were not necessarily negative and should not be exclusively presented as an inhibitive factor in wellbeing promotion. A new theme, named “the axiology of wellbeing” and informed by the sub-themes “students’ valuation of wellbeing promotion” and “educators’ valuation of wellbeing promotion”, was developed to delineate this multifaceted understanding of participants’ accounts of the value of wellbeing promotion.

It is quite typical at this phase that codes, as well as themes, may be revised or removed to facilitate the most meaningful interpretation of the data. As such, it may be necessary to reiterate some of the activities undertaken during phases two and three of the analysis. It may be necessary to recode some data items, collapse some codes into one, remove some codes, or promote some codes as sub-themes or themes. For example, when re-examining the data items that informed the narrative of the value ascribed to wellbeing promotion, I observed that participants offered very different perceptions of the value ascribed by educators and by students. To pursue this line of analysis, numerous codes were reconceptualised to reflect the two different perspectives. Codes such as “positivity regarding the wellbeing curriculum” were split into the more specified codes “student positivity regarding the wellbeing curriculum” and “educator positivity regarding the wellbeing curriculum”. Amending codes in this way ultimately contributed to the reinterpretation of the data and the development of the finalised thematic map.

As with all other phases, it is very important to track and document all of these changes. With regard to some of the more significant changes (removing a theme, for example), I would recommend making notes on why it might be necessary to take this action. The aim of this phase is to produce a revised thematic map or table that captures the most important elements of the data in relation to the research question(s).

3.2.5 Phase five: defining and naming theme

At this phase, the researcher is tasked with presenting a detailed analysis of the thematic framework. Each individual theme and sub-theme is to be expressed in relation to both the dataset and the research question(s). As per Patton’s ( 1990 ) dual criteria, each theme should provide a coherent and internally consistent account of the data that cannot be told by the other themes. However, all themes should come together to create a lucid narrative that is consistent with the content of the dataset and informative in relation to the research question(s). The names of the themes are also subject to a final revision (if necessary) at this point.

Defining themes requires a deep analysis of the underlying data items. There will likely be many data items underlying each theme. It is at this point that the researcher is required to identify which data items to use as extracts when writing up the results of the analysis. The chosen extracts should provide a vivid and compelling account of the arguments being made by a respective theme. Multiple extracts should be used from the entire pool of data items that inform a theme in order to convey the diversity of expressions of meaning across these data items, and to demonstrate the cohesion of the theme’s constituent data items. Furthermore, each of the reported data extracts should be subject to a deep analysis, going beyond merely reporting what a participant may have said. Each extract should be interpreted in relation to its constitutive theme, as well as the broader context of the research question(s), creating an analytic narrative that informs the reader what is interesting about this extract and why (Braun and Clarke 2012 ).

Data extracts can be presented either illustratively, providing a surface-level description of what participants said, or analytically, interrogating what has been interpreted to be important about what participants said and contextualising this interpretation in relation to the available literature. If the researcher were aiming to produce a more illustrative write-up of the analysis, relating the results to the available literature would tend to be held until the ‘discussion’ section of the report. If the researcher were aiming to produce an analytical write-up, extracts would tend to be contextualised in relation to the literature as and when they are reported in the ‘results’ section (Braun and Clarke 2013 ; Terry et al. 2017 ). While an illustrative write-up of RTA results is completely acceptable, the researcher should remain cognisant that the narrative of the write-up should communicate the complexities of the data, while remaining “embedded in the scholarly field” (Braun and Clarke 2012 , p. 69). RTA is an interpretive approach to analysis and, as such, the overall report should go beyond describing the data, providing theoretically informed arguments as to how the data addresses the research question(s). To this end, a relatively straightforward test can reveal a researcher’s potential proclivity towards one particular reporting convention: If an extract can be removed and the write-up still makes sense, the reporting style is illustrative; if an extract is removed and the write-up no longer makes sense, the reporting style is analytical (Terry et al. 2017 ).

The example in Box 3 contains a brief excerpt from the sub-theme “the whole-school approach”, which demonstrates the way in which a data extract may be reported in an illustrative manner. Here, the narrative discussed the necessity of having an ‘appropriate educator’ deliver the different aspects of the wellbeing curriculum. One participant provided a particularly useful real-world example of the potential negative implications of having ‘the wrong person’ for this job in relation to physical education (one of the aspects of the wellbeing curriculum). This data extract very much informed the narrative and illustrated participants’ arguments regarding the importance of choosing an appropriate educator for the job.

Example of data extract reported illustratively

In Box 4, an example is offered of how a data extract may be reported in an analytical manner. This excerpt is also taken from the sub-theme “the whole-school approach”, and also informs the ‘appropriate educator for the job’ narrative. Here, however, sufficient evidence has already been established to illustrate the perspectives of the participants. The report turns to a deeper analysis of what has been said and how it has been said. Specifically, the way in which participants seemed to construe an ‘appropriate educator’ was examined and related to existing literature. The analytical interpretation of this data extract (and others) proposes interesting implications regarding the way in which participants constructed their schema of an ‘appropriate educator’.

Example of data extract reported analytically

The names of themes are also subject to a final review (if necessary) at this point. Naming themes may seem trivial and might subsequently receive less attention than it actually requires. However, naming themes is a very important task. Theme names are the first indication to the reader of what has been captured from the data. Names should be concise, informative, and memorable. The overriding tendency may be to create names that are descriptors of the theme. Braun and Clarke ( 2013 , 2014 , 2020 ) encourage creativity and advocate the use of catchy names that may more immediately capture the attention of the reader, while also communicating an important aspect of the theme. To this end, they suggest that it may be useful to examine data items for a short extract that could be used to punctuate the theme name.

3.2.6 Phase six: producing the report

The separation between phases five and six can often be blurry. Further, this ‘final’ phase would rarely only occur at the end of the analysis. As opposed to practices typical of quantitative research that would see the researcher conduct and then write up the analysis, the write-up of qualitative research is very much interwoven into the entire process of the analysis (Braun and Clarke 2012 ). Again, as with previous phases, this will likely require a recursive approach to report writing. As codes and themes change and evolve over the course of the analysis, so too can the write-up. Changes should be well documented by this phase and reflected in informal notes and memos, as well as a research journal that should be kept over the entire course of the research. Phase six then, can be seen as the completion and final inspection of the report that the researcher would most likely have begun writing before even undertaking their thematic analysis (e.g. a journal article or thesis/dissertation).

A useful task to address at this point would be to establish the order in which themes are reported. Themes should connect in a logical and meaningful manner, building a cogent narrative of the data. Where relevant, themes should build upon previously reported themes, while remaining internally consistent and capable of communicating their own individual narrative if isolated from other themes (Braun and Clarke 2012 ). I reported the theme “best practice in wellbeing promotion” first, as I felt it established the positivity that seemed to underlie the accounts provided by all of my participants. This theme was also strongly influence by semantic codes, with participants being very capable of describing what they felt would constitute ‘best practice’. I saw this as an easily digestible first theme to ease the reader into the wider analysis. It made sense to report “the axiology of wellbeing promotion” next. This theme introduced the reality that, despite an underlying degree of positivity, participants did indeed have numerous concerns regarding wellbeing promotion, and that participants’ attitudes were generally positive with a significant ‘but’. This theme provided good sign-posting for the next two themes that would be reported, which were “the influence of time” and “incompletely theorised agreements”, respectively. I reported “the influence of time” first, as this theme established how time constraints could negatively affect educator training, contributing to a context in which educators were inadvertently pushed towards adopting incompletely theorised agreements when promoting student wellbeing. The last theme to be reported was “recognising educator wellbeing”. As the purpose of the analysis was to ascertain the attitudes of educators regarding wellbeing promotion, it felt appropriate to offer the closing commentary of the analysis to educators’ accounts of their own wellbeing. This became particularly pertinent when the sub-themes were revised to reflect the influence of pre-existing work-related issues and the subsequent influence of wellbeing promotion.

An issue proponents of RTA may realise when writing up their analysis is the potential for incongruence between traditional conventions for report writing and the appropriate style for reporting RTA—particularly when adopting an analytical approach to reporting on data. The document structure for academic journal articles and Masters or PhD theses typically subscribe to the convention of reporting results of analyses in a ‘results’ section and then synthesising and contextualising the results of analyses in a ‘discussion’ section. Conversely, Braun and Clarke recommend synthesising and contextualising data as and when they are reported in the ‘results’ section (Braun and Clarke 2013 ; Terry et al. 2017 ). This is a significant departure from the traditional reporting convention, which researchers—particularly post-graduate students—may find difficult to reconcile. While Braun and Clarke do not explicitly address this potential issue, it is implicitly evident that they would advocate that researchers prioritise the appropriate reporting style for RTA and not cede to the traditional reporting convention.

4 Conclusion

Although Braun and Clarke are widely published on the topic of reflexive thematic analysis, confusion persists in the wider literature regarding the appropriate implementation of this approach. The aim of this paper has been to contribute to dispelling some of this confusion by provide a worked example of Braun and Clarke’s contemporary approach to reflexive thematic analysis. To this end, this paper provided instruction in how to address the theoretical underpinnings of RTA by operationalising the theoretical assumptions of the example data in relation to the study from which the data was taken. Clear instruction was also provided in how to conduct a reflexive thematic analysis. This was achieved by providing a detailed step-by-step guide to Braun and Clarke’s six-phase process, and by providing numerous examples of the implementation of each phase based on my own research. Braun and Clarke have made (and continue to make) an extremely valuable contribution to the discourse regarding qualitative analysis. I strongly recommended that any prospective proponents of RTA who may read this paper thoroughly examine Braun and Clarke’s full body of literature in this area, and aim to achieve an understanding of RTA’s nuanced position among the numerous different approaches to thematic analysis.

While the reconceptualisation of RTA as falling within the remit of a purely qualitative paradigm precipitates that the research fall on the constructionist end of this continuum, it is nevertheless good practice to explicate this theoretical position.

