phd thematic analysis

Thematic Analysis: A Step by Step Guide

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is Thematic Analysis?

Thematic analysis is a qualitative research method used to identify, analyze, and interpret patterns of shared meaning (themes) within a given data set, which can be in the form of interviews , focus group discussions , surveys, or other textual data.

Thematic analysis is a useful method for research seeking to understand people’s views, opinions, knowledge, experiences, or values from qualitative data.

This method is widely used in various fields, including psychology, sociology, and health sciences.

Thematic analysis minimally organizes and describes a data set in rich detail. Often, though, it goes further than this and interprets aspects of the research topic.

Key aspects of thematic analysis include:

• Flexibility : It can be adapted to suit the needs of various studies, providing a rich and detailed account of the data.
• Coding : The process involves assigning labels or codes to specific data segments that capture a single idea or concept relevant to the research question.
• Themes : Representing a broader level of analysis, encompassing multiple codes that share a common underlying meaning or pattern. They provide a more abstract and interpretive understanding of the data.
• Iterative process : Thematic analysis is recursive, not linear. Researchers move back and forth between phases, refining codes and themes as their understanding of the data evolves.
• Interpretation : The researcher interprets the identified themes to tell a compelling and insightful story about the data.

Many researchers mistakenly treat thematic analysis (TA) as a single, homogenous method. However, as Braun and Clarke emphasize, TA is more accurately described as an “umbrella term” encompassing a diverse family of approaches.

These approaches differ significantly in terms of their procedure and underlying philosophies regarding the nature of knowledge and the role of the researcher.

It’s important to note that the types of thematic analysis are not mutually exclusive, and researchers may adopt elements from different approaches depending on their research questions, goals, and epistemological stance.

The choice of approach should be guided by the research aims, the nature of the data, and the philosophical assumptions underpinning the study.

1. Coding Reliability Thematic Analysis

Coding reliability, frequently employed in the US, leans towards a positivist philosophy . It prioritizes objectivity and replicability, often using predetermined themes or codes.

Coding reliability TA emphasizes using coding techniques to achieve reliable and accurate data coding, which reflects (post)positivist research values.

This approach emphasizes the reliability and replicability of the coding process. It involves multiple coders independently coding the data using a predetermined codebook.

The goal is to achieve a high level of agreement among the coders, which is often measured using inter-rater reliability metrics.

This approach often involves a coding frame or codebook determined in advance or generated after familiarization with the data.

In this type of TA, two or more researchers apply a fixed coding frame to the data, ideally working separately.

Some researchers even suggest that some coders should be unaware of the research question or area of study to prevent bias in the coding process.

Statistical tests are used to assess the level of agreement between coders, or the reliability of coding. Any differences in coding between researchers are resolved through consensus.

This approach is more suitable for research questions that require a more structured and reliable coding process, such as in content analysis or when comparing themes across different data sets.

2. Reflexive Thematic Analysis

Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis is an approach to qualitative data analysis that emphasizes researchers’ active role in knowledge construction.

It involves identifying patterns across data, acknowledging how researchers’ perspectives shape theme development, and critically reflecting on the analysis process throughout the study.

It acknowledges that the researcher’s subjectivity, theoretical assumptions, and interpretative framework shape the identification and interpretation of themes.

In reflexive TA, analysis starts with coding after data familiarization. Unlike other TA approaches, there is no codebook or coding frame. Instead, researchers develop codes as they work through the data.

As their understanding grows, codes can change to reflect new insights—for example, they might be renamed, combined with other codes, split into multiple codes, or have their boundaries redrawn.

If multiple researchers are involved, differences in coding are explored to enhance understanding, not to reach a consensus. The finalized coding is always open to new insights and coding.

Reflexive thematic analysis involves a more organic and iterative process of coding and theme development. The researcher continuously reflects on their role in the research process and how their own experiences and perspectives might influence the analysis.

This approach is particularly useful for exploratory research questions and when the researcher aims to provide a rich and nuanced interpretation of the data.

3. Codebook Thematic Analysis

Codebook TA, such as template, framework, and matrix analysis, combines coding reliability and reflexive elements.

Codebook TA, while employing structured coding methods like those used in coding reliability TA, generally prioritizes qualitative research values, such as reflexivity.

In this approach, the researcher develops a codebook based on their initial engagement with the data. The codebook contains a list of codes, their definitions, and examples from the data.

The codebook is then used to systematically code the entire data set. This approach allows for a more detailed and nuanced analysis of the data, as the codebook can be refined and expanded throughout the coding process.

It is particularly useful when the research aims to provide a comprehensive description of the data set.

Codebook TA is often chosen for pragmatic reasons in applied research, particularly when there are predetermined information needs, strict deadlines, and large teams with varying levels of qualitative research experience

The use of a codebook in this context helps to map the developing analysis, which is thought to improve teamwork, efficiency, and the speed of output delivery.

Why coding reliability doesn’t fit with reflexive TA:

• Using coding reliability measures in reflexive TA represents an attempt to quantify and control for subjectivity in a research approach that explicitly values the researcher’s unique contribution to knowledge construction.
• Braun and Clarke argue that such attempts to bridge the “divide” between positivist and qualitative research ultimately undermine the integrity and richness of the reflexive TA approach.
• The emphasis on coding consistency can stifle the very reflexivity that reflexive TA encourages.

Six Phases Of Reflective Thematic Analysis

Reflexive thematic analysis was developed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke, two prominent qualitative researchers.

The process of thematic analysis is characterized by an iterative movement between the different phases, rather than a strict linear progression.

This means that researchers might revisit earlier phases as their understanding of the data evolves, constantly refining their analysis.

For instance, during the reviewing and developing themes phase, researchers may realize that their initial codes don’t effectively capture the nuances of the data and might need to return to the coding phase. 

This back-and-forth movement continues throughout the analysis, ensuring a thorough and evolving understanding of the data.

Here’s a breakdown of the six phases:

• This initial phase involves immersing oneself in the data.
• It includes transcribing audio or video data (if necessary) and engaging in repeated readings of the transcripts.
• The goal is to gain a thorough understanding of the content and begin to notice initial patterns or interesting features.
• This phase involves systematically identifying and labeling segments of data that are relevant to the research question.
• Codes are like labels attached to meaningful chunks of data, helping to organize and categorize information.
• This phase marks the shift from individual codes to broader patterns of meaning.
• The researcher starts grouping codes that seem to cluster together, indicating potential themes.
• It’s crucial to recognize that themes do not simply “emerge” from the data; rather, the researcher actively constructs them based on their interpretation of the coded data.
• This phase involves critically evaluating the initial themes against the coded data and the entire data set.
• It’s a process of quality checking and ensuring that the themes accurately and comprehensively reflect the data.
• Researchers may need to refine, discard, or even generate new themes based on this review process.
• This phase involves developing clear and concise definitions for each theme, capturing their scope and boundaries.
• The researcher aims to identify the “essence” of each theme and ensure that each theme has a distinct and meaningful contribution to the overall analysis.
• This stage also involves developing succinct and evocative names for the themes, conveying their central meaning to the reader.
• The final phase involves weaving the themes together to present a coherent and compelling narrative of the data.
• The write-up should not merely describe the data but should offer insightful interpretations, relate the findings back to the research question, and connect them to existing literature.

Step 1: Familiarization With the Data

Familiarization is crucial, as it helps researchers figure out the type (and number) of themes that might emerge from the data.

Familiarization involves immersing yourself in the data by reading and rereading textual data items, such as interview transcripts or survey responses.

You should read through the entire data set at least once, and possibly multiple times, until you feel intimately familiar with its content.

• Read and re-read the data (e.g., interview transcripts, survey responses, or other textual data) : The researcher reads through the entire data set multiple times to gain a comprehensive understanding of the data’s breadth and depth. This helps the researcher develop a holistic sense of the participants’ experiences, perspectives, and the overall narrative of the data.
• Listen to the audio recordings of the interviews : This helps to pick up on tone, emphasis, and emotional responses that may not be evident in the written transcripts. For instance, they might note a participant’s hesitation or excitement when discussing a particular topic. This is an important step if you didn’t collect or transcribe the data yourself.
• Take notes on initial ideas and observations : Note-making at this stage should be observational and casual, not systematic and inclusive, as you aren’t coding yet. Think of the notes as memory aids and triggers for later coding and analysis. They are primarily for you, although they might be shared with research team members.
• Immerse yourself in the data to gain a deep understanding of its content : It’s not about just absorbing surface meaning like you would with a novel, but about thinking about what the data  mean .

By the end of the familiarization step, the researcher should have a good grasp of the overall content of the data, the key issues and experiences discussed by the participants, and any initial patterns or themes that emerge.

This deep engagement with the data sets the stage for the subsequent steps of thematic analysis, where the researcher will systematically code and analyze the data to identify and interpret the central themes.

