UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND

A thematic analysis of a set

of interview data and a
critical discussion of the
analysis and
interpretation

Student Number : 02976321

Award : MSc Qualitative Methods in Psychology (Level M)
Module : Analysis and Interpretation of Interview Data (USP402HM)
Module Leader : Dr Kate Gleeson
Date : 25th August 2003
Word Count : 1999

Student Number = 02976321

0
 A thematic analysis of a set of
interview data and a critical discussion
of the analysis and interpretation
Thematic analysis is historically a conventional practice in qualitative research which involves
searching through data to identify recurrent issues (Creswell, 1994, pp.153-155; Dey, 1993; Hayes,
2000, pp.173-179; Holliday, 2002, pp.98-122; Holloway, 1997, p.152; Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Ritchie et al., 2003, pp.219-262; Smith, et al., 1995, pp.9-26; Patton, 2002, pp.452-471). A theme (or
construct) is a cluster of linked categories conveying similar meanings. I performed an inductive
thematic analysis whereby themes emerged from data collected by another researchers semi-structured
interview. The exploratory power of this qualitative method was enhanced since I lacked previous
knowledge about the interview and the research agenda. However, revealing my personal values and
assumptions is crucial since qualitative research involves being a central channel for analysis (see
reflexive statement, appendix-i; Alvesson & Skldberg, 2000; Creswell, 1994; Kopala & Suzuki, 1999).
In order to begin analysis a researcher must have at least some conceptual resource to guide the
processes of representation or interpretation, otherwise no sense at all could be made of any data.
My analytic procedures (appendix-ii) which drew upon closely related techniques from interpretative
phenomenological analysis - IPA (Smith & Osborn, 2003; Willig, 2001, pp.50-69) and grounded theory
(Richardson, 1996, pp.75-101; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). However, I need to clearly state my
epistemological position as qualitative analyses vary considerably and often reflect pragmatic conditions
rather than philosophic principles. There is no simple distinction between qualitative (naturalistic,
contextual, idealist) and quantitative (experimental, positivist, realist) methodologies (Hammersley,
1996; Creswell, 1994). Since researchers move back and forth between abstract concepts and data all
research involves processes of induction and deduction (Robson, 1993), especially thematic analysis
whereby induction creates themes and deduction authenticates them. My epistemological approach
aligned with inductive-realism. It was inductive because themes emerged from the data and realist
because my task as the analyst was to describe themes which exist independently from my own
interpretation. This differs to the positivist-realist approach involving theory-led thematic analysis which
tests hypotheses about textual data; comparable with analytic induction which seeks to identify
deterministic laws embedded within the essential nature of phenomena. Research should clearly
differentiate itself as primarily being explorative, generating theoretical ideas or testing existing
hypotheses. Because this exploratory analysis remained at the level of description rather than
formulating any interpretations or explanations it is closer to empiricism than constructionism.
I manually performed the analysis using basic data management facilities of a computer for cutting,
pasting and ordering information. This enabled easy transferral of original information into this report in
order to make my operations visible and assist reader evaluation. Although textual investigations are

Student Number = 02976321

1
aided by computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) these are largely architectural
and the actual process of description, or interpretation, remains a human endeavour (Dey, 1993; Willig,
2001, p.151; Kelle, 1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Weitzman, 2000). Most CAQDAS offer the
capacity for rapid searching and retrieval of data linked with the analysts annotations or may even
display conceptual hierarchies (e.g. Nudist, Codatext, Nvivo, Atlas, Qualpro, Ethnograph; Scolari,
2003). They allow the researchers to store volumes of information in one place without accumulating
masses of written material.
The audiotaped interview data had already been transcribed into text by the original

researcher. However, it needed formatting for my own analysis and assigning line

numbers to identify individual databits (appendix-ii, stage 1). Eleven areas of interest arose

from my initial reading of the text which familiarised me with the interviews material (appendix-ii,

stage 2.i). The data was then systematically reduced during open coding which

fragmented it into separate units for close examination and evaluation for similarities or

differences (appendix-i; appendix-ii, stage 2.ii; Strauss & Corbin, 1998, pp.101-121). At

this stage the participants information was summarised using line-by-line coding (or

indexing) which allowed individual bits of data to be closely identified and scrutinised.

This microanalytic process functioned to restrict my own interpretations by preventing

me from becoming immersed in the respondents worldview (Smith, et al., 1995, p.37).

Unlike performing an analysis on data collected for ones own research this meant

covering the whole data to avoid rejecting any potentially irrelevant material. Whilst

intensely focused upon this process I made brief notes for the main issues without letting

these dominate the further decontextualisation of the data. This process of reduction is a

vital part of performing qualitative analysis so the source of themes remain rooted in the

data, preventing the participants reality disappearing by simply overlaying themes from

the researchers perspective (Ritchie et al., 2003, pp.237-248). The IPA technique helped

simultaneous deconstruction of both the data and the dynamics between the interviewer

and the participant. Data reduction established two hundred and twenty four databits

which I manually assigned to sixteen categories (segmenting) by cutting and pasting on

the computer (appendix-iii). This is a creative yet rigorous process which fully demands

the researchers analytic abilities so that each databit is given equal treatment. At this

stage the sub-categories are loosely defined and mundane category labels are

Student Number = 02976321

2
recommended for general reference to empirical instances, preferably using the

participants own terms to sensitize concepts (Blumer, 1969, cited in Smith, 2003, p.85).