Boyatzis, R.E.: Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)

Google Scholar  

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77–101 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Article   Google Scholar  

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Thematic analysis. In: Cooper, H., Camic, P.M., Long, D.L., Panter, A.T., Rindskopf, D., Sher, K.J. (eds.) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Research Designs, vol. 2, pp. 57–71. American Psychological Association, Washington (2012)

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2013)

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Thematic analysis. In: Teo, T. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, pp. 1947–1952. Springer, New York (2014)

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 11 (4), 589–597 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual. Res. Psychol. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Weate, P.: Using Thematic Analysis in sport and exercise research. In: Smith, B., Sparkes, A.C. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, pp. 191–205. Routledge, London (2016)

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Terry, G., Hayfield, N.: Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong, P. (ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Health and Social Sciences, pp. 843–860. Springer, Singapore (2018)

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., Terry, G.: Answers to frequently asked questions about thematic analysis (2019). Retrieved from https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/psych/about/our-research/documents/Answers%20to%20frequently%20asked%20questions%20about%20thematic%20analysis%20April%202019.pdf

Burr, V.: An Introduction to Social Constructionism. Routledge, London, UK (1995)

Book   Google Scholar  

Clarke, V., Braun, V.: Thematic Analysis. In: Lyons, E., Coyle, A. (eds.) Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology, 2nd edn., pp. 84–103. Sage Publications, London (2016)

Frith, H., Gleeson, K.: Clothing and embodiment: men managing body image and appearance. Psychol. Men Mascul. 5 (1), 40–48 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.1.40

Joffe, H.: Thematic analysis. In: Harper, D., Thompson, A.R. (eds.) Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners, pp. 209–223. Wiley, Chichester (2012)

King, N., Brooks, J.M.: Template analysis for business and management students. Sage Publications, London, UK (2017)

Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1990)

Schwandt, T.A.: Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, pp. 221–259. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)

Smith, J., Firth, J.: Qualitative data analysis: The framework approach. Nurse Res. 18 (2), 52–62 (2011). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.52.c8284

Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Thematic analysis. In: Willig, C., Rogers, W.S. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, pp. 17–37. Sage Publications, London (2017)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., Bondas, T.: Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs. Health Sci. 15 (3), 398–405 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Widdicombe, S., Wooffitt, R.: The Language of Youth Subcultures: Social Identity in Action. Harvester, Hemel Hempstead (1995)

Download references

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. This study was funded by Technological University Dublin Research Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Technological University Dublin – Blanchardstown Campus, Dublin, Ireland

David Byrne

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Byrne .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Byrne, D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant 56 , 1391–1412 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

Download citation

Accepted : 06 June 2021

Published : 26 June 2021

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Thematic analysis
• Qualitative
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Practical thematic...

Practical thematic analysis: a guide for multidisciplinary health services research teams engaging in qualitative analysis

• Related content
• Peer review
• Catherine H Saunders , scientist and assistant professor 1 2 ,
• Ailyn Sierpe , research project coordinator 2 ,
• Christian von Plessen , senior physician 3 ,
• Alice M Kennedy , research project manager 2 4 ,
• Laura C Leviton , senior adviser 5 ,
• Steven L Bernstein , chief research officer 1 ,
• Jenaya Goldwag , resident physician 1 ,
• Joel R King , research assistant 2 ,
• Christine M Marx , patient associate 6 ,
• Jacqueline A Pogue , research project manager 2 ,
• Richard K Saunders , staff physician 1 ,
• Aricca Van Citters , senior research scientist 2 ,
• Renata W Yen , doctoral student 2 ,
• Glyn Elwyn , professor 2 ,
• JoAnna K Leyenaar , associate professor 1 2
• on behalf of the Coproduction Laboratory
• 1 Dartmouth Health, Lebanon, NH, USA
• 2 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
• 3 Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland
• 4 Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden
• 5 Highland Park, NJ, USA
• 6 Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
• Correspondence to: C H Saunders catherine.hylas.saunders{at}dartmouth.edu
• Accepted 26 April 2023

Qualitative research methods explore and provide deep contextual understanding of real world issues, including people’s beliefs, perspectives, and experiences. Whether through analysis of interviews, focus groups, structured observation, or multimedia data, qualitative methods offer unique insights in applied health services research that other approaches cannot deliver. However, many clinicians and researchers hesitate to use these methods, or might not use them effectively, which can leave relevant areas of inquiry inadequately explored. Thematic analysis is one of the most common and flexible methods to examine qualitative data collected in health services research. This article offers practical thematic analysis as a step-by-step approach to qualitative analysis for health services researchers, with a focus on accessibility for patients, care partners, clinicians, and others new to thematic analysis. Along with detailed instructions covering three steps of reading, coding, and theming, the article includes additional novel and practical guidance on how to draft effective codes, conduct a thematic analysis session, and develop meaningful themes. This approach aims to improve consistency and rigor in thematic analysis, while also making this method more accessible for multidisciplinary research teams.

Through qualitative methods, researchers can provide deep contextual understanding of real world issues, and generate new knowledge to inform hypotheses, theories, research, and clinical care. Approaches to data collection are varied, including interviews, focus groups, structured observation, and analysis of multimedia data, with qualitative research questions aimed at understanding the how and why of human experience. 1 2 Qualitative methods produce unique insights in applied health services research that other approaches cannot deliver. In particular, researchers acknowledge that thematic analysis is a flexible and powerful method of systematically generating robust qualitative research findings by identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. 3 4 5 6 Although qualitative methods are increasingly valued for answering clinical research questions, many researchers are unsure how to apply them or consider them too time consuming to be useful in responding to practical challenges 7 or pressing situations such as public health emergencies. 8 Consequently, researchers might hesitate to use them, or use them improperly. 9 10 11

Although much has been written about how to perform thematic analysis, practical guidance for non-specialists is sparse. 3 5 6 12 13 In the multidisciplinary field of health services research, qualitative data analysis can confound experienced researchers and novices alike, which can stoke concerns about rigor, particularly for those more familiar with quantitative approaches. 14 Since qualitative methods are an area of specialisation, support from experts is beneficial. However, because non-specialist perspectives can enhance data interpretation and enrich findings, there is a case for making thematic analysis easier, more rapid, and more efficient, 8 particularly for patients, care partners, clinicians, and other stakeholders. A practical guide to thematic analysis might encourage those on the ground to use these methods in their work, unearthing insights that would otherwise remain undiscovered.

Given the need for more accessible qualitative analysis approaches, we present a simple, rigorous, and efficient three step guide for practical thematic analysis. We include new guidance on the mechanics of thematic analysis, including developing codes, constructing meaningful themes, and hosting a thematic analysis session. We also discuss common pitfalls in thematic analysis and how to avoid them.

Summary points

Qualitative methods are increasingly valued in applied health services research, but multidisciplinary research teams often lack accessible step-by-step guidance and might struggle to use these approaches

A newly developed approach, practical thematic analysis, uses three simple steps: reading, coding, and theming

Based on Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, our streamlined yet rigorous approach is designed for multidisciplinary health services research teams, including patients, care partners, and clinicians

This article also provides companion materials including a slide presentation for teaching practical thematic analysis to research teams, a sample thematic analysis session agenda, a theme coproduction template for use during the session, and guidance on using standardised reporting criteria for qualitative research

In their seminal work, Braun and Clarke developed a six phase approach to reflexive thematic analysis. 4 12 We built on their method to develop practical thematic analysis ( box 1 , fig 1 ), which is a simplified and instructive approach that retains the substantive elements of their six phases. Braun and Clarke’s phase 1 (familiarising yourself with the dataset) is represented in our first step of reading. Phase 2 (coding) remains as our second step of coding. Phases 3 (generating initial themes), 4 (developing and reviewing themes), and 5 (refining, defining, and naming themes) are represented in our third step of theming. Phase 6 (writing up) also occurs during this third step of theming, but after a thematic analysis session. 4 12

Key features and applications of practical thematic analysis

Step 1: reading.

All manuscript authors read the data

All manuscript authors write summary memos

Step 2: Coding

Coders perform both data management and early data analysis

Codes are complete thoughts or sentences, not categories

Step 3: Theming

Researchers host a thematic analysis session and share different perspectives

Themes are complete thoughts or sentences, not categories

Applications

For use by practicing clinicians, patients and care partners, students, interdisciplinary teams, and those new to qualitative research

When important insights from healthcare professionals are inaccessible because they do not have qualitative methods training

When time and resources are limited

Steps in practical thematic analysis

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

We present linear steps, but as qualitative research is usually iterative, so too is thematic analysis. 15 Qualitative researchers circle back to earlier work to check whether their interpretations still make sense in the light of additional insights, adapting as necessary. While we focus here on the practical application of thematic analysis in health services research, we recognise our approach exists in the context of the broader literature on thematic analysis and the theoretical underpinnings of qualitative methods as a whole. For a more detailed discussion of these theoretical points, as well as other methods widely used in health services research, we recommend reviewing the sources outlined in supplemental material 1. A strong and nuanced understanding of the context and underlying principles of thematic analysis will allow for higher quality research. 16

Practical thematic analysis is a highly flexible approach that can draw out valuable findings and generate new hypotheses, including in cases with a lack of previous research to build on. The approach can also be used with a variety of data, such as transcripts from interviews or focus groups, patient encounter transcripts, professional publications, observational field notes, and online activity logs. Importantly, successful practical thematic analysis is predicated on having high quality data collected with rigorous methods. We do not describe qualitative research design or data collection here. 11 17

In supplemental material 1, we summarise the foundational methods, concepts, and terminology in qualitative research. Along with our guide below, we include a companion slide presentation for teaching practical thematic analysis to research teams in supplemental material 2. We provide a theme coproduction template for teams to use during thematic analysis sessions in supplemental material 3. Our method aligns with the major qualitative reporting frameworks, including the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). 18 We indicate the corresponding step in practical thematic analysis for each COREQ item in supplemental material 4.

Familiarisation and memoing

We encourage all manuscript authors to review the full dataset (eg, interview transcripts) to familiarise themselves with it. This task is most critical for those who will later be engaged in the coding and theming steps. Although time consuming, it is the best way to involve team members in the intellectual work of data interpretation, so that they can contribute to the analysis and contextualise the results. If this task is not feasible given time limitations or large quantities of data, the data can be divided across team members. In this case, each piece of data should be read by at least two individuals who ideally represent different professional roles or perspectives.

We recommend that researchers reflect on the data and independently write memos, defined as brief notes on thoughts and questions that arise during reading, and a summary of their impressions of the dataset. 2 19 Memoing is an opportunity to gain insights from varying perspectives, particularly from patients, care partners, clinicians, and others. It also gives researchers the opportunity to begin to scope which elements of and concepts in the dataset are relevant to the research question.

Data saturation

The concept of data saturation ( box 2 ) is a foundation of qualitative research. It is defined as the point in analysis at which new data tend to be redundant of data already collected. 21 Qualitative researchers are expected to report their approach to data saturation. 18 Because thematic analysis is iterative, the team should discuss saturation throughout the entire process, beginning with data collection and continuing through all steps of the analysis. 22 During step 1 (reading), team members might discuss data saturation in the context of summary memos. Conversations about saturation continue during step 2 (coding), with confirmation that saturation has been achieved during step 3 (theming). As a rule of thumb, researchers can often achieve saturation in 9-17 interviews or 4-8 focus groups, but this will vary depending on the specific characteristics of the study. 23

Data saturation in context

Braun and Clarke discourage the use of data saturation to determine sample size (eg, number of interviews), because it assumes that there is an objective truth to be captured in the data (sometimes known as a positivist perspective). 20 Qualitative researchers often try to avoid positivist approaches, arguing that there is no one true way of seeing the world, and will instead aim to gather multiple perspectives. 5 Although this theoretical debate with qualitative methods is important, we recognise that a priori estimates of saturation are often needed, particularly for investigators newer to qualitative research who might want a more pragmatic and applied approach. In addition, saturation based, sample size estimation can be particularly helpful in grant proposals. However, researchers should still follow a priori sample size estimation with a discussion to confirm saturation has been achieved.