Step 2: Generating Initial Codes

Codes are concise labels or descriptions assigned to segments of the data that capture a specific feature or meaning relevant to the research question.

Research question(s) and coding

• Braun and Clarke argue that the research question should be at the forefront of the researcher’s mind as they engage with the data, helping them focus their attention on what is relevant and meaningful.
• The research question is not set in stone; it can, and often should, evolve throughout the analysis.
• Braun and Clarke encourage a flexible and iterative dance between the research question and the coding process in reflexive thematic analysis.
• They advocate for a dynamic interplay where the research question guides the analysis while remaining open to refinement and even transformation based on the insights gleaned from deep engagement with the data.
• The coding process, with its close engagement with the data, can reveal new insights, nuances, and avenues for exploration, potentially leading to a reframing or narrowing of the initial research question.

The process of qualitative coding helps the researcher organize and reduce the data into manageable chunks, making it easier to identify patterns and themes relevant to the research question.

Think of it this way:  If your analysis is a house, themes are the walls and roof, while codes are the individual bricks and tiles.

Coding is an iterative process, with researchers refining and revising their codes as their understanding of the data evolves.

The ultimate goal is to develop a coherent and meaningful coding scheme that captures the richness and complexity of the participants’ experiences and helps answer the research question(s).

Coding can be done manually (paper transcription and pen or highlighter) or by means of software (e.g. by using NVivo, MAXQDA or ATLAS.ti).

Qualitative data analysis software, such as NVivo can streamline the coding process, help you organize your data, and facilitate searching for patterns.

Example: Instead of manually writing codes on note cards or in separate documents, you can use software to directly tag and categorize segments of text within your data. This allows for easy retrieval and comparison of coded extracts later in the analysis

However, while software can assist with tasks like organizing codes and visually representing relationships, the researcher maintains responsibility for interpreting the data, defining themes, and making analytical decisions.

Decide On Your Coding Approach

• Will you use a predefined deductive coding framework with examples (based on theory or prior research), or let codes emerge from the data (inductive coding)?
• Will a piece of data have one code or multiple?
• Will you code everything or selectively? Broader research questions may warrant coding more comprehensively.

Instead of chasing data saturation , Clarke advocates for aiming for “ theoretical sufficiency “. This means coding data until you have enough evidence to confidently and convincingly support your interpretations and answer your research question.

If you decide not to code everything, it’s crucial to:

• Have clear criteria for what you will and won’t code.
• Be transparent about your selection process in the research report write-up.
• Remain open to revisiting uncoded data later in analysis.

Do A First Round Of Coding

• You are not required to code every single line or sentence. The size of the data segment you code can vary depending on what is meaningful and relevant to your research question.
• Go through the data and assign initial codes to chunks that could contribute to answering your research question, even if the connection seems tenuous at first.
• Instead of aiming for absolute certainty, Braun and Clarke suggest researchers consider whether a data segment is “potentially relevant” to the research question.
• Create a code name (a word or short phrase) that captures the essence of each chunk.
• Keep a codebook – a list of your codes with descriptions or definitions.
• Be open to adding, revising or combining codes as you go.
• Recognize that your understanding of the data, and therefore your codes, will likely evolve as you work through the data

After generating your first code, compare each new data extract to see if an existing code applies or if a new one is needed.

Avoid getting bogged down in trying to create the “perfect” set of codes from the outset. Embrace the iterative nature of coding, refining, and adjusting as needed

When grappling with the decision of whether to code a particular data segment, Braun and Clarke advocate for an inclusive approach, particularly in the initial stages of analysis.

They emphasize that it’s easier to discard codes later than to revisit the entire dataset for recording.

Coding can be done at two levels of meaning:

Semantic codes provide a descriptive snapshot of the data, while latent codes offer a more interpretive and deeper understanding of the underlying meanings and assumptions present.

• Semantic:  These codes capture the surface meaning or explicit content of the data. They stay close to the participants’ intended meaning, mirroring their language and concepts. Think of semantic codes as a direct representation of what the participant says, with minimal interpretation by the researcher. They provide a concise summary of a portion of data, staying close to the content and the participant’s meaning.
• Latent:  Goes beyond the participant’s meaning to provide a conceptual interpretation of the data. They often draw on existing theories or concepts to interpret the data, providing a more conceptual “take” on what the participants are saying. Latent codes require the researcher to dig beneath the surface and make inferences based on their expertise and knowledge.

The decision of whether to use semantic or latent codes, or a mix of both, depends on the research question, the specific data, and the theoretical orientation of the researcher.

Latent coding requires more experience and theoretical knowledge than semantic coding.

Most codes will be a mix of descriptive and conceptual. Novice coders tend to generate more descriptive codes initially, developing more conceptual approaches with experience.

Both types of codes are valuable in thematic analysis and contribute to a more comprehensive and insightful analysis of qualitative data.

Evolution of codes:

Coding in reflexive TA is not a linear, pre-determined process; instead, it’s an iterative process characterized by constant development, refinement, and transformation.

Braun and Clarke underscore that in reflexive TA, codes are not static categories but rather evolving tools that the researcher actively shapes and reshapes in response to the emerging insights from the data.

Don’t be afraid to revisit and adjust your codes —this is a sign of thoughtful engagement, not failure.

Braun and Clark highlight how codes might be:

• Renamed: As the researcher’s understanding of the data deepens, they might find that a code’s initial label no longer accurately reflects the nuances of the meaning it captures. Renaming allows for a more precise and insightful representation of the data.
• Combined: Codes that initially seemed distinct might reveal overlaps or shared connections as the analysis progresses, leading to their merging into a broader, more encompassing code.
• Split: Conversely, a code that initially seemed cohesive might later reveal subtle distinctions within it, prompting the researcher to split it into two or more more focused codes, reflecting a more nuanced understanding of the data.
• Redrawn boundaries: The scope and focus of a code can also shift throughout the analysis, leading to a redrawing of its boundaries to better encapsulate the emerging patterns and insights.

This step ends when:

• All data is fully coded.
• Data relevant to each code has been collated.

You have enough codes to capture the data’s diversity and patterns of meaning, with most codes appearing across multiple data items.

The number of codes you generate will depend on your topic, data set, and coding precision.

Step 3: Generating Initial Themes

Generating initial provisional (candidate) themes begins after all data has been initially coded and collated, resulting in a comprehensive list of codes identified across the data set.

This step involves shifting from the specific, granular codes to a broader, more conceptual level of analysis.

What is the difference between a theme and a code?

• A code is attached to a segment of data (your “coding chunk”) that is potentially relevant to your research question
• Themes are built from codes, meaning they’re more abstract and interpretive.
• Codes capture a single idea or observation, while a theme pulls together multiple codes to create a broader, more nuanced understanding of the data.
• Think of codes as the building blocks, and themes as the structure you create using those blocks.

Themes are higher-level units of analysis that organize and interpret the codes, revealing the overarching stories and key insights within the data. The focus is on making sense of the coded data by identifying connections, similarities, and overarching patterns that address the research question.

Phase 3 of thematic analysis is about actively “generating initial themes” rather than passively “searching for themes.” The distinction highlights that researchers don’t just uncover pre-existing themes hidden within the data.

Thematic analysis is not about “discovering” themes that already exist in the data, but rather actively constructing or generating themes through a careful and iterative process of examination and interpretation.

Themes involve a higher level of abstraction and interpretation. They go beyond merely summarizing the data (what participants said) and require the researcher to synthesize codes into meaningful clusters that offer insights into the underlying meaning and significance of the findings in relation to the research question.

Collating codes into potential themes :

The generating initial themes step helps the researcher move from a granular, code-level analysis to a more conceptual, theme-level understanding of the data.

The process of collating codes into potential themes involves grouping codes that share a unifying feature or represent a coherent and meaningful pattern in the data.

The researcher looks for patterns, similarities, and connections among the codes to develop overarching themes that capture the essence of the data.

It’s important to remember that coding is an organic and ongoing process.

You may need to re-read your entire data set to see if you have missed any data relevant to your themes, or if you need to create any new codes or themes.

Once a potential theme is identified, all coded data extracts associated with the codes grouped under that theme are collated. This ensures a comprehensive view of the data pertaining to each theme.

The researcher should ensure that the data extracts within each theme are coherent and meaningful.

This step helps ensure that your themes accurately reflect the data and are not based on your own preconceptions.

By the end of this step, the researcher will have a collection of candidate themes (and maybe sub-themes), along with their associated data extracts.

However, these themes are still provisional and will be refined in the next step of reviewing the themes.

This process is similar to sculpting, where the researcher shapes the “raw” data into a meaningful analysis. This involves grouping codes that share a unifying feature or represent a coherent pattern in the data:

• Review the list of initial codes and their associated data extracts (e.g., highlighted quotes or segments from interview transcripts).
• Look for codes that seem to share a common idea or concept.
• Group related codes together to form potential themes.
• If using qualitative data analysis software, you can assign the coded extracts to the relevant themes within the software.
• Some codes may form main themes, while others may be sub-themes or may not fit into any theme.
• If a coded extract seems to fit under multiple themes, choose the theme that it most closely aligns with in terms of shared meaning.

