Themes or patterns within data can be
identified in one of two primary ways in
thematic analysis: in an inductive or ‘bottom
up’ way (eg, Frith and Gleeson, 2004),
or in a theoretical or deductive or ‘top
down’ way (eg, Boyatzis, 1998; Hayes,
1997). An inductive approach means the
themes identified are strongly linked to the
data themselves (Patton, 1990) (as such, this
form of thematic analysis bears some similarity
to grounded theory). In this approach,
if the data have been collected specifically
for the research (eg, via interview or focus
group), the themes identified may bear little
relation to the specific questions that were
asked of the participants. They would also
not be driven by the researcher’s theoretical
interest in the area or topic. Inductive
analysis is therefore a process of coding
the data without trying to fit it into a preexisting
coding frame, or the researcher’s
analytic preconceptions. In this sense, this
form of thematic analysis is data-driven.
Using thematic analysis in psychology 83
However, it is important to note, as we
discussed earlier, that researchers cannot
free themselves of their theoretical and
epistemological commitments, and data
are not coded in an epistemological vacuum.
In contrast, a ‘theoretical’ thematic analysis
would tend to be driven by the researcher’s
theoretical or analytic interest in the
area, and is thus more explicitly analystdriven.
This form of thematic analysis tends
to provide less a rich description of the data
overall, and more a detailed analysis of
some aspect of the data. Additionally, the
choice between inductive and theoretical
maps onto how and why you are coding the
data. You can either code for a quite specific
research question (which maps onto the
more theoretical approach) or the specific
research question can evolve through the
coding process (which maps onto the inductive
approach).
For example, if a researcher was interested
in talk about heterosex, and had
collected interview data, with an inductive
approach they would read and re-read the
data for any themes related to heterosex,
and code diversely, without paying attention
to the themes that previous research on
the topic might have identified. For example,
the researcher would not look to the
influential research of Hollway (1989),
identifying discourses of heterosex, and
code just for male sexual drive, have/hold
or permissive discourse themes. In contrast,
with a theoretical approach, the researcher
may well be interested in the way permissiveness
plays out across the data, and
focus on that particular feature in coding
the data. This would then result in a
number of themes around permissiveness,
which may include, speak to, or expand on
something approximating Hollway’s original
theme.
Semantic or latent themes
Another decision revolves around the ‘level’
at which themes are to be identified: at
a semantic or explicit level, or at a latent or
interpretative level (Boyatzis, 1998).6 A
thematic analysis typically focuses exclusively
or primarily on one level. With a
semantic approach, the themes are identified
within the explicit or surface meanings
of the data, and the analyst is not looking for
anything beyond what a participant has
said or what has been written. Ideally, the
analytic process involves a progression from
description, where the data have simply
been organized to show patterns in semantic
content, and summarized, to interpretation,
where there is an attempt to theorize
the significance of the patterns and their
broader meanings and implications (Patton,
1990), often in relation to previous literature
(for an excellent example of this, see Frith
and Gleeson, 2004).
In contrast, a thematic analysis at the
latent level goes beyond the semantic content
of the data, and starts to identify or
examine the underlying ideas, assumptions,
and conceptualizations / and ideologies /
that are theorized as shaping or informing
the semantic content of the data. If we
imagine our data three-dimensionally as
an uneven blob of jelly, the semantic
approach would seek to describe the surface
of the jelly, its form and meaning, while the
latent approach would seek to identify the
features that gave it that particular form and
meaning. Thus, for latent thematic analysis,
the development of the themes themselves
involves interpretative work, and the analysis
that is produced is not just description,
but is already theorized.
Analysis within this latter tradition tends
to come from a constructionist paradigm
(eg, Burr, 1995), and in this form, thematic
analysis overlaps with some forms of ‘DA’
84 V Braun and V Clarke
(which are sometimes specifically referred
to as ‘thematic DA’ (eg, Singer and Hunter,
1999; Taylor and Ussher, 2001)), where
broader assumptions, structures and/or
meanings are theorized as underpinning
what is actually articulated in the data.
Increasingly, a number of discourse analysts
are also revisiting psycho-analytic modes of
interpretation (eg, Hollway and Jefferson,
2000), and latent thematic analysis would
also be compatible with that framework.
Epistemology: essentialist/realist versus
constructionist thematic analysis
As we have argued, thematic analysis can be
conducted within both realist/essentialist
and constructionist paradigms, although
the outcome and focus will be different for
each. The question of epistemology is
usually determined when a research project
is being conceptualized, although epistemology
may also raise its head again during
analysis, when the research focus may shift
to an interest in different aspects of the data.
The research epistemology guides what you
can say about your data, and informs how
you theorize meaning. For instance, with an
essentialist/realist approach, you can theorize
motivations, experience, and meaning
in a straightforward way, because a simple,
largely unidirectional relationship is assumed
between meaning and experience
and language (language reflects and enables
us to articulate meaning and experience)
(Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Widdicombe
and Wooffitt, 1995).
In contrast, from a constructionist perspective,
meaning and experience are socially
produced and reproduced, rather
than inhering within individuals (Burr,
1995). Therefore, thematic analysis conducted
within a constructionist framework
cannot and does not seek to focus on
motivation or individual psychologies, but
instead seeks to theorize the sociocultural
contexts, and structural conditions, that
enable the individual accounts that are
provided. Thematic analysis that focuses
on ‘latent’ themes tends to be more constructionist,
and it also tends to start to
overlap with thematic DA at this point.
However, not all ‘latent’ thematic analysis
is constructionist.
The many questions of qualitative research
It is worth briefly noting that qualitative
research involves a series of questions, and
there is a need to be clear about the relationship
between these different questions.
First, there is the overall research question
or questions that drive the project. A research
question might be very broad (and
exploratory), such as ‘how is lesbian and
gay parenting constructed?’ or ‘what are the
meanings of the vagina?’. Narrower research
questions might be ‘how and why is lesbian
and gay parenting normalized?’ (Clarke and
Kitzinger, 2004), or ‘what are the discourses
around vaginal size?’ (see Braun and Kitzinger,
2001). These narrow questions may
be part of a broader overarching research
question, and if so, the analyses they inform
would also provide answers to the overall
research question. Although all projects are
guided by research questions, these may
also be refined as a project progresses.
Second, if data from interviews or focus
groups have been collected, there are the
questions that participants have responded
to. Finally, there are the questions that
guide the coding and analysis of the data.
There is no necessary relationship between
these three, and indeed, it is often desirable
that there is a disjuncture between them.
Some of the worst examples of ‘thematic’
analysis we have read have simply used
the questions put to participants as the
‘themes’ identified in the ‘analysis’ /
Using thematic analysis in psychology 85
although in such instances, no analysis has
really been done at all!
To sum up, thematic analysis involves the
searching across a data set / be that a
number of interviews or focus groups, or a
range of texts / to find repeated patterns of
meaning. The exact form and product of
thematic analysis varies, as indicated above,
and so it is important that the questions
outlined above are considered before and
during thematic analyses. Those approaches
which consider specific aspects, latent
themes and are constructionist tend to
often cluster together, while those that
consider meanings across the whole data
set, semantic themes, and are realist, often
cluster together. However, there are no hardand-
fast rules in relation to this, and different
combinations are possible. What is
important is that the finished product contains
an account / not necessarily that
detailed / of what was done, and why. So
what does one actually do? We now provide
what is, we hope, a straightforward stepby-
step guide to conducting thematic analysis.
The post Inductive versus theoretical thematic analysis appeared first on My Assignment Online.