Definition of coding

We describe codes as labels for concepts in the data that are directly relevant to the study objective. Historically, the purpose of coding was to distil the large amount of data collected into conceptually similar buckets so that researchers could review it in aggregate and identify key themes. 5 24 We advocate for a more analytical approach than is typical with thematic analysis. With our method, coding is both the foundation for and the beginning of thematic analysis—that is, early data analysis, management, and reduction occur simultaneously rather than as different steps. This approach moves the team more efficiently towards being able to describe themes.

Building the coding team

Coders are the research team members who directly assign codes to the data, reading all material and systematically labelling relevant data with appropriate codes. Ideally, at least two researchers would code every discrete data document, such as one interview transcript. 25 If this task is not possible, individual coders can each code a subset of the data that is carefully selected for key characteristics (sometimes known as purposive selection). 26 When using this approach, we recommend that at least 10% of data be coded by two or more coders to ensure consistency in codebook application. We also recommend coding teams of no more than four to five people, for practical reasons concerning maintaining consistency.

Clinicians, patients, and care partners bring unique perspectives to coding and enrich the analytical process. 27 Therefore, we recommend choosing coders with a mix of relevant experiences so that they can challenge and contextualise each other’s interpretations based on their own perspectives and opinions ( box 3 ). We recommend including both coders who collected the data and those who are naive to it, if possible, given their different perspectives. We also recommend all coders review the summary memos from the reading step so that key concepts identified by those not involved in coding can be integrated into the analytical process. In practice, this review means coding the memos themselves and discussing them during the code development process. This approach ensures that the team considers a diversity of perspectives.

Coding teams in context

The recommendation to use multiple coders is a departure from Braun and Clarke. 28 29 When the views, experiences, and training of each coder (sometimes known as positionality) 30 are carefully considered, having multiple coders can enhance interpretation and enrich findings. When these perspectives are combined in a team setting, researchers can create shared meaning from the data. Along with the practical consideration of distributing the workload, 31 inclusion of these multiple perspectives increases the overall quality of the analysis by mitigating the impact of any one coder’s perspective. 30

Coding tools

Qualitative analysis software facilitates coding and managing large datasets but does not perform the analytical work. The researchers must perform the analysis themselves. Most programs support queries and collaborative coding by multiple users. 32 Important factors to consider when choosing software can include accessibility, cost, interoperability, the look and feel of code reports, and the ease of colour coding and merging codes. Coders can also use low tech solutions, including highlighters, word processors, or spreadsheets.

Drafting effective codes

To draft effective codes, we recommend that the coders review each document line by line. 33 As they progress, they can assign codes to segments of data representing passages of interest. 34 Coders can also assign multiple codes to the same passage. Consensus among coders on what constitutes a minimum or maximum amount of text for assigning a code is helpful. As a general rule, meaningful segments of text for coding are shorter than one paragraph, but longer than a few words. Coders should keep the study objective in mind when determining which data are relevant ( box 4 ).

Code types in context

Similar to Braun and Clarke’s approach, practical thematic analysis does not specify whether codes are based on what is evident from the data (sometimes known as semantic) or whether they are based on what can be inferred at a deeper level from the data (sometimes known as latent). 4 12 35 It also does not specify whether they are derived from the data (sometimes known as inductive) or determined ahead of time (sometimes known as deductive). 11 35 Instead, it should be noted that health services researchers conducting qualitative studies often adopt all these approaches to coding (sometimes known as hybrid analysis). 3

In practical thematic analysis, codes should be more descriptive than general categorical labels that simply group data with shared characteristics. At a minimum, codes should form a complete (or full) thought. An easy way to conceptualise full thought codes is as complete sentences with subjects and verbs ( table 1 ), although full sentence coding is not always necessary. With full thought codes, researchers think about the data more deeply and capture this insight in the codes. This coding facilitates the entire analytical process and is especially valuable when moving from codes to broader themes. Experienced qualitative researchers often intuitively use full thought or sentence codes, but this practice has not been explicitly articulated as a path to higher quality coding elsewhere in the literature. 6

Example transcript with codes used in practical thematic analysis 36

• View inline

Depending on the nature of the data, codes might either fall into flat categories or be arranged hierarchically. Flat categories are most common when the data deal with topics on the same conceptual level. In other words, one topic is not a subset of another topic. By contrast, hierarchical codes are more appropriate for concepts that naturally fall above or below each other. Hierarchical coding can also be a useful form of data management and might be necessary when working with a large or complex dataset. 5 Codes grouped into these categories can also make it easier to naturally transition into generating themes from the initial codes. 5 These decisions between flat versus hierarchical coding are part of the work of the coding team. In both cases, coders should ensure that their code structures are guided by their research questions.

Developing the codebook

A codebook is a shared document that lists code labels and comprehensive descriptions for each code, as well as examples observed within the data. Good code descriptions are precise and specific so that coders can consistently assign the same codes to relevant data or articulate why another coder would do so. Codebook development is iterative and involves input from the entire coding team. However, as those closest to the data, coders must resist undue influence, real or perceived, from other team members with conflicting opinions—it is important to mitigate the risk that more senior researchers, like principal investigators, exert undue influence on the coders’ perspectives.

In practical thematic analysis, coders begin codebook development by independently coding a small portion of the data, such as two to three transcripts or other units of analysis. Coders then individually produce their initial codebooks. This task will require them to reflect on, organise, and clarify codes. The coders then meet to reconcile the draft codebooks, which can often be difficult, as some coders tend to lump several concepts together while others will split them into more specific codes. Discussing disagreements and negotiating consensus are necessary parts of early data analysis. Once the codebook is relatively stable, we recommend soliciting input on the codes from all manuscript authors. Yet, coders must ultimately be empowered to finalise the details so that they are comfortable working with the codebook across a large quantity of data.

Assigning codes to the data

After developing the codebook, coders will use it to assign codes to the remaining data. While the codebook’s overall structure should remain constant, coders might continue to add codes corresponding to any new concepts observed in the data. If new codes are added, coders should review the data they have already coded and determine whether the new codes apply. Qualitative data analysis software can be useful for editing or merging codes.

We recommend that coders periodically compare their code occurrences ( box 5 ), with more frequent check-ins if substantial disagreements occur. In the event of large discrepancies in the codes assigned, coders should revise the codebook to ensure that code descriptions are sufficiently clear and comprehensive to support coding alignment going forward. Because coding is an iterative process, the team can adjust the codebook as needed. 5 28 29

Quantitative coding in context

Researchers should generally avoid reporting code counts in thematic analysis. However, counts can be a useful proxy in maintaining alignment between coders on key concepts. 26 In practice, therefore, researchers should make sure that all coders working on the same piece of data assign the same codes with a similar pattern and that their memoing and overall assessment of the data are aligned. 37 However, the frequency of a code alone is not an indicator of its importance. It is more important that coders agree on the most salient points in the data; reviewing and discussing summary memos can be helpful here. 5

Researchers might disagree on whether or not to calculate and report inter-rater reliability. We note that quantitative tests for agreement, such as kappa statistics or intraclass correlation coefficients, can be distracting and might not provide meaningful results in qualitative analyses. Similarly, Braun and Clarke argue that expecting perfect alignment on coding is inconsistent with the goal of co-constructing meaning. 28 29 Overall consensus on codes’ salience and contributions to themes is the most important factor.

Definition of themes

Themes are meta-constructs that rise above codes and unite the dataset ( box 6 , fig 2 ). They should be clearly evident, repeated throughout the dataset, and relevant to the research questions. 38 While codes are often explicit descriptions of the content in the dataset, themes are usually more conceptual and knit the codes together. 39 Some researchers hypothesise that theme development is loosely described in the literature because qualitative researchers simply intuit themes during the analytical process. 39 In practical thematic analysis, we offer a concrete process that should make developing meaningful themes straightforward.

Themes in context

According to Braun and Clarke, a theme “captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set.” 4 Similarly, Braun and Clarke advise against themes as domain summaries. While different approaches can draw out themes from codes, the process begins by identifying patterns. 28 35 Like Braun and Clarke and others, we recommend that researchers consider the salience of certain themes, their prevalence in the dataset, and their keyness (ie, how relevant the themes are to the overarching research questions). 4 12 34

Use of themes in practical thematic analysis

Constructing meaningful themes

After coding all the data, each coder should independently reflect on the team’s summary memos (step 1), the codebook (step 2), and the coded data itself to develop draft themes (step 3). It can be illuminating for coders to review all excerpts associated with each code, so that they derive themes directly from the data. Researchers should remain focused on the research question during this step, so that themes have a clear relation with the overall project aim. Use of qualitative analysis software will make it easy to view each segment of data tagged with each code. Themes might neatly correspond to groups of codes. Or—more likely—they will unite codes and data in unexpected ways. A whiteboard or presentation slides might be helpful to organise, craft, and revise themes. We also provide a template for coproducing themes (supplemental material 3). As with codebook justification, team members will ideally produce individual drafts of the themes that they have identified in the data. They can then discuss these with the group and reach alignment or consensus on the final themes.

The team should ensure that all themes are salient, meaning that they are: supported by the data, relevant to the study objectives, and important. Similar to codes, themes are framed as complete thoughts or sentences, not categories. While codes and themes might appear to be similar to each other, the key distinction is that the themes represent a broader concept. Table 2 shows examples of codes and their corresponding themes from a previously published project that used practical thematic analysis. 36 Identifying three to four key themes that comprise a broader overarching theme is a useful approach. Themes can also have subthemes, if appropriate. 40 41 42 43 44

Example codes with themes in practical thematic analysis 36

Thematic analysis session

After each coder has independently produced draft themes, a carefully selected subset of the manuscript team meets for a thematic analysis session ( table 3 ). The purpose of this session is to discuss and reach alignment or consensus on the final themes. We recommend a session of three to five hours, either in-person or virtually.

Example agenda of thematic analysis session

The composition of the thematic analysis session team is important, as each person’s perspectives will shape the results. This group is usually a small subset of the broader research team, with three to seven individuals. We recommend that primary and senior authors work together to include people with diverse experiences related to the research topic. They should aim for a range of personalities and professional identities, particularly those of clinicians, trainees, patients, and care partners. At a minimum, all coders and primary and senior authors should participate in the thematic analysis session.