Example : The researcher would gather all the data extracts related to “Financial Obstacles and Support,” such as quotes about struggling to pay for tuition, working long hours, or receiving scholarships.

Thematic maps

Thematic maps can help visualize the relationship between codes and themes. These visual aids provide a structured representation of the emerging patterns and connections within the data, aiding in understanding the significance of each theme and its contribution to the overall research question.

• As you identify which theme each coded extract belongs to, copy and paste the extract under the relevant theme in your thematic map or table.
• Include enough context around each extract to ensure its meaning is clear.

Thematic maps often use visual elements like boxes, circles, arrows, and lines to represent different codes and themes and to illustrate how they connect to one another.

Thematic maps typically display themes and subthemes in a hierarchical structure, moving from broader, overarching themes to more specific, nuanced subthemes.

Maps can help researchers visualize the connections and tensions between different themes, revealing how they intersect or diverge to create a more nuanced understanding of the data.

Similar to the iterative nature of thematic analysis itself, thematic maps are fluid and adaptable, changing as the researcher gains a deeper understanding of the data.

Maps can highlight overlaps between themes or areas where a theme might be too broad or too narrow, prompting the researcher to adjust their analysis accordingly.

Example : Studying first-generation college students, the researcher might notice that the codes “financial challenges,” “working part-time,” and “scholarships” all relate to the broader theme of “Financial Obstacles and Support.”

Two main conceptualizations of a theme exist:

• Bucket theme (domain summary) : This approach identifies a pre-defined area of interest (often from interview questions) and summarizes all data relevant to that area.
• Storybook theme (shared meaning) : This approach focuses on identifying broader patterns of meaning that tell a story about the data. These themes go beyond simply summarizing and involve a greater degree of interpretation from the researcher.

Avoid : Themes as Domain Summaries (Shared Topic or “Bucket Themes”)

Domain summary themes are organized around a shared topic but not a shared meaning, and often resemble “buckets” into which data is sorted.

A domain summary organizes data around a shared topic but not a shared meaning.

In this approach, themes simply summarize what participants mentioned about a particular topic, without necessarily revealing a unified meaning.

Domain summaries group data extracts around a common topic or area of inquiry, often reflecting the interview questions or predetermined categories.

The emphasis is on collating all relevant data points related to that topic, regardless of whether they share a unifying meaning or concept.

While potentially useful for organizing data, domain summaries often remain at a descriptive level, failing to offer deeper insights into the data’s underlying meanings and implications.

These themes are often underdeveloped and lack a central organizing concept that ties all the different observations together.

A strong theme has a “central organizing concept” that connects all the observations and interpretations within that theme and goes beyond surface-level observations to uncover implicit meanings and assumptions.

A theme should not just be a collection of unrelated observations of a topic. This means going beyond just describing the “surface” of the data and identifying the assumptions, conceptualizations, and ideologies that inform the data’s meaning.

It’s crucial to avoid creating themes that are merely summaries of data domains or directly reflect the interview questions. 

Example 1 : A theme titled “Incidents of homophobia” that merely describes various participant responses about homophobia without delving into deeper interpretations would be a topic summary theme.

Example 2 : A theme titled “Benefits of Being Single” that lists all the positive aspects of singlehood mentioned by participants would be a domain summary. A more insightful theme might explore the underlying reasons behind these benefits, such as “Redefining Independence in Singlehood.”

Tip : Using interview questions as theme titles without further interpretation or relying on generic social functions (“social conflict”) or structural elements (“economics”) as themes often indicates a lack of shared meaning and thorough theme development. Such themes might lack a clear connection to the specific dataset

Ensure : Themes as Shared Meaning (or “Storybook Themes”)

Braun and Clarke stress that a theme should offer more than a mere description of the data; it should tell a story about the data.

Instead, themes should represent a deeper level of interpretation, capturing the essence of the data and providing meaningful insights into the research question.

Shared meaning themes are patterns of shared meaning underpinned by a central organizing concept.

In contrast to domain summaries, shared meaning themes go beyond merely identifying a topic. They are organized around a “ central organizing concept ” that ties together all the observations and interpretations within that theme.

This central organizing concept represents the researcher’s interpretation of the shared meaning that connects seemingly disparate data points.

They reflect a pattern of shared meaning across different data points, even if those points come from different topics.

• Emphasis on interpretation and insight: Shared meaning themes require the researcher to move beyond surface-level descriptions and engage in a more interpretive and nuanced analysis. This involves identifying the underlying assumptions, conceptualizations, and ideologies that shape participants’ experiences and perspectives.
• Themes as interpretive stories: Braun and Clarke use the metaphor of a “storybook” to capture the essence of shared meaning themes. These themes aim to tell a compelling and insightful story about the data, going beyond a mere restatement of what participants said.

Example : The theme “‘There’s always that level of uncertainty’: Compulsory heterosexuality at university” effectively captures the shared experience of fear and uncertainty among LGBT students, connecting various codes related to homophobia and its impact on their lives.

Key considerations for developing shared meaning themes:

• Identifying the “Essence”: Developing a strong shared meaning theme involves identifying the “essence” or “core idea” that underpins a cluster of codes and data extracts. This requires asking questions like: What is the common thread that connects these observations? What underlying assumptions or beliefs are being expressed? What is the larger story that these data points tell about the phenomenon being studied?
• Moving beyond the literal: Shared meaning themes often involve uncovering the implicit or latent meanings embedded within the data. This requires the researcher to look beyond the literal interpretations of participants’ words and consider the broader social and cultural contexts that shape their perspectives.

Step 4: Reviewing Themes

The researcher reviews, modifies, and develops the preliminary themes identified in the previous step, transforming them into final, well-developed themes.

This phase involves a recursive process of checking the themes against the coded data extracts and the entire data set to ensure they accurately reflect the meanings evident in the data.

The purpose is to refine the themes, ensuring they are coherent, consistent, and distinctive.

According to Braun and Clarke, a well-developed 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”.

A well-developed theme will:

• Go beyond paraphrasing the data to analyze the meaning and significance of the patterns identified.
• Provide a detailed analysis of what the theme is about.
• Be supported with a good amount of relevant data extracts.
• Be related to the research question.

Revisions at this stage might involve creating new themes, refining existing themes, or discarding themes that do not fit the data. For example, you might realize that two provisional themes actually overlap significantly and decide to merge them into a single, more nuanced theme.

Level One : Reviewing Themes Against Coded Data Extracts

• Researchers begin by comparing their initial candidate themes against the coded data extracts associated with each theme to ensure they form a coherent pattern.
• This step helps to determine whether each theme is supported by the data and whether it accurately reflects the meaning found in the extracts. Determine if there is enough data to support each theme.
• Look at the relationships between themes and sub-themes in the thematic map. Consider whether the themes work together to tell a coherent story about the data. If the thematic map does not effectively represent the data, consider making adjustments to the themes or their organization.
• If some extracts do not fit well with the rest of the data in a theme, consider whether they might better fit under a different theme or if the theme needs to be refined.
• It’s important to ensure that each theme has a singular focus and is not trying to encompass too much. Themes should be distinct from one another, although they may build on or relate to each other.
• Discarding codes : If certain codes within a theme are not well-supported or do not fit, they can be removed.
• Relocating codes : Codes that fit better under a different theme can be moved.
• Redrawing theme boundaries : The scope of a theme can be adjusted to better capture the relevant data.
• Discarding themes : Entire themes can be abandoned if they do not work.

Level Two : Evaluating Themes Against the Entire Data Set

• Once the themes appear coherent and well-supported by the coded extracts, researchers move on to evaluate them against the entire data set.
• This involves a final review of all the data to ensure that the themes accurately capture the most important and relevant patterns across the entire dataset in relation to the research question.
• During this level, researchers may need to recode some extracts for consistency, especially if the coding process evolved significantly, and earlier data items were not recoded according to these changes.

Level Three : Considering relationships between codes, themes, and different levels of themes (sub-themes)

Once you have gathered all the relevant data extracts under each theme, review the themes to ensure they are meaningful and distinct.

This step involves analyzing how different codes combine to form overarching themes and exploring the hierarchical relationship between themes and sub-themes.

Within a theme, there can be different levels of themes, often organized hierarchically as main themes and sub-themes.

Some themes may be more prominent or overarching (main themes), while others may be secondary or subsidiary (sub-themes).

• Main themes  represent the most overarching or significant patterns found in the data. They provide a high-level understanding of the key issues or concepts present in the data. 
• Sub-themes are essentially themes within a theme. They represent a further level of nuance and complexity within a broader theme, highlighting specific and important aspects of the central organizing concept of that theme.