Breaking the data down into small fragments means databits can potentially relate to

more than one category. However, this analysis involved a natural assimilation of

databits into sub-categories which was likely to be the result of such microanalytic line-

by-line fragmentation.

Themes began to emerge when databits relating to similar topics were placed together

in categories, whilst simultaneously moving between these categories and the data

(appendix-ii, stage 3; appendix-iii). This stage involved searching for positive or negative

comparisons between categories and databits to form clusters of initial proto-themes. Re-

ordering these clusters helped freely develop and modify the emerging themes. I found

that keeping proto-theme definitions as simple as possible at this stage assisted the

categorisation process but was very complicated because it involved being fully immersed

in the data. There had to be a balance between grouping information and not creating

too large a proto-theme to avoid collapsing categories to early. Assigning identifiers to

categories (i.e. C1, C2, etc.) and using line numbers helped track the analysis because

the names and definitions of emergent themes had a tendency to transform throughout

the analysis. Hence the need for a coherent coding system.

The next stage (appendix-ii, stage 4) involved the first process of trawling back through the data to
examine how information was assigned to each proto-theme and to evaluate their embryonic meanings.
A provisional name and flexible definition was created for each proto-theme. Whilst themes evolve by
the continual process of assembling and reassembling categories it is important to have control over

how separate databits relate to one or more of the categories. Up to this point themes were

primarily formed through inductive procedures but the next stage (appendix-ii, stage 5)

needed to verify their development via deductive procedures. This involved axial coding

which takes themes individually and searches through the original text for related

databits to check for deviant incidents or data inappropriately assigned to a particular

theme. This is closely associated with theory-led thematic analysis and involves changing

the epistemological position of the analyst (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, pp.123-142). This

recontextualisation is critical to the analytic process because human perception is

Student Number = 02976321

3
selective and may easily overlook relevant information or contradictory incidents,

particularly as themes evolve through very dynamic processes (Tesch, 1990). Finally,

analyst constructed typologies were produced by assessing all the material relating to

each theme (Patton, 2002, p.458). Themes are brought alive with illustrations of the

participants actual words in order to tangibly portray their meanings to the reader

(appendix-ii, stages 6 & 7; appendix-iv). The resulting themes could be used for

researcher triangulation to verify the authenticity of the original researchers analyses

(Bannister, et al., 1994, p.146).

Thematic analysis, IPA and grounded theory are methodologically similar analytic frameworks but
the manner in which themes, concepts and categories are epistemologically managed varies considerably
between these approaches (Spencer, et al., 2003; Ritchie, et al., 2003). They all attempt to represent a
view of reality via systematically working through text to identify topics that are progressively
integrated into higher order themes via processes of decontextualisation and recontextualisation
(Charmaz, 1995; Tesch, 1990; Willig, 1990). Their procedures are more conceptually demanding than
content analysis which employs a simpler empirical epistemology (Wilson, 1995). However, content
analysis and thematic analysis are often confused. The former highlights criteria for the reliability and
validity of the frequency of a theme or databits occurrence, using predefined mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive categories which are statistically generalisable to outside factors such as gender
(Bryman, 2001, pp.180-193). IPA is generally applied to understanding individual cases whereas
grounded theory was developed to understand social processes. Both of these methods have the ability to
draw upon numerous sources of data (Pidgeon, 1996). However, there are several versions of grounded
theory, namely objective/realist and social constructionist (Charmaz, 2000). Thematic analysis does not
extend as far as grounded theory which generates hypotheses from data sets and concerns issues of
discovery. Thematic analysis and IPA are epistemologically similar because, in general, researchers
respectively produce descriptions and interpretations of individual subjective experiences. The major
difference occurs between their initial stages of coding since IPA uses multiple re-readings to make
wide-ranging and unfocused notes which are quite different to the open coding strategy of thematic
analysis and grounded theory.
Thematic analysis, IPA and grounded theory are ontologically similar because they treat language
transparently by simply taking for granted the meanings expressed in the datas vocabulary. This
radically contrasts with discourse analysis (DA) and conversational analysis (CA) which promote the
constant deconstruction of accounts. DA and CA are part of the linguistic tradition whereas thematic
analysis grew out of the sociological tradition which treats text as a window into human experience
(Ryan & Bernard, 2000). The language-based analytic methods of DA and CA focus upon the
construction and structure of talk, text and interaction whereby meanings are conceptualised as being