The session begins with each coder presenting their draft themes with supporting quotes from the data. 5 Through respectful and collaborative deliberation, the group will develop a shared set of final themes.

One team member facilitates the session. A firm, confident, and consistent facilitation style with good listening skills is critical. For practical reasons, this person is not usually one of the primary coders. Hierarchies in teams cannot be entirely flattened, but acknowledging them and appointing an external facilitator can reduce their impact. The facilitator can ensure that all voices are heard. For example, they might ask for perspectives from patient partners or more junior researchers, and follow up on comments from senior researchers to say, “We have heard your perspective and it is important; we want to make sure all perspectives in the room are equally considered.” Or, “I hear [senior person] is offering [x] idea, I’d like to hear other perspectives in the room.” The role of the facilitator is critical in the thematic analysis session. The facilitator might also privately discuss with more senior researchers, such as principal investigators and senior authors, the importance of being aware of their influence over others and respecting and eliciting the perspectives of more junior researchers, such as patients, care partners, and students.

To our knowledge, this discrete thematic analysis session is a novel contribution of practical thematic analysis. It helps efficiently incorporate diverse perspectives using the session agenda and theme coproduction template (supplemental material 3) and makes the process of constructing themes transparent to the entire research team.

Writing the report

We recommend beginning the results narrative with a summary of all relevant themes emerging from the analysis, followed by a subheading for each theme. Each subsection begins with a brief description of the theme and is illustrated with relevant quotes, which are contextualised and explained. The write-up should not simply be a list, but should contain meaningful analysis and insight from the researchers, including descriptions of how different stakeholders might have experienced a particular situation differently or unexpectedly.

In addition to weaving quotes into the results narrative, quotes can be presented in a table. This strategy is a particularly helpful when submitting to clinical journals with tight word count limitations. Quote tables might also be effective in illustrating areas of agreement and disagreement across stakeholder groups, with columns representing different groups and rows representing each theme or subtheme. Quotes should include an anonymous label for each participant and any relevant characteristics, such as role or gender. The aim is to produce rich descriptions. 5 We recommend against repeating quotations across multiple themes in the report, so as to avoid confusion. The template for coproducing themes (supplemental material 3) allows documentation of quotes supporting each theme, which might also be useful during report writing.

Visual illustrations such as a thematic map or figure of the findings can help communicate themes efficiently. 4 36 42 44 If a figure is not possible, a simple list can suffice. 36 Both must clearly present the main themes with subthemes. Thematic figures can facilitate confirmation that the researchers’ interpretations reflect the study populations’ perspectives (sometimes known as member checking), because authors can invite discussions about the figure and descriptions of findings and supporting quotes. 46 This process can enhance the validity of the results. 46

In supplemental material 4, we provide additional guidance on reporting thematic analysis consistent with COREQ. 18 Commonly used in health services research, COREQ outlines a standardised list of items to be included in qualitative research reports ( box 7 ).

Reporting in context

We note that use of COREQ or any other reporting guidelines does not in itself produce high quality work and should not be used as a substitute for general methodological rigor. Rather, researchers must consider rigor throughout the entire research process. As the issue of how to conceptualise and achieve rigorous qualitative research continues to be debated, 47 48 we encourage researchers to explicitly discuss how they have looked at methodological rigor in their reports. Specifically, we point researchers to Braun and Clarke’s 2021 tool for evaluating thematic analysis manuscripts for publication (“Twenty questions to guide assessment of TA [thematic analysis] research quality”). 16

Avoiding common pitfalls

Awareness of common mistakes can help researchers avoid improper use of qualitative methods. Improper use can, for example, prevent researchers from developing meaningful themes and can risk drawing inappropriate conclusions from the data. Braun and Clarke also warn of poor quality in qualitative research, noting that “coherence and integrity of published research does not always hold.” 16

Weak themes

An important distinction between high and low quality themes is that high quality themes are descriptive and complete thoughts. As such, they often contain subjects and verbs, and can be expressed as full sentences ( table 2 ). Themes that are simply descriptive categories or topics could fail to impart meaningful knowledge beyond categorisation. 16 49 50

Researchers will often move from coding directly to writing up themes, without performing the work of theming or hosting a thematic analysis session. Skipping concerted theming often results in themes that look more like categories than unifying threads across the data.

Unfocused analysis

Because data collection for qualitative research is often semi-structured (eg, interviews, focus groups), not all data will be directly relevant to the research question at hand. To avoid unfocused analysis and a correspondingly unfocused manuscript, we recommend that all team members keep the research objective in front of them at every stage, from reading to coding to theming. During the thematic analysis session, we recommend that the research question be written on a whiteboard so that all team members can refer back to it, and so that the facilitator can ensure that conversations about themes occur in the context of this question. Consistently focusing on the research question can help to ensure that the final report directly answers it, as opposed to the many other interesting insights that might emerge during the qualitative research process. Such insights can be picked up in a secondary analysis if desired.

Inappropriate quantification

Presenting findings quantitatively (eg, “We found 18 instances of participants mentioning safety concerns about the vaccines”) is generally undesirable in practical thematic analysis reporting. 51 Descriptive terms are more appropriate (eg, “participants had substantial concerns about the vaccines,” or “several participants were concerned about this”). This descriptive presentation is critical because qualitative data might not be consistently elicited across participants, meaning that some individuals might share certain information while others do not, simply based on how conversations evolve. Additionally, qualitative research does not aim to draw inferences outside its specific sample. Emphasising numbers in thematic analysis can lead to readers incorrectly generalising the findings. Although peer reviewers unfamiliar with thematic analysis often request this type of quantification, practitioners of practical thematic analysis can confidently defend their decision to avoid it. If quantification is methodologically important, we recommend simultaneously conducting a survey or incorporating standardised interview techniques into the interview guide. 11

Neglecting group dynamics

Researchers should concertedly consider group dynamics in the research team. Particular attention should be paid to power relations and the personality of team members, which can include aspects such as who most often speaks, who defines concepts, and who resolves disagreements that might arise within the group. 52

The perspectives of patient and care partners are particularly important to cultivate. Ideally, patient partners are meaningfully embedded in studies from start to finish, not just for practical thematic analysis. 53 Meaningful engagement can build trust, which makes it easier for patient partners to ask questions, request clarification, and share their perspectives. Professional team members should actively encourage patient partners by emphasising that their expertise is critically important and valued. Noting when a patient partner might be best positioned to offer their perspective can be particularly powerful.

Insufficient time allocation

Researchers must allocate enough time to complete thematic analysis. Working with qualitative data takes time, especially because it is often not a linear process. As the strength of thematic analysis lies in its ability to make use of the rich details and complexities of the data, we recommend careful planning for the time required to read and code each document.

Estimating the necessary time can be challenging. For step 1 (reading), researchers can roughly calculate the time required based on the time needed to read and reflect on one piece of data. For step 2 (coding), the total amount of time needed can be extrapolated from the time needed to code one document during codebook development. We also recommend three to five hours for the thematic analysis session itself, although coders will need to independently develop their draft themes beforehand. Although the time required for practical thematic analysis is variable, teams should be able to estimate their own required effort with these guidelines.

Practical thematic analysis builds on the foundational work of Braun and Clarke. 4 16 We have reframed their six phase process into three condensed steps of reading, coding, and theming. While we have maintained important elements of Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, we believe that practical thematic analysis is conceptually simpler and easier to teach to less experienced researchers and non-researcher stakeholders. For teams with different levels of familiarity with qualitative methods, this approach presents a clear roadmap to the reading, coding, and theming of qualitative data. Our practical thematic analysis approach promotes efficient learning by doing—experiential learning. 12 29 Practical thematic analysis avoids the risk of relying on complex descriptions of methods and theory and places more emphasis on obtaining meaningful insights from those close to real world clinical environments. Although practical thematic analysis can be used to perform intensive theory based analyses, it lends itself more readily to accelerated, pragmatic approaches.

Strengths and limitations

Our approach is designed to smooth the qualitative analysis process and yield high quality themes. Yet, researchers should note that poorly performed analyses will still produce low quality results. Practical thematic analysis is a qualitative analytical approach; it does not look at study design, data collection, or other important elements of qualitative research. It also might not be the right choice for every qualitative research project. We recommend it for applied health services research questions, where diverse perspectives and simplicity might be valuable.

We also urge researchers to improve internal validity through triangulation methods, such as member checking (supplemental material 1). 46 Member checking could include soliciting input on high level themes, theme definitions, and quotations from participants. This approach might increase rigor.

Implications

We hope that by providing clear and simple instructions for practical thematic analysis, a broader range of researchers will be more inclined to use these methods. Increased transparency and familiarity with qualitative approaches can enhance researchers’ ability to both interpret qualitative studies and offer up new findings themselves. In addition, it can have usefulness in training and reporting. A major strength of this approach is to facilitate meaningful inclusion of patient and care partner perspectives, because their lived experiences can be particularly valuable in data interpretation and the resulting findings. 11 30 As clinicians are especially pressed for time, they might also appreciate a practical set of instructions that can be immediately used to leverage their insights and access to patients and clinical settings, and increase the impact of qualitative research through timely results. 8

Practical thematic analysis is a simplified approach to performing thematic analysis in health services research, a field where the experiences of patients, care partners, and clinicians are of inherent interest. We hope that it will be accessible to those individuals new to qualitative methods, including patients, care partners, clinicians, and other health services researchers. We intend to empower multidisciplinary research teams to explore unanswered questions and make new, important, and rigorous contributions to our understanding of important clinical and health systems research.

Acknowledgments

All members of the Coproduction Laboratory provided input that shaped this manuscript during laboratory meetings. We acknowledge advice from Elizabeth Carpenter-Song, an expert in qualitative methods.

Coproduction Laboratory group contributors: Stephanie C Acquilano ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1215-5531 ), Julie Doherty ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5279-6536 ), Rachel C Forcino ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9938-4830 ), Tina Foster ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-4031 ), Megan Holthoff, Christopher R Jacobs ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5324-8657 ), Lisa C Johnson ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7448-4931 ), Elaine T Kiriakopoulos, Kathryn Kirkland ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9851-926X ), Meredith A MacMartin ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-6091 ), Emily A Morgan, Eugene Nelson, Elizabeth O’Donnell, Brant Oliver ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7399-622X ), Danielle Schubbe ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9858-1805 ), Gabrielle Stevens ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9001-178X ), Rachael P Thomeer ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-3840 ).