Sub-themes provide a way to add depth and richness to your thematic analysis, but they should be used thoughtfully and strategically. A well-structured analysis might rely primarily on clearly defined main themes, using sub-themes selectively to highlight particularly important nuances within those themes.

Too many sub-themes can create a thin, fragmented analysis and suggest that the analysis hasn’t been developed sufficiently to identify the overarching concepts that tie the data together.

It’s important to note that sub-themes are not a necessary feature of a reflexive TA. You can have a robust analysis with just two to six main themes, especially if you are working with a limited word count

The relationship between codes, sub-themes and main themes can be visualized using a thematic map, diagram, or table.

This map helps researchers review and refine themes, ensuring they are internally consistent (homogeneous) and distinct from other themes (heterogeneous).

Refine the thematic map as you continue to review and analyze the data.

Consider how the themes tell a coherent story about the data and address the research question.

If some themes seem to overlap or are not well-supported by the data, consider combining or refining them.

If a theme is too broad or diverse, consider splitting it into separate themes or sub-theme.

Example : The researcher might identify “Academic Challenges” and “Social Adjustment” as other main themes, with sub-themes like “Imposter Syndrome” and “Balancing Work and School” under “Academic Challenges.” They would then consider how these themes relate to each other and contribute to the overall understanding of first-generation college students’ experiences.

Final Questions:

• Does this provisional theme capture something meaningful? Is it coherent, with a central idea that meshes the data and codes together? Does it have clear boundaries?”
• “Can I identify the boundaries of this theme?”
• “Are there enough meaningful data to evidence this theme?”
• “Are there multiple articulations around the core idea, and are they nuanced, complex, and diverse?”
• “Does the theme feel rich?”
• “Are the data contained within each theme too diverse and wide-ranging?”
• “Does the theme convey something important?”

Step 5: Defining and Naming Themes

The themes are finalized when the researcher is satisfied with the theme names and definitions.

If the analysis is carried out by a single researcher, it is recommended to seek feedback from an external expert to confirm that the themes are well-developed, clear, distinct, and capture all the relevant data.

Defining themes  means determining the exact meaning of each theme and understanding how it contributes to understanding the data.

This process involves formulating exactly what we mean by each theme. The researcher should consider what a theme says, if there are subthemes, how they interact and relate to the main theme, and how the themes relate to each other.

Themes should not be overly broad or try to encompass too much, and should have a singular focus. They should be distinct from one another and not repetitive, although they may build on one another.

In this phase the researcher specifies the essence of each theme.

• What does the theme tell us that is relevant for the research question?
• How does it fit into the ‘overall story’ the researcher wants to tell about the data?

Naming themes  involves developing a clear and concise name that effectively conveys the essence of each theme to the reader. A good name for a theme is informative, concise, and catchy.

• A well-crafted theme name should immediately convey the theme’s central organizing concept and give the reader a sense of the story the theme will tell.
• The researcher develops concise, punchy, and informative names for each theme that effectively communicate its essence to the reader.
• Theme names should be catchy and evocative, giving the reader an immediate sense of what the theme is about.
• Avoid using one-word theme names or names that simply identify the topic, as this often signifies a domain summary rather than a well-developed theme.
• Avoid using jargon or overly complex language in theme names.
• The name should go beyond simply paraphrasing the content of the data extracts and instead interpret the meaning and significance of the patterns within the theme.
• The goal is to make the themes accessible and easily understandable to the intended audience. If a theme contains sub-themes, the researcher should also develop clear and informative names for each sub-theme.
• Theme names can include direct quotations from the data, which helps convey the theme’s meaning. However, researchers should avoid using data collection questions as theme names. Using data collection questions as themes often leads to analyses that present domain summaries of topics rather than fully realized themes.

For example, “‘There’s always that level of uncertainty’: Compulsory heterosexuality at university” is a strong theme name because it captures the theme’s meaning. In contrast, “incidents of homophobia” is a weak theme name because it only states the topic.

For instance, a theme labeled “distrust of experts” might be renamed “distrust of authority” or “conspiracy thinking” after careful consideration of the theme’s meaning and scope.

Step 6: Producing the Report

Braun and Clarke differentiate between two distinct approaches to presenting the analysis in qualitative research: the “establishing the gap model” and the “making the argument model” (p.120).

Establishing the Gap Model:

This model operates on the premise that knowledge gaps exist due to limited research in specific areas or shortcomings in current research.

This approach frames the research’s purpose as filling these identified gaps. Braun and Clarke critique this model as echoing a positivist-empiricist view of research as a quest for definitive truth, which they argue is incongruent with the nature of qualitative research.

They suggest this approach aligns more with a quantitative perspective that seeks to uncover objective truths.

Making the Argument Model:

Braun and Clarke advocate for the “making the argument model,” particularly in the context of qualitative research.

This model situates the research’s rationale within existing knowledge and theoretical frameworks.

Rather than striving to unearth a singular truth, this approach aims to contribute to a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the subject matter by offering a well-supported, contextually grounded, and persuasive perspective on the issue at hand.

This approach might negate the need for a literature review before data analysis, allowing the research findings to guide the exploration of relevant literature.

Method Section of Thematic Analysis

A well-crafted method section goes beyond a superficial summary of the six phases.

It provides a clear and comprehensive account of the analytical journey, allowing readers to trace the researchers’ thought process, assess the trustworthiness of the findings, and understand the rationale behind the methodological choices made.

This transparency is essential for ensuring the rigor and validity of thematic analysis as a qualitative research method.

1. Description of the thematic approach:

The method section should explicitly state the type of thematic analysis undertaken and the specific version used (e.g., reflexive thematic analysis, codebook thematic analysis).

It should also explain the rationale for selecting this specific approach in relation to the research questions.

For instance, if a study focuses on exploring participants’ lived experiences, an inductive (reflexive) approach might be more suitable.

If the research question is driven by a particular theoretical framework, a deductive (codebook) approach may be chosen.

2. Data collection method and data set:

Clearly describe the method used to collect data (e.g., interviews, focus groups , surveys, documents).

Specify the size of the data set (e.g., number of interviews, focus groups, or documents) and the characteristics of the participants or texts included.

3. Reflexivity and transparency:

Braun and Clarke caution against merely listing the six phases of thematic analysis because presenting the phases as a series of steps implies that thematic analysis is a linear and objective process that can be separated from the researcher’s influence.

It should demonstrate an understanding of the principles of reflexivity and transparency.

By embracing reflexivity and transparency, researchers using thematic analysis can move away from a simplistic “recipe” approach and acknowledge the iterative and interpretive nature of qualitative research.

Reflexivity involves acknowledging and critically examining how the researcher’s own subjectivity might be shaping the research process.

It requires reflecting on how personal experiences, beliefs, and assumptions could influence the interpretation of data and the development of themes.

For example, a researcher studying experiences of discrimination might reflect on how their own social identities and experiences with prejudice could impact their understanding of the data.

Transparency involves clearly documenting the decisions made throughout the research process.

This includes explaining the rationale behind coding choices, theme development, and the selection of data extracts to illustrate themes.

For example, the researcher(s) might discuss the process of selecting particular data extracts or how their initial interpretations evolved over time.

Transparency allows readers to understand how the findings were generated and to assess the trustworthiness of the research.

The researcher(s) could provide a detailed account of how they moved from initial codes to broader themes, including examples of how they resolved discrepancies between codes or combined them into overarching categories.

While transparency requires detail and rigor, it should not come at the expense of clarity and accessibility.

Braun and Clarke encourage researchers to write in a clear, engaging style that makes the research process and findings accessible to a wide audience, including those who might not be familiar with qualitative research methods.

Writing About Themes

A thematic analysis report should provide a convincing and clear, yet complex story about the data that is situated within a scholarly field.

A balance should be struck between the narrative and the data presented, ensuring that the report convincingly explains the meaning of the data, not just summarizes it.

To achieve this, the report should include vivid, compelling data extracts illustrating the themes and incorporate extracts from different data sources to demonstrate the themes’ prevalence and strengthen the analysis by representing various perspectives within the data.

The report should be written in first-person active tense, unless otherwise stated in the reporting requirements.

The analysis can be presented in two ways :

• Integrated Results and Discussion section:  This approach is suitable when the analysis has strong connections to existing research and when the analysis is more theoretical or interpretive.
• Separate Discussion section:  This approach presents the data interpretation separately from the results.

Regardless of the presentation style, researchers should aim to “show” what the data reveals and “tell” the reader what it means in order to create a convincing analysis.

• Presentation order of themes: Consider how to best structure the presentation of the themes in the report. This may involve presenting the themes in order of importance, chronologically, or in a way that tells a coherent story. The order in which themes are presented should be logical and meaningful, creating a clear storyline for the reader.
• Subheadings: Use subheadings to clearly delineate each theme and its sub-themes, making the report easy to navigate and understand.

