Thematic analysis is a flexible yet rigorous method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. To produce a high-quality analysis, researchers must make several explicit decisions regarding their approach to the data and the underlying theories of meaning.
1. Inductive vs. Theoretical Thematic Analysis
Themes or patterns within data can be identified in one of two primary ways: in an inductive or "bottom up" way, or in a theoretical or deductive or "top down" way.
Inductive Approach ("Bottom Up")
An inductive approach means the themes identified are strongly linked to the data themselves (Patton, 1990). In this approach, if the data have been collected specifically for the research (e.g., via interview or focus group) the themes identified may bear little relationship to the specific question that was asked of the participants. They would also not be driven by the researcher’s theoretical interest in the area or topic.
Theoretical Approach ("Top Down")
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 analyst-driven. This form of thematic analysis tends to provide less of a rich description of the data overall and a more detailed analysis of some aspects of the data.
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 (theoretical) or the specific research question can evolve through the coding process (inductive).
Case Example: Researching Hetero Sex
Inductive Approach: A researcher reads and re-reads data for any themes related to heterosexual experiences and codes diversely, ignoring previous research themes like Hollway’s (1989) "male sexual drive."
Theoretical Approach: The researcher focuses specifically on the way permissiveness plays out across the data, resulting in themes that may expand on Hollway’s original work.
2. Levels of Identification: Semantic vs. Latent
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).
| Feature | Semantic Level | Latent Level |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Explicit/Surface meanings. | Underlying ideas, assumptions, and ideologies. |
| Process | Description → Summarization → Interpretation. | Interpretative work from the start. |
| Theory | Often linked to existing literature in final stages. | Already theorized during theme development. |
Analysis at the latent level tends to come from a constructionist paradigm (Burr, 1995). In this form, thematic analysis overlaps with "discourse analysis" (sometimes called thematic discourse analysis), where broader assumptions are theorized as underpinning what is actually articulated.
3. Epistemology: Realist vs. Constructionist
The research epistemology guides what you can say about your data and informs how you theorize meaning. This is usually determined during conceptualization but may raise its head again during analysis.
Essentialist/Realist Approach
With an essentialist/realist approach, you can theorize motivations, experience, and meaning in a straightforward way. This assumes a simple, largely unidirectional relationship between meaning, experience, and language (language reflects and enables us to articulate experience) (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Constructionist Approach
From a constructionist perspective, meaning and experience are socially produced and reproduced, rather than inhering within individuals (Burr, 1995). Therefore, analysis within this framework does not seek to focus on individual psychologies. Instead, it seeks to theorize the socio-cultural contexts and structural conditions that enable the individual accounts provided.
Navigating Methodological Choices
The thematic analysis involves a number of choices that are often not made explicit (or are certainly typically not discussed in the method section of papers), but which need explicitly to be considered and discussed. In practice, these questions should be considered before analysis (and sometimes even collection) of the data begins, and there needs to be an ongoing reflexive dialogue on the part of the researcher or researchers with regards to these issues, throughout the analytic process. The method section of Taylor and Ussher’s (2001) thematic discourse analysis of S&M provides a good example of research that presents this process explicitly; the method section of Braun & Wilkinson (2003) does not.