Contributors: Practical thematic analysis, an approach designed for multidisciplinary health services teams new to qualitative research, was based on CHS’s experiences teaching thematic analysis to clinical teams and students. We have drawn heavily from qualitative methods literature. CHS is the guarantor of the article. CHS, AS, CvP, AMK, JRK, and JAP contributed to drafting the manuscript. AS, JG, CMM, JAP, and RWY provided feedback on their experiences using practical thematic analysis. CvP, LCL, SLB, AVC, GE, and JKL advised on qualitative methods in health services research, given extensive experience. All authors meaningfully edited the manuscript content, including AVC and RKS. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: This manuscript did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• Ziebland S ,
• ↵ A Hybrid Approach to Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research: Using a Practical Example. 2018. https://methods.sagepub.com/case/hybrid-approach-thematic-analysis-qualitative-research-a-practical-example .
• Maguire M ,
• Vindrola-Padros C ,
• Vindrola-Padros B
• ↵ Vindrola-Padros C. Rapid Ethnographies: A Practical Guide . Cambridge University Press 2021. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=n80HEAAAQBAJ
• Schroter S ,
• Merino JG ,
• Barbeau A ,
• ↵ Padgett DK. Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health . SAGE Publications 2011. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=LcYgAQAAQBAJ
• Scharp KM ,
• Korstjens I
• Barnett-Page E ,
• ↵ Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchell ML. Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research . SAGE 2013. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=-3rmWYKtloC
• Sainsbury P ,
• Emerson RM ,
• Saunders B ,
• Kingstone T ,
• Hennink MM ,
• Kaiser BN ,
• Hennink M ,
• O’Connor C ,
• ↵ Yen RW, Schubbe D, Walling L, et al. Patient engagement in the What Matters Most trial: experiences and future implications for research. Poster presented at International Shared Decision Making conference, Quebec City, Canada. July 2019.
• ↵ Got questions about Thematic Analysis? We have prepared some answers to common ones. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/faqs/ (accessed 9 Nov 2022).
• ↵ Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publications. 2022. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/thematic-analysis/book248481 .
• Kalpokas N ,
• Radivojevic I
• Campbell KA ,
• Durepos P ,
• ↵ Understanding Thematic Analysis. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/understanding-ta/ .
• Saunders CH ,
• Stevens G ,
• CONFIDENT Study Long-Term Care Partners
• MacQueen K ,
• Vaismoradi M ,
• Turunen H ,
• Schott SL ,
• Berkowitz J ,
• Carpenter-Song EA ,
• Goldwag JL ,
• Durand MA ,
• Goldwag J ,
• Saunders C ,
• Mishra MK ,
• Rodriguez HP ,
• Shortell SM ,
• Verdinelli S ,
• Scagnoli NI
• Campbell C ,
• Sparkes AC ,
• McGannon KR
• Sandelowski M ,
• Connelly LM ,
• O’Malley AJ ,

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 22: Thematic Analysis

Darshini Ayton

Learning outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe the different approaches to thematic analysis.
• Understand how to conduct the three types of thematic analysis.
• Identify the strengths and limitations of each type of thematic analysis.

What is thematic analysis?

Thematic analysis is a common method used in the analysis of qualitative data to identify, analyse and interpret meaning through a systematic process of generating codes (see Chapter 20) that leads to the development of themes. 1 Thematic analysis requires the active engagement of the researcher with the data, in a process of sorting, categorising and interpretation. 1 Thematic analysis is exploratory analysis whereby codes are not predetermined and are data-derived, usually from primary sources of data (e,g, interviews and focus groups). This is in contrast to themes generated through directed or summative content analysis, which is considered confirmatory hypothesis-driven analysis, with predetermined codes typically generated from a hypothesis (see Chapter 21). 2 There are many forms of thematic analysis. Hence, it is important to treat thematic analysis as one of many methods of analysis, and to justify the approach on the basis of the research question and pragmatic considerations such as resources, time and audience. The three main forms of thematic analysis used in health and social care research, discussed in this chapter, are:

Applied thematic analysis

• Framework analysis
• Reflexive thematic analysis.

This involves multiple, inductive analytic techniques designed to identify and examine themes from textual data in a way that is transparent and credible, drawing from a broad range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. It focuses on presenting the stories of participants as accurately and comprehensively as possible. Applied thematic analysis mixes a bit of everything: grounded theory, positivism, interpretivism and phenomenology. 2

Applied thematic analysis borrows what we feel are the more useful techniques from each theoretical and methodological camp and adapts them to an applied research context. 2(p16)

Applied thematic analysis involves five elements:

• Text s egmentation  involves identifying a meaningful segment of text and the boundaries of the segment. Text segmentation is a useful process as a transcript from a 30-minute interview can be many pages long. Hence, segmenting the text provides a manageable section of the data for interrogation of meaning. For example, text segmentation may be a participant’s response to an interview question, a keyword or concept in context, or a complete discourse between participants. The segment of text is more than a short phrase and can be both small and large sections of text. Text segments can also overlap, and a smaller segment may be embedded within a larger segment. 3
• Creation of the codebook is a critical element of applied thematic analysis. The codebook is created when the segments of text are systematically coded into categories, types and relationships, and the codes are defined by the observed meaning in the text. The codes and their definitions are descriptive in the beginning, and then evolve into explanatory codes as the researcher examines the commonalities, differences and relationships between the codes. The codebook is an iterative document that the researcher builds and refines as they become more immersed and familiar with the data. 3 Table 22.1 outlines the key components of a codebook. 3

Table 22.1. Codebook components and an example

• Structural coding can be useful if a structured interview guide or focus group guide has been used by the researcher and the researcher stays close to the wording of the question and its prompts. The structured question is the structural code in the codebook, and the text segment should include the participant’s response and any dialogue following the question. Of course, this form of coding can be used even if the researcher does not follow a structured guide, which is often the reality of qualitative data collection. The relevant text segments are coded for the specific structure, as appropriate. 3
• Content coding is informed by the research question(s) and the questions informing the analysis. The segmented text is grouped in different ways to explore relationships, hierarchies, descriptions and explanations of events, similarities, differences and consequences. The content of the text segment should be read and re-read to identify patterns and meaning, with the generated codes added to the codebook.
• Themes vary in scope, yet at the core they are phrases or statements that explain the meaning of the text. Researchers need to be aware that themes are considered a higher conceptual level than codes, and therefore should not be comprised of single words or labels. Typically, multiple codes will lead to a theme. Revisiting the research and analysis questions will assist the researcher to identify themes. Through the coding process, the researcher actively searches the data for themes. Examples of how themes may be identified include the repetition of concepts within and across transcripts, the use of metaphors and analogies, key phrases and common phrases used in an unfamiliar way. 3

Framework a nalysis

This method originated in the 1980s in social policy research. Framework analysis is suited to research seeking to answer specific questions about a problem or issue, within a limited time frame and with homogenous data (in topics, concepts and participants); multiple researchers are usually involved in the coding process. 4-6 The process of framework analysis is methodical and suits large data sets, hence is attractive to quantitative researchers and health services researchers. Framework analysis is useful for multidisciplinary teams in which not all members are familiar with qualitative analysis. Framework analysis does not seek to generate theory and is not aligned with any particular epistemological, philosophical or theoretical approach. 5 The output of framework analysis is a matrix with rows (cases), columns (codes) and cells of summarised data that enables researchers to analyse the data case by case and code by code. The case is usually an individual interview, or it can be a defined group or organisation. 5

The process for conducting framework analysis is as follows 5 :

1. Transcription – usually verbatim transcription of the interview.

2. Familiarisation with the interview – reading the transcript and listening to the audio recording (particularly if the researcher doing the analysis did not conduct the interview) can assist in the interpretation of the data. Notes on analytical observations, thoughts and impressions are made in the margins of the transcript during this stage.

3. Coding – completed in a line-by-line method by at least two researchers from different disciplines (or with a patient or public involvement representative), where possible. Coding can be both deductive – (using a theory or specific topics relevant to the project – or inductive, whereby open coding is applied to elements such as behaviours, incidents, values, attitudes, beliefs, emotions and participant reactions. All data is coded.

4. Developing a working analytical framework – codes are collated and organised into categories, to create a structure for summarising or reducing the data.

5. Applying the analytical framework – indexing the remaining transcripts by using the categories and codes of the analytical framework.

6. Charting data into the framework matrix – summarising the data by category and from each transcript into the framework matrix, which is a spreadsheet with numbered cells in which summarised data are entered by codes (columns) and cases (rows). Charting needs to balance the reduction of data to a manageable few lines and retention of the meaning and ‘feel’ of the participant. References to illustrative quotes should be included.

7. Interpreting the data – using the framework matrix and notes taken throughout the analysis process to interpret meaning, in collaboration with team members, including lay and clinical members.

Reflexive thematic analysis

This is the thematic analysis approach developed by Braun and Clarke in 2006 and explained in the highly cited article ‘ Using thematic analysis in psychology ’ . 7 Reflexive thematic analysis recognises the subjectiveness of the analysis process, and that codes and themes are actively generated by the researcher. Hence, themes and codes are influenced by the researcher’s values, skills and experiences. 8 Reflexive thematic analysis ‘exists at the intersection of the researcher, the dataset and the various contexts of interpretation’. 9(line 5-6) In this method, the coding process is less structured and more organic than in applied thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke have been critical of the use of the term ‘emerging themes’, which many researchers use to indicate that the theme was data-driven, as opposed to a deductive approach:

This language suggests that meaning is self evident and somehow ‘within’ the data waiting to be revealed, and that the researcher is a neutral conduit for the revelation of said meaning. In contrast, we conceptualise analysis as a situated and interactive process, reflecting both the data, the positionality of the researcher, and the context of the research itself… it is disingenuous to evoke a process whereby themes simply emerge, instead of being active co-productions on the part of the researcher, the data/participants and context. 10 (p15)

Since 2006, Braun and Clarke have published extensively on reflexive thematic analysis, including a methodological paper comparing reflexive thematic analysis with other approaches to qualitative analysis, 8 and have provided resources on their website to support researchers and students. 9 There are many ways to conduct reflexive thematic analysis, but the six main steps in the method are outlined following. 9 Note that this is not a linear, prescriptive or rule-based process, but rather an approach to guide researchers in systematically and robustly exploring their data.

1.  Familiarisation with data – involves reading and re-reading transcripts so that the researcher is immersed in the data. The researcher makes notes on their initial observations, interpretations and insights for both the individual transcripts and across all the transcripts or data sources.

2.  Coding – the process of applying succinct labels (codes) to the data in a way that captures the meaning and characteristics of the data relevant to the research question. The entire data set is coded in numerous rounds; however, unlike line-by-line coding in grounded theory (Chapter 27), or data segmentation in applied thematic analysis, not all sections of data need to be coded. 8 After a few rounds of coding, the codes are collated and relevant data is extracted.