Themes should connect logically and meaningfully and, if relevant, should build on previous themes to tell a coherent story about the data.

Avoid using phrases like “themes emerged” as it suggests that the themes were pre-existing entities in the data, waiting to be discovered. This undermines the active role of the researcher in interpreting and constructing themes from the data.

Themes should be supported with compelling data extracts that illustrate the identified patterns.

Data extracts serve as evidence for the themes identified in TA. Without them, the analysis becomes unsubstantiated and potentially unconvincing to the reader.

The report should include vivid, compelling data extracts that clearly illustrate the theme being discussed and should incorporate extracts from different data sources, rather than relying on a single source.

Not all data extracts are equally effective. Choose extracts that vividly and concisely illustrate the theme’s central organizing concept.

Although it is tempting to rely on one source when it eloquently expresses a particular aspect of the theme, using multiple sources strengthens the analysis by representing a wider range of perspectives within the data.

Having too few data extracts for a theme weakens the analysis and makes it appear “thin and sketchy”. This may leave the reader unconvinced about the theme’s validity and prevalence within the data.

The analysis should go beyond a simple summary of the participant’s words and instead interpret the meaning of the data.

Data extracts should not be presented without being integrated into the analytic narrative. They should be used to illustrate and support the interpretation of the data, not just reiterate what the participants said.

Researchers should strive to maintain a balance between the amount of narrative and the amount of data presented.

A good thematic analysis strikes a balance between presenting data extracts and providing analytic commentary. A common rule of thumb is to aim for a 50/50 ratio.

The importance of examining contradictory data

A robust thematic analysis acknowledges and explores the full range of data, including those that challenge the dominant patterns.

Ignoring data that doesn’t neatly fit into identified themes is a significant pitfall in thematic analysis.

Failing to acknowledge and explore contradictory data can lead to an incomplete or misleading analysis, potentially obscuring valuable insights.

• Data sets are rarely completely uniform : Human experiences and perspectives are complex and often contradictory. It’s unrealistic to expect that every piece of data will perfectly align with the identified themes.
• Contradictory data can challenge assumptions : Data that contradicts the emerging themes can challenge the researcher’s assumptions and interpretations, leading to a more nuanced and insightful understanding of the data.
• Ignoring contradictions can create an overly simplistic analysis : An analysis that smooths over contradictions or presents a completely unified picture of the data might lack depth and fail to capture the complexities of the phenomenon being studied.
• Alternative interpretations : Contradictory data might suggest alternative interpretations or explanations that need to be considered and addressed in the analysis.
• Value of outliers : Instead of dismissing data that doesn’t fit, view it as potentially valuable. These outliers might reveal limitations in the analysis, highlight the influence of contextual factors, or uncover new avenues for inquiry.

Embracing contradictions and exploring their potential meanings leads to a more comprehensive and insightful analysis.

Discussion Section

The discussion section should engage critically with the findings, connect them to existing knowledge, and contribute to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Braun and Clarke emphasize that the discussion section should not merely summarize the themes but rather weave a compelling and insightful narrative that connects the analysis back to the research question, existing literature, and broader theoretical discussions.

While each theme should have a distinct focus, the discussion should also draw connections between themes, creating a cohesive and interconnected narrative.

They advocate for a style that engages the reader, convinces them of the validity of the findings, and leaves them with a sense of “ so what? ” – a clear understanding of the significance and implications of the research.

• Connecting themes and building a narrative: The discussion section should move beyond simply describing individual themes to explore the relationships and connections between them. The goal is to present a coherent and nuanced narrative that addresses the research questions.
• Interpreting the findings: The discussion section should interpret the significance of the findings about the research questions and existing literature. It should go beyond merely summarizing the data to offer insights into what the themes mean, why they might have emerged, and what their implications are. Asking questions like “So what?” and “What is relevant or useful here to addressing my question?” can help you guide the interpretation of the data.
• Integrating literature: The discussion section should connect the findings to relevant scholarly literature. This could involve comparing and contrasting the findings with previous research, exploring how the study supports or challenges existing theories, or discussing the implications of the findings in light of existing knowledge.
• Theoretical insights: For analyses that go beyond the semantic level, the discussion section should explore the theoretical insights that emerge from the data. This could involve identifying underlying assumptions, ideologies, or power dynamics that shape the experiences or perspectives of the participants.
• Critical reflection on the method: Reflect on the methodological choices made during the analysis and their potential implications for the findings. This could involve discussing the benefits and limitations of the chosen thematic analysis approach, acknowledging any potential biases, and suggesting areas for future research.

Potential Pitfalls to Avoid

• Failing to analyze the data : Thematic analysis should involve more than simply presenting data extracts without an analytic narrative. The researcher must provide an interpretation and make sense of the data, telling the reader what it means and how it relates to the research questions.
• Using data collection questions as themes : Themes should be identified across the entire dataset, not just based on the questions asked during data collection. Reporting data collection questions as themes indicates a lack of thorough analytic work to identify patterns and meanings in the data.
• Confusing themes with summaries : Themes are not merely summaries of what participants said about a topic. Instead, they represent rich and multifaceted patterns of shared meaning organized around a central concept and are generated by the researcher through intense analytic engagement with the data. Good themes often uncover the implicit or latent meanings behind the data rather than just summarizing what’s explicitly stated.
• Conducting a weak or unconvincing analysis : Themes should be distinct, internally coherent, and consistent, capturing the majority of the data or providing a rich description of specific aspects. A weak analysis may have overlapping themes, fail to capture the data adequately, or lack sufficient examples to support the claims made.
• Ignoring contradictory data : An analysis that smooths over contradictions or presents a completely unified picture of the data might lack depth and fail to capture the complexities of the phenomenon being studied. Acknowledging and exploring data that does not fit neatly into identified themes can lead to more nuanced findings.
• Mismatch between data and analytic claims : The researcher’s interpretations and analytic points must be consistent with the data extracts presented. Claims that are not supported by the data, contradict the data, or fail to consider alternative readings or variations in the account are problematic.
• Misalignment between theory, research questions, and analysis : The interpretations of the data should be consistent with the theoretical framework used. For example, an experiential framework would not typically make claims about the social construction of the topic. The form of thematic analysis used should also align with the research questions.
• Neglecting to clarify assumptions, purpose, and process : A good thematic analysis should spell out its theoretical assumptions, clarify how it was undertaken, and for what purpose. Without this crucial information, the analysis is lacking context and transparency, making it difficult for readers to evaluate the research.

Reducing Bias

Braun and Clarke’s approach to thematic analysis, which they term “reflexive TA,” places the researcher’s subjectivity and reflexivity at the forefront of the research process.

Rather than striving for an illusory objectivity, reflexive TA recognizes and values the researcher’s active role in shaping the research, from data interpretation to theme construction.

When researchers are both reflexive and transparent in their thematic analysis, it strengthens the trustworthiness and rigor of their findings.

The explicit acknowledgement of potential biases and the detailed documentation of the analytical process provide a stronger foundation for the interpretation of the data, making it more likely that the findings reflect the perspectives of the participants rather than the biases of the researcher.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity involves critically examining one’s own assumptions and biases, is crucial in qualitative research to ensure the trustworthiness of findings.

It requires acknowledging that researcher subjectivity is inherent in the research process and can influence how data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted.

Identifying and Challenging Assumptions:

Braun and Clarke argue that the researcher’s background, experiences, theoretical commitments, and social position inevitably shape how they approach and make sense of the data.

Reflexivity encourages researchers to explicitly acknowledge their preconceived notions, theoretical leanings, and potential biases.

Reflexivity involves critically examining how these personal and professional experiences influence the research process, particularly during data interpretation and theme development.

Researchers are encouraged to make these influences transparent in their methodology and throughout their analysis, fostering a more honest and nuanced account of the research.

Memos offer a space for researchers to step back from the data and ask themselves probing questions about their own perspectives and potential biases.

Researchers can ask: How might my background or beliefs be shaping my interpretation of this data? Am I overlooking alternative explanations? Am I imposing my own values or expectations on the participants?

By actively reflecting on how these factors might influence their interpretation of the data, researchers can take steps to mitigate their impact.

This might involve seeking alternative explanations, considering contradictory evidence, or discussing their interpretations with others to gain different perspectives.

Reflexivity as an Ongoing Process

Reflexivity is not a one-time activity but an ongoing process that should permeate all stages of the research, from the initial design to the final write-up.

This involves constantly questioning one’s assumptions, interpretations, and reactions to the data, considering alternative perspectives, and remaining open to revising initial understandings.

Braun and Clarke provide a series of probing questions that researchers can ask themselves throughout the analytic process to encourage this reflexivity.

• “Why might I be reacting to the data in this way?”
• “What does my interpretation rely on?”
• “How would I feel if I was in that situation? (Is this different from or similar to how the person feels, and why might that be?)”