Student Number = 02976321

4
obscured by rhetorical devices, linguistic styles or the interactive performance (Spencer, et al., 2003).
Consequently the system of transcription for DA and CA (depending on which method is used) include
phonetic, prosodic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic features of text and is exceedingly more complex
and time consuming than that required for thematic analysis. DA especially treats text as having action
orientations designed to achieve various socially interactive functions like questioning, agreement or
justification (Cole, 1995). Empirical thematic analysis is not as explanatory and thus can not comment
upon the contextual function of themes. So generally, IPA and DA are easily designed for interpretive
and explanatory analyses whereas thematic analysis and CA remain purely descriptive and are more
suitable for exploratory investigations, from which point research questions and hypotheses can be
considered.
This reflects how qualitative methods can work from separate or integrated epistemological
perspectives and that this diversity means a particular studys position needs identifying before we can
evaluate it (Willig, p.149). The mechanics of categorising data via qualitative thematic analysis involves
an vigorous process which spirals between the data, the analysis and the final account, as opposed the
distinctive linear processes in most quantitative research (Dey, 1993, pp.30-54). A well structured
system for effective data management is essential for the continual iterative movement between the
original data and any emergent themes throughout and after the analysis (Bryman, 2001; Fielding, 1993;
Wisker, 2001). Qualitative analysis requires a blend of systematic searching, creativity, insightfulness
and diligent detection for the development of themes, involving a dialogue between analyst and data
(Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Several qualitative researchers may discover different themes from a generic
text, and often disagree with anothers classification of methods. Consequently, it is crucial that analyses
are transparently communicated for others to enter into discussion, particularly if this involves research
colleagues, supervisors or financers. The ultimate purpose of conducting qualitative research is to
recognise how the existence of themes and the organisation of data are connected with a particular topic
or the development of a line of reasoning. Thematic analyses therefore shape, adjust or reform these
objectives (Holliday, 2002, 98-122).

References
Alvesson, M., & Skldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
Bannister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. & Tindall, C. (eds) (1994) Qualitative methods in psychology: A
research guide. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cole, A. (1995) Discourse analysis (chapter in) Breakwell, G., Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (eds) (1995)
Research methods in psychology. 243-258. London: Sage.
Breakwell, G., Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (eds) (1995) Research methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Bryman, A. (2001) Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charmaz, K. (1995) Grounded theory (chapter in) Smith, J., Harre, R. & Van Langenhove, L. (eds) (1995)
Rethinking methods in psychology. 27-49. London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2002) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods (chapter in) Denzin, N. & Lincoln,
Y. (eds) (2000) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn). 509-535. London: Sage.
Creswell, J. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage.

Student Number = 02976321

5
Dey, I. (1993) Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds) (2000) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn). London: Sage.
Fielding, J. (1993) Coding and managing data (chapter in) Gilbert, N. (ed) (1993) Researching social life. 218-
238. London: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1996) The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus
methodological eclecticism (chapter in) Richardson, J. (ed) (1996) Handbook of qualitative research methods:
For psychology and the social sciences. 159-174. Leicester: BPS.
Hayes, N. (2000) Doing psychological research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Holliday, A. (2002) Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Holloway, I. (1997) Basic concepts for qualitative research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kelle, U. (ed) (1995) Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice. London: Sage.
Kopala, M. & Suzuki, L. (1999) Using qualitative methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edn). London: Sage.
Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn). London: Sage.
Pidgeon, N. (1996) Grounded theory: Theoretical background (chapter in) Richardson, J. (ed) (1996) Handbook
of qualitative research methods: For psychology and the social sciences. 75-85. Leicester: BPS.
Pilgrim, D. & Rogers, A. (1993) A sociology of mental health and illness. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Richardson, J. (ed) (1996) Handbook of qualitative research methods: For psychology and the social sciences.
Leicester: BPS.
Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (eds) (2003) Qualitative research practice: A guide for social scientist students and
researchers. London: Sage.
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L. & OConnor, W. (2003) Carrying out qualitative analysis (chapter in) Ritchie, J. & Lewis,
J. (eds) (2003) Qualitative research practice: A guide for social scientist students and researchers. 219-262.
London: Sage.
Robson, C. (1993) Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ryan, G. & Bernard, H. (2000) Data management and analysis methods (chapter in) Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y.
(eds) (2000) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn). 769-802. London: Sage.
Scolari, (2003) Sage publications software. Internet: www.scolari.co.uk.
Smith, J. (ed) (2003) Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London: Sage.
Smith, J., & Osborn, M. (2003) Interpretative phenomenological analysis (chapter in) Smith, J. (ed) (2003)
Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. 51-80. London: Sage.
Smith, J., Harre, R. & Van Langenhove, L. (eds) (1995) Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J. & OConnor, W. (2003) Analysis: Practices, principles and processes (chapter in)
Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (eds) (2003) Qualitative research practice: A guide for social scientist students and
researchers. 199-218. London: Sage.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques for developing grounded theory (2nd
edn). London: Sage.
Tesch, R. (1990) Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London: Falmer.
Weitzman, E. (2000) Software and qualitative research (chapter in) Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds) (2000)
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn). 803-820. London: Sage.
Willig, C. (2001) Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wilson, M. (1995) Structuring qualitative data: Multidimensional scalogram analysis (chapter in) Breakwell, G.,
Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (eds) (1995) Research methods in psychology. 259-274. London: Sage.
Wisker, G. (2001) The postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Student Number = 02976321

6
Student Number = 02976321
7