3.  Generating initial themes – using the collated codes and extracted data, the researcher identifies patterns of meaning (initial or potential themes). The researcher then revisits codes and the data to extract relevant data for the initial themes, to examine the viability of the theme.

4 .  Developing and reviewing themes – checking the initial themes against codes and the entire data set to assess whether it captures the ‘story’ of the data and addresses the research question. During this step, the themes are often reworked by combining, splitting or discarding. For reflexive thematic analysis, a theme is defined as a ‘pattern of shared meaning underpinned by a central concept or idea’. 8 (p 39 )

5.  Refining, defining and naming themes – developing the scope and boundaries of the theme, creating the story of the theme and applying an informative name for the theme.

6.  Writing up – is a key part of the analysis and involves writing the narrative of the themes, embedding the data and providing the contextual basis for the themes in the literature.

Themes versus c odes

As described above, themes are informed by codes, and themes are defined at a conceptually higher level than codes. Themes are broader categorisations that tend to describe or explain the topic or concept. Themes need to extend beyond the code and are typically statements that can stand alone to describe and/or explain the data. Fereday and Muir-Cochrane explain this development from code to theme in Table 22.2. 11

Table 22.2. Corroborating and legitimating coded themes to identify second-order themes

*Note: This table is from an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

When I [the author] first started publishing qualitative research, many of my themes were at the code level. I then got advice that when the themes are the subheadings of the results section of my paper, they should tell the story of the research. The difference in my theme naming can be seen when comparing a paper from my PhD thesis, 12 which explores the challenges of church-based health promotion, with a more recent paper that I published on antimicrobial stewardship 13 (refer to the theme tables in the publications).

Table 22.3. Examples of thematic analysis

Advantages and challenges of thematic analysis.

Thematic analysis is flexible and can be used to analyse small and large data sets with homogenous and heterogenous samples. Thematic analysis can be applied to any type of data source, from interviews and focus groups to diary entries and online discussion forums. 1 Applied thematic analysis and framework analysis are accessible approaches for non-qualitative researchers or beginner researchers. However, the flexibility and accessibility of thematic analysis can lead to limitations and challenges when thematic analysis is misapplied or done poorly. Thematic analysis can be more descriptive than interpretive if not properly anchored in a theoretical framework. 1 For framework analysis, the spreadsheet matrix output can lead to quantitative researchers inappropriately quantifying the qualitative data. Therefore, training and support from a qualitative researcher with the appropriate expertise can help to ensure that the interpretation of the data is meaningful. 5

Thematic analysis is a family of analysis techniques that are flexible and inductive and involve the generation of codes and themes. There are three main types of thematic analysis: applied thematic analysis, framework analysis and reflexive thematic analysis. These approaches span from structured coding to organic and unstructured coding for theme development. The choice of approach should be guided by the research question, the research design and the available resources and skills of the researcher and team.

• Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol . 2017;12(3):297-298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
• Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Introduction to applied thematic analysis. In: Guest G, MacQueen, K.M., Namey, E.E., ed. Applied thematic analysis . SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2014. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/applied-thematic-analysis
• Guest G, MacQueen, K.M., Namey, E.E.,. Themes and Codes. In: Guest G, MacQueen, K.M., Namey, E.E., ed. Applied thematic analysis . SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2014. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/applied-thematic-analysis
• Srivastava A, Thomson SB. Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration and Governance . 2009;72(3). Accessed September 14, 2023. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2760705
• Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol . 2013;13:117. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
• Smith J, Firth J. Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach. Nurse Res . 2011;18(2):52-62. doi:10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.52.c8284
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol . 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res . 2021;21(1):37-47. doi:10.1002/capr.12360
• Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. University of Auckland. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/
• Braun V, Clarke V. Answers to frequently asked questions about thematic analysis. University of Auckland. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/faqs/
• Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating Rigour Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods . 2006;5(1):80-92. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107
• Ayton D, Manderson L, Smith BJ. Barriers and challenges affecting the contemporary church’s engagement in health promotion. Health Promot J Austr . 2017;28(1):52-58. doi:10.1071/HE15037
• Ayton D, Watson E, Betts JM, et al. Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in the Australian private hospital system: qualitative study of attitudes to antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship. BMC Health Serv Res . 2022;22(1):1554. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08938-8
• McKenna-Plumley PE, Graham-Wisener L, Berry E, Groarke JM. Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. PLoS One . 2021;16(10):e0258344. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258344
• Dickinson BL, Gibson K, VanDerKolk K, et al. “It is this very knowledge that makes us doctors”: an applied thematic analysis of how medical students perceive the relevance of biomedical science knowledge to clinical medicine. BMC Med Educ . 2020;20(1):356. doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02251-w
• Bunzli S, O’Brien P, Ayton D, et al. Misconceptions and the acceptance of evidence-based nonsurgical interventions for knee osteoarthritis. A Qualitative Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2019;477(9):1975-1983. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000000784

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Darshini Ayton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What (Exactly) Is Thematic Analysis?

Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | April 2021

Thematic analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we see students opting for at Grad Coach – and for good reason. Despite its relative simplicity, thematic analysis can be a very powerful analysis technique when used correctly. In this post, we’ll unpack thematic analysis using plain language (and loads of examples) so that you can conquer your analysis with confidence.

Thematic Analysis 101

• Basic terminology relating to thematic analysis
• What is thematic analysis
• When to use thematic analysis
• The main approaches to thematic analysis
• The three types of thematic analysis
• How to “do” thematic analysis (the process)
• Tips and suggestions

First, the lingo…

Before we begin, let’s first lay down some terminology. When undertaking thematic analysis, you’ll make use of codes . A code is a label assigned to a piece of text, and the aim of using a code is to identify and summarise important concepts within a set of data, such as an interview transcript.

For example, if you had the sentence, “My rabbit ate my shoes”, you could use the codes “rabbit” or “shoes” to highlight these two concepts. The process of assigning codes is called qualitative coding . If this is a new concept to you, be sure to check out our detailed post about qualitative coding .

Codes are vital as they lay a foundation for themes . But what exactly is a theme? Simply put, a theme is a pattern that can be identified within a data set. In other words, it’s a topic or concept that pops up repeatedly throughout your data. Grouping your codes into themes serves as a way of summarising sections of your data in a useful way that helps you answer your research question(s) and achieve your research aim(s).

Alright – with that out of the way, let’s jump into the wonderful world of thematic analysis…

What is thematic analysis?

Thematic analysis is the study of patterns to uncover meaning . In other words, it’s about analysing the patterns and themes within your data set to identify the underlying meaning. Importantly, this process is driven by your research aims and questions , so it’s not necessary to identify every possible theme in the data, but rather to focus on the key aspects that relate to your research questions .

Although the research questions are a driving force in thematic analysis (and pretty much all analysis methods), it’s important to remember that these questions are not necessarily fixed . As thematic analysis tends to be a bit of an exploratory process, research questions can evolve as you progress with your coding and theme identification.

When should you use thematic analysis?

There are many potential qualitative analysis methods that you can use to analyse a dataset. For example, content analysis , discourse analysis , and narrative analysis are popular choices. So why use thematic analysis?

Thematic analysis is highly beneficial when working with large bodies of data ,  as it allows you to divide and categorise large amounts of data in a way that makes it easier to digest. Thematic analysis is particularly useful when looking for subjective information , such as a participant’s experiences, views, and opinions. For this reason, thematic analysis is often conducted on data derived from interviews , conversations, open-ended survey responses , and social media posts.

Your research questions can also give you an idea of whether you should use thematic analysis or not. For example, if your research questions were to be along the lines of:

• How do dog walkers perceive rules and regulations on dog-friendly beaches?
• What are students’ experiences with the shift to online learning?
• What opinions do health professionals hold about the Hippocratic code?
• How is gender constructed in a high school classroom setting?

These examples are all research questions centering on the subjective experiences of participants and aim to assess experiences, views, and opinions. Therefore, thematic analysis presents a possible approach.

In short, thematic analysis is a good choice when you are wanting to categorise large bodies of data (although the data doesn’t necessarily have to be large), particularly when you are interested in subjective experiences .

What are the main approaches?

Broadly speaking, there are two overarching approaches to thematic analysis: inductive and deductive . The approach you take will depend on what is most suitable in light of your research aims and questions. Let’s have a look at the options.

The inductive approach

The inductive approach involves deriving meaning and creating themes from data without any preconceptions . In other words, you’d dive into your analysis without any idea of what codes and themes will emerge, and thus allow these to emerge from the data.

For example, if you’re investigating typical lunchtime conversational topics in a university faculty, you’d enter the research without any preconceived codes, themes or expected outcomes. Of course, you may have thoughts about what might be discussed (e.g., academic matters because it’s an academic setting), but the objective is to not let these preconceptions inform your analysis.

The inductive approach is best suited to research aims and questions that are exploratory in nature , and cases where there is little existing research on the topic of interest.

The deductive approach

In contrast to the inductive approach, a deductive approach involves jumping into your analysis with a pre-determined set of codes . Usually, this approach is informed by prior knowledge and/or existing theory or empirical research (which you’d cover in your literature review ).

For example, a researcher examining the impact of a specific psychological intervention on mental health outcomes may draw on an existing theoretical framework that includes concepts such as coping strategies, social support, and self-efficacy, using these as a basis for a set of pre-determined codes.

The deductive approach is best suited to research aims and questions that are confirmatory in nature , and cases where there is a lot of existing research on the topic of interest.

Regardless of whether you take the inductive or deductive approach, you’ll also need to decide what level of content your analysis will focus on – specifically, the semantic level or the latent level.

A semantic-level focus ignores the underlying meaning of data , and identifies themes based only on what is explicitly or overtly stated or written – in other words, things are taken at face value.

In contrast, a latent-level focus concentrates on the underlying meanings and looks at the reasons for semantic content. Furthermore, in contrast to the semantic approach, a latent approach involves an element of interpretation , where data is not just taken at face value, but meanings are also theorised.

“But how do I know when to use what approach?”, I hear you ask.

Well, this all depends on the type of data you’re analysing and what you’re trying to achieve with your analysis. For example, if you’re aiming to analyse explicit opinions expressed in interviews and you know what you’re looking for ahead of time (based on a collection of prior studies), you may choose to take a deductive approach with a semantic-level focus.

On the other hand, if you’re looking to explore the underlying meaning expressed by participants in a focus group, and you don’t have any preconceptions about what to expect, you’ll likely opt for an inductive approach with a latent-level focus.

Simply put, the nature and focus of your research, especially your research aims , objectives and questions will  inform the approach you take to thematic analysis.

What are the types of thematic analysis?