Transparency

Transparency refers to clearly documenting the research process, including coding decisions, theme development, and the rationale behind behind theme development.

Transparency is not merely about documenting what was done but also about clearly articulating why and how specific analytic choices were made throughout the research process, from study design to data interpretation.

This transparency allows readers to understand the researchers’ perspectives, the rationale behind their decisions, and the potential influences on the findings, ultimately strengthening the credibility and trustworthiness of the research

This transparency helps ensure the trustworthiness and rigor of the findings, allowing other researchers to assess the credibility of the findings and potentially replicate the analysis.

Transparency in Braun and Clarke’s approach to thematic analysis is not merely about adhering to a set of reporting guidelines; it’s about embracing an ethos of openness, reflexivity, and accountability throughout the research process.

By illuminating the “messiness” of qualitative research and clearly articulating the researchers’ perspectives and decisions, reflexive TA promotes a more honest, trustworthy, and ultimately, more insightful form of qualitative inquiry.

Documenting Decision-Making:

Transparency requires researchers to provide a clear and detailed account of their analytical choices throughout the research process.

This includes documenting the rationale behind coding decisions, the process of theme development, and any changes made to the analytical approach during the study.

• Data selection and sampling: Why were particular data sources chosen? How were participants selected, and what were the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
• Coding strategies: How were codes developed? Was the coding primarily inductive, deductive, or a combination of both? Did the coding process evolve, and if so, how? Were any coding tools or software used?
• Theme development: How were themes identified, refined, and named? What was the process of moving from codes to themes? How was the final thematic structure decided upon?

By making these decisions transparent, researchers allow others to scrutinize their work and assess the potential for bias.

Practical Strategies for Reflexivity and Transparency in Thematic Analysis:

• Maintaining a reflexive journal:  Researchers can keep a journal throughout the research process to document their thoughts, assumptions, and potential biases. This journal serves as a record of the researcher’s evolving understanding of the data and can help identify potential blind spots in their analysis.
• Engaging in team-based analysis:  Collaborative analysis, involving multiple researchers, can enhance reflexivity by providing different perspectives and interpretations of the data. Discussing coding decisions and theme development as a team allows researchers to challenge each other’s assumptions and ensure a more comprehensive analysis.
• Clearly articulating the analytical process:  In reporting the findings of thematic analysis, researchers should provide a detailed account of their methods, including the rationale behind coding decisions, the process of theme development, and any challenges encountered during analysis. This transparency allows readers to understand the steps taken to ensure the rigor and trustworthiness of the analysis.
• Flexibility:  Thematic analysis is a flexible method, making it adaptable to different research questions and theoretical frameworks. It can be employed with various epistemological approaches, including realist, constructionist, and contextualist perspectives. For example, researchers can focus on analyzing meaning across the entire data set or examine a particular aspect in depth.
• Accessibility:  Thematic analysis is an accessible method, especially for novice qualitative researchers, as it doesn’t demand extensive theoretical or technical knowledge compared to methods like Discourse Analysis (DA) or Conversation Analysis (CA). It is considered a foundational qualitative analysis method.
• Rich Description:  Thematic analysis facilitates a rich and detailed description of data9. It can provide a thorough understanding of the predominant themes in a data set, offering valuable insights, particularly in under-researched areas.
• Theoretical Freedom:  Thematic analysis is not restricted to any pre-existing theoretical framework, allowing for diverse applications. This distinguishes it from methods like Grounded Theory or Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), which are more closely tied to specific theoretical approaches

Disadvantages

• Subjectivity and Interpretation:  The flexibility of thematic analysis, while an advantage, can also be a disadvantage. The method’s openness can lead to a wide range of interpretations of the same data set, making it difficult to determine which aspects to emphasize. This potential subjectivity might raise concerns about the analysis’s reliability and consistency.
• Limited Interpretive Power:  Unlike methods like narrative analysis or biographical approaches, thematic analysis may not capture the nuances of individual experiences or contradictions within a single account. The focus on patterns across interviews could result in overlooking unique individual perspectives.
• Oversimplification:  Thematic analysis might oversimplify complex phenomena by focusing on common themes, potentially missing subtle but important variations within the data. If not carefully executed, the analysis may present a homogenous view of the data that doesn’t reflect the full range of perspectives.
• Lack of Established Theoretical Frameworks:  Thematic analysis does not inherently rely on pre-existing theoretical frameworks. While this allows for inductive exploration, it can also limit the interpretive power of the analysis if not anchored within a relevant theoretical context. The absence of a theoretical foundation might make it challenging to draw meaningful and generalizable conclusions.
• Difficulty in Higher-Phase Analysis:  While thematic analysis is relatively easy to initiate, the flexibility in its application can make it difficult to establish specific guidelines for higher-phase analysis1. Researchers may find it challenging to navigate the later stages of analysis and develop a coherent and insightful interpretation of the identified themes.
• Potential for Researcher Bias:  As with any qualitative research method, thematic analysis is susceptible to researcher bias. Researchers’ preconceived notions and assumptions can influence how they code and interpret data, potentially leading to skewed results.

Reading List

• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysi s. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11 (4), 589–597.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18 (3), 328–352.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales . Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13 (2), 201–216.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis .  Qualitative psychology ,  9 (1), 3.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022b). Thematic analysis: A practical guide . Sage.
• Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Hayfield, N. (2022). ‘A starting point for your journey, not a map’: Nikki Hayfield in conversation with Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke about thematic analysis.  Qualitative research in psychology ,  19 (2), 424-445.
• Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (Eds.). (2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Blackwell Science.
• Gibbs, G. R. (2013). Using software in qualitative analysis. In U. Flick (ed.) The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 277–294). London: Sage.
• McLeod, S. (2024, May 17). Qualitative Data Coding . Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-data-coding.html
• Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2021). Essentials of thematic analysis . American Psychological Association.
• Trainor, L. R., & Bundon, A. (2021). Developing the craft: Reflexive accounts of doing reflexive thematic analysis .  Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health ,  13 (5), 705-726.

Examples of Good Practice

• Anderson, S., Clarke, V., & Thomas, Z. (2023). The problem with picking: Permittance, escape and shame in problematic skin picking .  Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice ,  96 (1), 83-100.
• Braun, V., Terry, G., Gavey, N., & Fenaughty, J. (2009). ‘ Risk’and sexual coercion among gay and bisexual men in Aotearoa/New Zealand–key informant accounts .  Culture, Health & Sexuality ,  11 (2), 111-124.
• Clarke, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2004). Lesbian and gay parents on talk shows: resistance or collusion in heterosexism? .  Qualitative Research in Psychology ,  1 (3), 195-217.
• Hayfield, N., Jones, B., Carter, J., & Jowett, A. (2024). Exploring civil partnership from the perspective of those in mixed-sex relationships: Embracing a clean slate of equality .  Journal of Family Issues ,  45 (8), 1925-1948.
• Hayfield, N., Moore, H., & Terry, G. (2024). “Friends? Supported. Partner? Not so much…”: Women’s experiences of friendships, family, and relationships during perimenopause and menopause .  Feminism & Psychology , 09593535241242563.
• Lovell, D., Hayfield, N., & Thomas, Z. (2023). “No one has ever asked me and I’m grateful that you have” men’s experiences of their partner’s female sexual pain .  Sexual and Relationship Therapy , 1-24.
• Wheeler, L., Fragkiadaki, E., Clarke, V., & DiCaccavo, A. (2022). ‘Sunshine’,‘angels’ and ‘rainbows’: language developed by mothers bereaved by perinatal loss.   British Journal of Midwifery ,  30 (7), 368-374.
• Answers to frequently asked questions about thematic analysis
• Thematic analysis – data for coding exercise
• University of Auckland – Thematic Analysis Resources

How to Do Thematic Analysis: 6 Steps & Examples

Unlock qualitative insights with our step-by-step guide on thematic analysis. Identify patterns, and generate meaningful insights in six simple steps.

Make better business decisions

Pull data from any source

30 x faster analysis

Unrivalled customer insights

Australia's #1 Feedback Analytics platform

Thematic analysis is a game-changer for qualitative researchers. It's the key to unlocking the hidden patterns and meanings buried deep within your data.

In this step-by-step guide, you'll discover how to master thematic analysis and transform your raw data into powerful insights. From familiarizing yourself with the data to generating codes and themes, you'll learn the essential techniques to conduct a rigorous and systematic analysis.

Whether you're a seasoned researcher or just starting out, this guide will demystify the process and provide you with a clear roadmap to success. So get ready to dive into the world of thematic analysis!

Table of contents

What is thematic analysis

6 Steps for doing thematic analysis

Thematic Analysis in Action: A Real-World Example

Method Pros and Cons

Applications in Qualitative Research

What is thematic analysis.

Thematic analysis is a qualitative research method that focuses on identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns or themes within a dataset. Thematic analysis involves reading through a data set, identifying patterns in meaning, and deriving themes, providing a systematic and flexible way to interpret various aspects of the research topic.

The primary purpose of thematic analysis is to uncover and make sense of the collective or shared meanings and experiences within a dataset. By identifying common threads that extend across the data, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study and draw meaningful conclusions.

Key Characteristics

One of the key characteristics of thematic analysis is its flexibility. The approach is adaptable to a wide range of research questions and data types. Researchers can use thematic analysis inductively, allowing themes to emerge from the data itself, or, deductively, using existing theories or frameworks to guide the analysis process.

Another important aspect of thematic analysis is its focus on identifying and describing both implicit and explicit ideas within the data. Themes are not always directly observable but can be uncovered through a careful and systematic analysis of the dataset. This process involves looking beyond the surface-level content and examining the underlying meanings, assumptions, and ideas that shape participants' responses.

Inductive vs. Deductive Approaches

When conducting thematic analysis, researchers can choose between inductive (data-driven) or deductive (theory-driven) analysis approach. Inductive data analysis involves allowing themes to emerge from the data without any preconceived notions or theoretical frameworks guiding the analysis. This approach is particularly useful when exploring a new or under-researched topic, as it allows for the discovery of unexpected insights and patterns.

On the other hand, the deductive approach involves using existing theories or frameworks to guide the analysis process. In this case, researchers start with a set of pre-determined themes or categories and look for evidence within the data that supports or refutes these ideas. This approach is useful when testing or extending existing theories or when comparing findings across different studies or populations.

Thematic Analysis Simplified: A 6 Step-by-Step Process for Qualitative Data Analysis

This step-by-step guide breaks down the process into six manageable stages.

By following these steps, you can effectively analyze and interpret qualitative data to gain valuable insights .

Step 1: Familiarize Yourself with the Data

The first step in thematic analysis is to immerse yourself in the data. Read and re-read the transcripts, field notes, or other qualitative data sources to gain a deep understanding of the content. As you read, take notes on initial ideas and observations that come to mind. This process helps you become familiar with the depth and breadth of the data.

Pay attention to patterns, recurring ideas, and potential themes that emerge during this initial review. It's important to approach the data with an open mind, allowing the content to guide your understanding rather than imposing preconceived notions or expectations.

Tips for Familiarizing Yourself with the Data

Set aside dedicated time to read through the data without distractions.

Use colors or and notes to mark interesting or significant passages.

Create a summary or overview of each data source to help you remember key points.

Step 2: Generate Initial Codes

Once you've familiarized yourself with the data, the next step is to generate initial codes. Coding involves systematically labeling and organizing the data into meaningful groups. Go through the entire dataset and assign codes to interesting features or segments that are relevant to your research question.

Codes can be descriptive, interpretive, or pattern-based. Descriptive codes summarize the content, interpretive codes reflect the researcher's understanding, and pattern codes identify emerging themes or explanations. As you code, collate the data relevant to each code.

Tips for Generating Initial Codes

Use a qualitative data analysis software or a spreadsheet to organize your codes.

Be open to creating new codes as you progress through the data.

Regularly review and refine your codes to ensure consistency and relevance.

Step 3: Search for Themes

After coding the data, the next step is to search for themes. Themes are broader patterns or categories that capture significant aspects of the data in relation to the research question. Review your codes and consider how they can be grouped or combined to form overarching themes.

Collate all the data relevant to each potential theme. This may involve creating thematic maps or diagrams to visualize the relationships between codes and themes. Consider the different levels of themes, such as main themes and sub-themes , and how they connect to one another.

Tips for Searching for Themes

Look for recurring ideas, concepts, or patterns across the coded data.

Consider the relationships and connections between different codes.

Use visual aids like mind maps or sticky notes to organize and explore potential themes.

Step 4: Review Themes

Once you've identified potential themes, it's crucial to review and refine them. Check if the themes work in relation to the coded extracts and the entire dataset. This involves a two-level review process.

First, read through the collated extracts for each theme to ensure they form a coherent pattern. If some extracts don't fit, consider reworking the theme, creating a new theme, or discarding the extracts. Second, re-read the entire dataset to assess whether the themes accurately represent the data and capture the most important and relevant aspects.

Tips for Reviewing Themes

Ensure each theme is distinct and coherent.

Look for any data that contradicts or challenges your themes.

Create a thematic map to visually represent the relationships between themes.

Step 5: Define and Name Themes

After refining your themes, the next step is to define and name them. Conduct ongoing analysis to identify the essence and scope of each theme. Develop a clear and concise name for each theme that captures its central concept and significance.

Write a detailed analysis for each theme, explaining its meaning, relevance, and how it relates to the research question. Consider the story that each theme tells and how it contributes to the overall understanding of the data.

Tips for Defining and Naming Themes

Choose names that are concise, informative, and engaging.

Ensure the theme names and definitions are easily understandable to others.

Use quotes or examples from the data to illustrate and support each theme.

Step 6: Write Up

The final step in thematic analysis is to write up your findings in a clear and structured report. Your report should include an introduction that outlines the research question and methodology, followed by a detailed presentation of your themes and their significance.

Use examples and quotes from the data to support and illustrate each theme. Discuss how the themes relate to one another and to the overall research question. Consider the implications of your findings and how they contribute to existing knowledge or practice.

Tips for Writing Up

Use a clear and logical structure to guide the reader through your analysis.

Provide sufficient evidence and examples to support your themes.

Discuss the limitations of your study and suggest areas for future research.

Let's consider a real-world example to illustrate thematic analysis in action. Suppose an online retailer was looking to conduct semi-structured interviews with 20 customers who recently purchased products in their new footwear line. The researcher will likely want to understand the customers' experiences with the product, including its performance, design, and overall impact on their quality of life.

Step 1: Familiarizing Yourself with the Data

The first step in thematic analysis is to become familiar with the data. In this case, the researcher would transcribe the audio recordings of the interviews and read through the transcripts multiple times to get a sense of the overall content.

Immersing Yourself in the Data

During this familiarization process, the researcher should take notes on initial impressions, ideas, and potential patterns. This step is crucial for gaining a deep understanding of the data and laying the foundation for the subsequent analysis.

Step 2: Generating Initial Codes

Once familiar with the data, the researcher begins the coding process . Coding involves identifying and labeling segments of the text that are relevant to the research question.

In this example, the researcher might create codes such as "side effects," "quality of life," "treatment effectiveness," and "patient satisfaction." These codes help organize the data and make it easier to identify patterns and themes.

Using Coding Software

To streamline the coding process, researchers can use qualitative data analysis software like Kapiche . The platform allows uers to highlight and label segments of text , organize codes into categories, and visualize the relationships between the data.

Step 3: Searching for Themes

After coding the data, the researcher looks for broader patterns of meaning, known as themes. Themes capture something important about the data in relation to the research question and represent a level of patterned response or meaning within the dataset.

In this example, the researcher might identify themes such as "patients experienced significant improvement in symptoms," "side effects were manageable and tolerable," and "treatment enhanced overall quality of life."

Step 4: Reviewing and Refining Themes

The researcher then reviews and refines the themes to ensure they accurately represent the data. This process involves checking that the themes work in relation to the coded extracts and the entire dataset.

Ensuring Theme Coherence

The researcher should also consider whether the themes are internally coherent, consistent, and distinctive. If necessary, themes may be combined, split, or discarded to better capture the essence of the data.

Step 5: Defining and Naming Themes

The researcher defines and names the themes, capturing the essence of what each theme is about. Clear and concise theme names help convey the key findings of the analysis to readers.

In this example, the researcher might define and name the themes as "Treatment Effectiveness," "Manageable Side Effects," and "Improved Quality of Life."

By following these steps, the researcher can use thematic analysis to make sense of the patient interview data and gain valuable insights into their experiences with the new treatment. This real-world example demonstrates the power of thematic analysis in identifying patterns of meaning and providing a rich, detailed account of qualitative data.

Step 6: Report write-up

Finally, the researcher can package the findings in a clear report to communicate to other key stakeholders. The report would ideally include a summary themes, methodology, as well as detailed examples that bring the overarching trends to life.

Thematic Analysis: Weighing the Pros and Cons

Having explored the steps in doing thematic analysis, it's important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the research method.

Thematic analysis has gained popularity due to its flexibility and accessibility, but it also has some limitations that researchers should be aware of.

Advantages of Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis offers several benefits, making it a popular choice for qualitative analysis. One of its main advantages is its flexibility in application across a range of theoretical approaches. This means that researchers can use thematic analysis in various fields, from psychology and sociology to healthcare and education.

Another advantage is that thematic analysis is accessible to researchers with little or no experience in qualitative research methods. The process is relatively straightforward and does not require advanced technical skills or specialized software. This makes it an attractive option for novice researchers or those working with limited resources.