Now that you’ve got an understanding of the overarching approaches to thematic analysis, it’s time to have a look at the different types of thematic analysis you can conduct. Broadly speaking, there are three “types” of thematic analysis:

• Reflexive thematic analysis
• Codebook thematic analysis
• Coding reliability thematic analysis

Let’s have a look at each of these:

Reflexive thematic analysis takes an inductive approach, letting the codes and themes emerge from that data. This type of thematic analysis is very flexible, as it allows researchers to change, remove, and add codes as they work through the data. As the name suggests, reflexive thematic analysis emphasizes the active engagement of the researcher in critically reflecting on their assumptions, biases, and interpretations, and how these may shape the analysis.

Reflexive thematic analysis typically involves iterative and reflexive cycles of coding, interpreting, and reflecting on data, with the aim of producing nuanced and contextually sensitive insights into the research topic, while at the same time recognising and addressing the subjective nature of the research process.

Codebook thematic analysis , on the other hand, lays on the opposite end of the spectrum. Taking a deductive approach, this type of thematic analysis makes use of structured codebooks containing clearly defined, predetermined codes. These codes are typically drawn from a combination of existing theoretical theories, empirical studies and prior knowledge of the situation.

Codebook thematic analysis aims to produce reliable and consistent findings. Therefore, it’s often used in studies where a clear and predefined coding framework is desired to ensure rigour and consistency in data analysis.

Coding reliability thematic analysis necessitates the work of multiple coders, and the design is specifically intended for research teams. With this type of analysis, codebooks are typically fixed and are rarely altered.

The benefit of this form of analysis is that it brings an element of intercoder reliability where coders need to agree upon the codes used, which means that the outcome is more rigorous as the element of subjectivity is reduced. In other words, multiple coders discuss which codes should be used and which shouldn’t, and this consensus reduces the bias of having one individual coder decide upon themes.

Quick Recap: Thematic analysis approaches and types

To recap, the two main approaches to thematic analysis are inductive , and deductive . Then we have the three types of thematic analysis: reflexive, codebook and coding reliability . Which type of thematic analysis you opt for will need to be informed by factors such as:

• The approach you are taking. For example, if you opt for an inductive approach, you’ll likely utilise reflexive thematic analysis.
• Whether you’re working alone or in a group . It’s likely that, if you’re doing research as part of your postgraduate studies, you’ll be working alone. This means that you’ll need to choose between reflexive and codebook thematic analysis.

Now that we’ve covered the “what” in terms of thematic analysis approaches and types, it’s time to look at the “how” of thematic analysis.

Need a helping hand?

How to “do” thematic analysis

At this point, you’re ready to get going with your analysis, so let’s dive right into the thematic analysis process. Keep in mind that what we’ll cover here is a generic process, and the relevant steps will vary depending on the approach and type of thematic analysis you opt for.

Step 1: Get familiar with the data

The first step in your thematic analysis involves getting a feel for your data and seeing what general themes pop up. If you’re working with audio data, this is where you’ll do the transcription , converting audio to text.

At this stage, you’ll want to come up with preliminary thoughts about what you’ll code , what codes you’ll use for them, and what codes will accurately describe your content. It’s a good idea to revisit your research topic , and your aims and objectives at this stage. For example, if you’re looking at what people feel about different types of dogs, you can code according to when different breeds are mentioned (e.g., border collie, Labrador, corgi) and when certain feelings/emotions are brought up.

As a general tip, it’s a good idea to keep a reflexivity journal . This is where you’ll write down how you coded your data, why you coded your data in that particular way, and what the outcomes of this data coding are. Using a reflexive journal from the start will benefit you greatly in the final stages of your analysis because you can reflect on the coding process and assess whether you have coded in a manner that is reliable and whether your codes and themes support your findings.

As you can imagine, a reflexivity journal helps to increase reliability as it allows you to analyse your data systematically and consistently. If you choose to make use of a reflexivity journal, this is the stage where you’ll want to take notes about your initial codes and list them in your journal so that you’ll have an idea of what exactly is being reflected in your data. At a later stage in the analysis, this data can be more thoroughly coded, or the identified codes can be divided into more specific ones.

Step 2: Search for patterns or themes in the codes

Step 2! You’re going strong. In this step, you’ll want to look out for patterns or themes in your codes. Moving from codes to themes is not necessarily a smooth or linear process. As you become more and more familiar with the data, you may find that you need to assign different codes or themes according to new elements you find. For example, if you were analysing a text talking about wildlife, you may come across the codes, “pigeon”, “canary” and “budgerigar” which can fall under the theme of birds.

As you work through the data, you may start to identify subthemes , which are subdivisions of themes that focus specifically on an aspect within the theme that is significant or relevant to your research question. For example, if your theme is a university, your subthemes could be faculties or departments at that university.

In this stage of the analysis, your reflexivity journal entries need to reflect how codes were interpreted and combined to form themes.

Step 3: Review themes

By now you’ll have a good idea of your codes, themes, and potentially subthemes. Now it’s time to review all the themes you’ve identified . In this step, you’ll want to check that everything you’ve categorised as a theme actually fits the data, whether the themes do indeed exist in the data, whether there are any themes missing , and whether you can move on to the next step knowing that you’ve coded all your themes accurately and comprehensively . If you find that your themes have become too broad and there is far too much information under one theme, it may be useful to split this into more themes so that you’re able to be more specific with your analysis.

In your reflexivity journal, you’ll want to write about how you understood the themes and how they are supported by evidence, as well as how the themes fit in with your codes. At this point, you’ll also want to revisit your research questions and make sure that the data and themes you’ve identified are directly relevant to these questions .

Step 4: Finalise Themes

By this point, your analysis will really start to take shape. In the previous step, you reviewed and refined your themes, and now it’s time to label and finalise them . It’s important to note here that, just because you’ve moved onto the next step, it doesn’t mean that you can’t go back and revise or rework your themes. In contrast to the previous step, finalising your themes means spelling out what exactly the themes consist of, and describe them in detail . If you struggle with this, you may want to return to your data to make sure that your data and coding do represent the themes, and if you need to divide your themes into more themes (i.e., return to step 3).

When you name your themes, make sure that you select labels that accurately encapsulate the properties of the theme . For example, a theme name such as “enthusiasm in professionals” leaves the question of “who are the professionals?”, so you’d want to be more specific and label the theme as something along the lines of “enthusiasm in healthcare professionals”.

It is very important at this stage that you make sure that your themes align with your research aims and questions . When you’re finalising your themes, you’re also nearing the end of your analysis and need to keep in mind that your final report (discussed in the next step) will need to fit in with the aims and objectives of your research.

In your reflexivity journal, you’ll want to write down a few sentences describing your themes and how you decided on these. Here, you’ll also want to mention how the theme will contribute to the outcomes of your research, and also what it means in relation to your research questions and focus of your research.

By the end of this stage, you’ll be done with your themes – meaning it’s time to write up your findings and produce a report.

Step 5: Produce your report

You’re nearly done! Now that you’ve analysed your data, it’s time to report on your findings. A typical thematic analysis report consists of:

• An introduction
• A methodology section
• Your results and findings
• A conclusion

When writing your report, make sure that you provide enough information for a reader to be able to evaluate the rigour of your analysis. In other words, the reader needs to know the exact process you followed when analysing your data and why. The questions of “what”, “how”, “why”, “who”, and “when” may be useful in this section.

So, what did you investigate? How did you investigate it? Why did you choose this particular method? Who does your research focus on, and who are your participants? When did you conduct your research, when did you collect your data, and when was the data produced? Your reflexivity journal will come in handy here as within it you’ve already labelled, described, and supported your themes.

If you’re undertaking a thematic analysis as part of a dissertation or thesis, this discussion will be split across your methodology, results and discussion chapters . For more information about those chapters, check out our detailed post about dissertation structure .

It’s absolutely vital that, when writing up your results, you back up every single one of your findings with quotations . The reader needs to be able to see that what you’re reporting actually exists within the results. Also make sure that, when reporting your findings, you tie them back to your research questions . You don’t want your reader to be looking through your findings and asking, “So what?”, so make sure that every finding you represent is relevant to your research topic and questions.

Quick Recap: How to “do” thematic analysis

Getting familiar with your data: Here you’ll read through your data and get a general overview of what you’re working with. At this stage, you may identify a few general codes and themes that you’ll make use of in the next step.

Search for patterns or themes in your codes : Here you’ll dive into your data and pick out the themes and codes relevant to your research question(s).

Review themes : In this step, you’ll revisit your codes and themes to make sure that they are all truly representative of the data, and that you can use them in your final report.

Finalise themes : Here’s where you “solidify” your analysis and make it report-ready by describing and defining your themes.

Produce your report : This is the final step of your thematic analysis process, where you put everything you’ve found together and report on your findings.

Tips & Suggestions

In the video below, we share 6 time-saving tips and tricks to help you approach your thematic analysis as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Wrapping Up

In this article, we’ve covered the basics of thematic analysis – what it is, when to use it, the different approaches and types of thematic analysis, and how to perform a thematic analysis.

If you have any questions about thematic analysis, drop a comment below and we’ll do our best to assist. If you’d like 1-on-1 support with your thematic analysis, be sure to check out our research coaching services here .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

21 Comments

I really appreciate the help

Hello Sir, how many levels of coding can be done in thematic analysis? We generate codes from the transcripts, then subthemes from the codes and themes from subthemes, isn’t it? Should these themes be again grouped together? how many themes can be derived?can you please share an example of coding through thematic analysis in a tabular format?

I’ve found the article very educative and useful

Excellent. Very helpful and easy to understand.

This article so far has been most helpful in understanding how to write an analysis chapter. Thank you.

My research topic is the challenges face by the school principal on the process of procurement . Thematic analysis is it sutable fir data analysis ?

It is a great help. Thanks.

Best advice. Worth reading. Thank you.

Where can I find an example of a template analysis table ?

Finally I got the best article . I wish they also have every psychology topics.

Hello, Sir/Maam

I am actually finding difficulty in doing qualitative analysis of my data and how to triangulate this with quantitative data. I encountered your web by accident in the process of searching for a much simplified way of explaining about thematic analysis such as coding, thematic analysis, write up. When your query if I need help popped up, I was hesitant to answer. Because I think this is for fee and I cannot afford. So May I just ask permission to copy for me to read and guide me to study so I can apply it myself for my gathered qualitative data for my graduate study.

Thank you very much! this is very helpful to me in my Graduate research qualitative data analysis.