Thematic analysis also produces results that are generally accessible to an educated general public. The themes generated from the data are often easy to understand and can be presented in a clear and concise manner. This is particularly useful when communicating research findings to stakeholders or policymakers who may not have a background in the specific field of study.

Disadvantages of Thematic Analysis

Despite its advantages, thematic analysis also has some limitations that researchers should consider. One of the main disadvantages is the lack of substantial rigour on thematic analysis methodology compared to other qualitative approaches. This can make it challenging for researchers to find guidance or examples of best practices when conducting thematic analysis.

The flexibility of thematic analysis can also be a double-edged sword. While it allows for adaptability across different research contexts, it can also lead to inconsistency and lack of coherence in developing themes. Researchers may struggle to maintain a consistent approach throughout the analysis process, resulting in themes that are not well-defined or integrated.

Another limitation of thematic analysis is its limited interpretive power if not used within an existing theoretical framework. Without a guiding theory or conceptual framework, the analysis may remain descriptive rather than interpretive, failing to provide the deeper insights you're after.

Ensuring Rigorous Thematic Analysis

To overcome the limitations of thematic analysis process and ensure rigorous results, researchers should:

Familiarize themselves with the existing literature on thematic analysis and seek guidance from experienced researchers in the field.

Develop a clear and consistent approach to coding and theme development, documenting each step of the process to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

Consider using thematic analysis in conjunction with other qualitative methods or within an existing theoretical framework to enhance its interpretive power.

Be flexible throughout the research process, acknowledging biases and assumptions and how these may influence the analysis.

By weighing the pros and cons of thematic analysis and taking steps to ensure rigour, researchers can harness the benefits of this method while minimizing its limitations, producing valuable insights from qualitative data.

Thematic analysis is widely used in various fields, including psychology, social sciences, and health research. This approach is particularly suitable for anyone doing qualitative content analysis of interviews, focus groups, and open-ended survey responses.

In psychology, thematic analysis has been used to explore a range of topics, such as experiences of mental health issues, identity formation, and interpersonal relationships. A key paper by Braun and Clarke (2006) demonstrated how thematic analysis can be used in psychology studies, providing guidelines on how to approach generating themes and leveraging a systematic coding process.

Combining Thematic Analysis with Other Methods

Thematic analysis can be used as a standalone method or in combination with other qualitative or quantitative approaches. When used in conjunction with other methods, thematic analysis can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic and can enhance the credibility of the findings.

For example, researchers can use thematic analysis to analyze raw interview data, and then use the identified themes to inform the development of a quantitative survey to probe deeper. This approach allows for effective exploration of a topic, providing a more complete picture of the research themes.

Thematic Analysis: Your Key to Unlocking Qualitative Insights

Thematic analysis is a powerful tool for making sense of research data. By familiarizing yourself with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing and refining them, and finally writing up your findings, you can uncover rich insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

Ready to put thematic analysis into practice? Start by gathering your qualitative data, whether it's interview transcripts, open-ended survey responses, or focus group discussions.

Then, leverage a tool like Kapiche as you follow the step-by-step process outlined in this guide. From pre-coding to post-coding, this guide should help arrive at the themes that best capture the essence of your data.

Want to see how Kapiche can support your thematic research goals? Watch a demo here today to get a tour of the platform.

You might also like

• - 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
• 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 ,

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Do Thematic Analysis | Guide & Examples

How to Do Thematic Analysis | Guide & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on 7 June 2024.

Thematic analysis is a method of analysing qualitative data . It is usually applied to a set of texts, such as an interview or transcripts . The researcher closely examines the data to identify common themes, topics, ideas and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly.

There are various approaches to conducting thematic analysis, but the most common form follows a six-step process:

• Familiarisation
• Generating themes
• Reviewing themes
• Defining and naming themes

This process was originally developed for psychology research by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke . However, thematic analysis is a flexible method that can be adapted to many different kinds of research.

Table of contents

When to use thematic analysis, different approaches to thematic analysis, step 1: familiarisation, step 2: coding, step 3: generating themes, step 4: reviewing themes, step 5: defining and naming themes, step 6: writing up.

Thematic analysis is a good approach to research where you’re trying to find out something about people’s views, opinions, knowledge, experiences, or values from a set of qualitative data – for example, interview transcripts , social media profiles, or survey responses .

Some types of research questions you might use thematic analysis to answer:

• How do patients perceive doctors in a hospital setting?
• What are young women’s experiences on dating sites?
• What are non-experts’ ideas and opinions about climate change?
• How is gender constructed in secondary school history teaching?

To answer any of these questions, you would collect data from a group of relevant participants and then analyse it. Thematic analysis allows you a lot of flexibility in interpreting the data, and allows you to approach large datasets more easily by sorting them into broad themes.

However, it also involves the risk of missing nuances in the data. Thematic analysis is often quite subjective and relies on the researcher’s judgement, so you have to reflect carefully on your own choices and interpretations.

Pay close attention to the data to ensure that you’re not picking up on things that are not there – or obscuring things that are.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Once you’ve decided to use thematic analysis, there are different approaches to consider.

There’s the distinction between inductive and deductive approaches:

• An inductive approach involves allowing the data to determine your themes.
• A deductive approach involves coming to the data with some preconceived themes you expect to find reflected there, based on theory or existing knowledge.

There’s also the distinction between a semantic and a latent approach:

• A semantic approach involves analysing the explicit content of the data.
• A latent approach involves reading into the subtext and assumptions underlying the data.

After you’ve decided thematic analysis is the right method for analysing your data, and you’ve thought about the approach you’re going to take, you can follow the six steps developed by Braun and Clarke .

The first step is to get to know our data. It’s important to get a thorough overview of all the data we collected before we start analysing individual items.

This might involve transcribing audio , reading through the text and taking initial notes, and generally looking through the data to get familiar with it.

Next up, we need to code the data. Coding means highlighting sections of our text – usually phrases or sentences – and coming up with shorthand labels or ‘codes’ to describe their content.

Let’s take a short example text. Say we’re researching perceptions of climate change among conservative voters aged 50 and up, and we have collected data through a series of interviews. An extract from one interview looks like this:

In this extract, we’ve highlighted various phrases in different colours corresponding to different codes. Each code describes the idea or feeling expressed in that part of the text.

At this stage, we want to be thorough: we go through the transcript of every interview and highlight everything that jumps out as relevant or potentially interesting. As well as highlighting all the phrases and sentences that match these codes, we can keep adding new codes as we go through the text.

After we’ve been through the text, we collate together all the data into groups identified by code. These codes allow us to gain a condensed overview of the main points and common meanings that recur throughout the data.

Next, we look over the codes we’ve created, identify patterns among them, and start coming up with themes.

Themes are generally broader than codes. Most of the time, you’ll combine several codes into a single theme. In our example, we might start combining codes into themes like this:

At this stage, we might decide that some of our codes are too vague or not relevant enough (for example, because they don’t appear very often in the data), so they can be discarded.

Other codes might become themes in their own right. In our example, we decided that the code ‘uncertainty’ made sense as a theme, with some other codes incorporated into it.

Again, what we decide will vary according to what we’re trying to find out. We want to create potential themes that tell us something helpful about the data for our purposes.

Now we have to make sure that our themes are useful and accurate representations of the data. Here, we return to the dataset and compare our themes against it. Are we missing anything? Are these themes really present in the data? What can we change to make our themes work better?

If we encounter problems with our themes, we might split them up, combine them, discard them, or create new ones: whatever makes them more useful and accurate.

For example, we might decide upon looking through the data that ‘changing terminology’ fits better under the ‘uncertainty’ theme than under ‘distrust of experts’, since the data labelled with this code involves confusion, not necessarily distrust.

Now that you have a final list of themes, it’s time to name and define each of them.

Defining themes involves formulating exactly what we mean by each theme and figuring out how it helps us understand the data.

Naming themes involves coming up with a succinct and easily understandable name for each theme.

For example, we might look at ‘distrust of experts’ and determine exactly who we mean by ‘experts’ in this theme. We might decide that a better name for the theme is ‘distrust of authority’ or ‘conspiracy thinking’.

Finally, we’ll write up our analysis of the data. Like all academic texts, writing up a thematic analysis requires an introduction to establish our research question, aims, and approach.

We should also include a methodology section, describing how we collected the data (e.g., through semi-structured interviews or open-ended survey questions ) and explaining how we conducted the thematic analysis itself.

The results or findings section usually addresses each theme in turn. We describe how often the themes come up and what they mean, including examples from the data as evidence. Finally, our conclusion explains the main takeaways and shows how the analysis has answered our research question.

In our example, we might argue that conspiracy thinking about climate change is widespread among older conservative voters, point out the uncertainty with which many voters view the issue, and discuss the role of misinformation in respondents’ perceptions.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2024, June 07). How to Do Thematic Analysis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 11 November 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/thematic-analysis-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods, inductive reasoning | types, examples, explanation, what is deductive reasoning | explanation & examples.