Thank you very much. I find your guidance here helpful. Kindly let help me understand how to write findings and discussions.

i am having troubles with the concept of framework analysis which i did not find here and i have been an assignment on framework analysis

I was discouraged and felt insecure because after more than a year of writing my thesis, my work seemed lost its direction after being checked. But, I am truly grateful because through the comments, corrections, and guidance of the wisdom of my director, I can already see the bright light because of thematic analysis. I am working with Biblical Texts. And thematic analysis will be my method. Thank you.

lovely and helpful. thanks

very informative information.

thank you very much!, this is very helpful in my report, God bless……..

Thank you for the insight. I am really relieved as you have provided a super guide for my thesis.

Thanks a lot, really enlightening

excellent! very helpful thank a lot for your great efforts

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Donate to Refugee Education UK

• See all events
• Add an event
• The EP community
• Thesis directory
• View vacancies
• Choosing edpsy jobs
• Recruiter dashboard
• Educational Psychology
• Northern Ireland
• The edpsy team
• Email updates
• Write for us

Home   >>   Blog   >>   Tips on writing a qualitative dissertation or thesis, from Braun & Clarke – Part 1

Tips on writing a qualitative dissertation or thesis, from Braun & Clarke – Part 1

Our advice here relates to many forms of qualitative research, and particularly to research involving the use of thematic analysis (TA). 

Based on our experience of supervising students over two decades, as well as our writing on qualitative methodologies, we discuss what we think constitutes good practice – and note some common problems to avoid. 

Our first tip is  always to check local requirements ! Check what is required in your university context with regard to the format and presentation of your dissertation/thesis; if our advice clashes with this, discuss it with your supervisor. Sometimes requirements are “rules”, and sometimes they’re more norms and conventions, and there’s room to do things differently.

Qualitative centric research writing

Why might our advice here clash with what your local context expects or requires? The simple answer is that there isn’t a widely agreed on  single  standard for reporting qualitative research. Broadly speaking, there are two styles of qualitative research reporting – let’s call these “add qualitative research and stir” and “qualitative centric”. The “add qualitative and stir” style reflects the default conventions for reporting  quantitative  research slightly tweaked for qualitative research. Some characteristics of this style of reporting include: 

• third-person/passive voice
• searching out and identifying a “gap” in the literature in the introduction
• methodological critique of existing research; 
• and, when it comes to reporting the analysis, separate “results” and “discussion” sections. 

This style of reporting is far more widely understood and accepted than the other. 

What we advocate for is a “qualitative centric” style of reporting – one that is more in line with the ethos and values of qualitative research. This style departs from quantitative norms of empirical research reporting, and is consequently less widely recognised and understood. 

This is why you might experience a clash between what we recommend as good practice and what is required in your local context. We experience this clash of reporting values all the time – we have been required by reviewers and editors on numerous occasions to turn our qualitative centric research papers into something more conventional, and our students have sometimes been required by examiners to turn their qualitative centric theses into something more conventional (e.g., by separating out an integrated “results and discussion” and including methodological critique in the introduction). 

We want to be open about the fact that there  can be  risks in a qualitative centric style of reporting! One of the aims of this blog post, and the  Twitter thread  on which it is based, is to increase understanding of qualitative centric reporting styles so that fewer qualitative researchers are required to rework their research report into something less reflective of the ethos of qualitative research. 

So, what are some of the features of a qualitative centric reporting style? Let’s work through a report section by section.

Introduction

Think of the opening section of your report not as a literature  review  but as an  introduction  – the introduction is highly likely to include discussion of relevant literature, but the goal of the introduction is not to review the literature and find a “gap”. Instead, your goal in this section is to provide a context and rationale for your research.

If you do discuss bodies of literature, try to avoid summarising study after study after study… instead overview and synthesise a body of literature (What questions have been asked? What, if any, assumptions have been made? What are some of the common themes across the literature?). Have the confidence to tell the reader something about the state of the literature from your perspective.

Theoretical consistency in your introduction 

If you embrace fully the ethos and values of qualitative research, you don’t just understand qualitative research as providing you with tools and techniques to generate and analyse data; you’re unlikely to be a committed positivist or (simple/pure) realist. So if you’re not a positivist or realist when conducting and reporting  your  own research, how should you handle reporting research in your introduction that  is  positivist/realist? We think it’s important to be theoretically consistent across  your  report! 

That means not being a positivist/realist in your introduction when discussing quantitative research, then shifting to being something else when reporting your research. It means you need to think carefully about how you present and frame the findings of quantitative research. As an example, don’t present results from other projects as statements of fact (e.g. by stating “gay men are more likely than straight men to experience poor body image”), but rather as what other research has reported e.g. by saying “several quantitative studies suggest that gay men are more likely than straight men to experience poor body image”. It’s a subtle but important difference. It shows the reader that you understand your theoretical approach, and that it doesn’t (necessarily) align with the philosophical assumptions underpinning the quantitative research. 

We would also advise against engaging in methodological critique based on the values and assumptions of quantitative research in an introduction (methodological critique consistent with the philosophical assumptions of your research may be appropriate).

Framing your research: inverted triangles or stacked boxes?

Ideally, your introduction will make an  argument for your research  and  frame it within relevant wider contexts . It will flow beautifully – the reader will always know why they are being told something and where they are being taken next. There will be no jumping around from one to another seemingly unrelated topic. 

To help with flow and structure, work out if your introduction is the classic “inverted triangle” (starts broad and gets increasingly more specific) or what we call the “stacking boxes” structure. With the latter, you have several different topics to discuss but they aren’t easily classifiable as broader or more specific, they are all roughly at the same level. Your task is to decide how to order or stack the boxes! This is a judgement call and you will often need to figure out what works best  as you write . We regularly advise our students to reorder their stack of boxes; we do the same with our own work. You can’t always know ahead of writing how things will flow. 

With a “stacking boxes” introduction, we strongly recommend having some signposting or an overview at the start of the introduction to help the reader understand what you will cover and where things are going. Try to have linking sentences between different topics or sections to signal transitions to the reader (we’ve been here, now we are going there…). 

Research questions/aims

Typically, we’d advise you to end the introduction with your research questions/aims*. Any question (or questions) and aims should make sense to the reader – they definitely should not come as a surprise! – in light of the context you have presented. You want the reader to almost expect and anticipate your research question; you want your research question to  make sense . 

*Though, in some instances, this  might  work best at the start, ahead of your box stack! In such cases, you should come back to it at the end or before the start of the methodology. This works within a qualitative-centric introduction because you are not building towards a great “reveal” of the “gap” you have identified. 

Make sure you formulate your research question in a way that is consistent with the ethos and values of qualitative research. Don’t frame your research question(s) as hypotheses or, indeed, discuss what you expect to find. A common error is to formulate a research question in terms of the impact or effect of X on Y – which is essentially a poorly-disguised quantitative hypothesis! Our book  Successful Qualitative Research  provides a detailed discussion of formulating research questions for qualitative research. If you’re using TA, we have recently published a paper  Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis  t hat includes guidance on appropriate research questions for reflective TA – the approach to TA that we developed and first wrote about in  2006 .

Circling back to the title 

Let us circle around to thesis/dissertation  titles  here too – qualitative research is nothing if not recursive! Double check your title to make sure it isn’t implicitly quantitatively framed either. You really don’t want the reader to read your title and the introduction and be expecting a quantitative study when they get to your research questions! Ideally a good title tells the reader something about the topic, the methodological approach and perhaps also a key message from the analysis. Short, evocative quotations from participants can make great titles. Here’s an example from a project on  gay fathers .

Read Part 2 of this blog.

Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun’s forthcoming book is  Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide . They have websites on  thematic analysis  and the  story completion method . You can find them both on  Twitter  –  @drvicclarke  and  @ginnybraun  – where they tweet regularly about qualitative research.

More from edpsy:

Job: Educational Psychologist - Milton Keynes

About Victoria Clarke

Victoria is an Associate Professor in Qualitative and Critical Psychology at the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. You can find her on Twitter - @drvicclarke - regularly tweeting about qualitative research.

View all posts by Victoria Clarke

About Virginia Braun

Virginia is a Professor in Psychology at The University of Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand. You can find her on Twitter - @ginnybraun – (re)tweeting about qualitative research and other issues.

View all posts by Virginia Braun

Sign up for updates

Find out about new blogs, jobs, features and events by email

We will never share your data

3 Comments so far:

[…] this morning, my supervisor shared this blog post in which Clarke and Braun (2021) share some useful tips on writing a qualitative thesis. In this […]

[…] is an additive model of knowledge. Knowledge is stable and more is continually added. Gap critics say this isn’t the situation in […]

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More: edpsy.org.uk/blog/2021/tips-on-writing-a-qualitative-dissertation-or-thesis-from-braun-clarke-part-1/ […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Find out more about us Spotted something wrong? let us know

Community guidelines | Reusing our content | Cookies and privacy

edpsy ltd Piccadilly Business Centre, Aldow Enterprise Park, Manchester, England, M12 6AE Company number: 12669513 (registered in England and Wales)

Library Guides

Dissertations 5: findings, analysis and discussion: home.

• Results/Findings

Alternative Structures

The time has come to show and discuss the findings of your research. How to structure this part of your dissertation? 

Dissertations can have different structures, as you can see in the dissertation  structure  guide.

Dissertations organised by sections

Many dissertations are organised by sections. In this case, we suggest three options. Note that, if within your course you have been instructed to use a specific structure, you should do that. Also note that sometimes there is considerable freedom on the structure, so you can come up with other structures too. 

A) More common for scientific dissertations and quantitative methods:

- Results chapter 

- Discussion chapter

Example: 

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology
• (Recommendations)

if you write a scientific dissertation, or anyway using quantitative methods, you will have some  objective  results that you will present in the Results chapter. You will then interpret the results in the Discussion chapter.  

B) More common for qualitative methods

- Analysis chapter. This can have more descriptive/thematic subheadings.

- Discussion chapter. This can have more descriptive/thematic subheadings.

• Case study of Company X (fashion brand) environmental strategies 
• Successful elements
• Lessons learnt
• Criticisms of Company X environmental strategies 
• Possible alternatives

C) More common for qualitative methods

- Analysis and discussion chapter. This can have more descriptive/thematic titles.

• Case study of Company X (fashion brand) environmental strategies 

If your dissertation uses qualitative methods, it is harder to identify and report objective data. Instead, it may be more productive and meaningful to present the findings in the same sections where you also analyse, and possibly discuss, them. You will probably have different sections dealing with different themes. The different themes can be subheadings of the Analysis and Discussion (together or separate) chapter(s). 

Thematic dissertations

If the structure of your dissertation is thematic ,  you will have several chapters analysing and discussing the issues raised by your research. The chapters will have descriptive/thematic titles. 

• Background on the conflict in Yemen (2004-present day)
• Classification of the conflict in international law  
• International law violations
• Options for enforcement of international law
• Next: Results/Findings >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 2:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/c.php?g=696975

CONNECT WITH US