There are many ways in which, over the years, researchers have analysed data found from qualitative research or more specifically, from interviews. However, it is argued that none is considered more useful than thematic analysis. It is often used to break down an interview into clear sections; this makes the researcher’s job far easier, making the most of the data collected. These subsections are identified individually as themes, each theme conveying different aspects of the data. An advantage to using thematic analysis would be that the sections used to simplify the data i.e. The Framework Approach give good structure to an analysis. On the down side, there is no set technique to thematic analysis; it can then become unpredictable particularly in comparison to other analytical methods such as content analysis and critical discourse analysis for example. In order to truly assess whether or not thematic analysis is the superior method of analysis, all aspects of its strengths and weaknesses will have to be looked over before coming to a definitive conclusion.
Thematic analysis is one of the most common approaches to qualitative data research and differs slightly from other methods such as the critical discourse analysis and qualitative content analysis in that it does not have an identifiable heritage or a distinctive cluster of techniques (Bryman, 2008). Thematic analysis splits the data found from the interview research into themes. There are two main forms of thematic research, the ‘Framework’ model and the ‘Block and File’ approach. The idea of a ‘Framework’, which was developed by the National Centre for social research, is best described as a matrix (Bryman, 2008). In order to create this structure of themes within a framework matrix, thorough reading of the transcripts is needed to fully understand the meaning of an interview or the ideas which the interviewee is trying to put across. Bryman emphasises, “The themes and subthemes are essentially recurring motifs in the text that are then applied to the data” (Bryman, 2008, p. 554). Through applying the framework to the dataset, core themes are created from which, subthemes branch off. Each core theme, no matter what the subject, has subthemes which are hugely important and informative. The framework matrix needed to set up an example of thematic analysis is set out in the style of a word processed table or spreadsheet. The idea being is to insert snippets of information from the interview into the correct cell or subtheme. The framework matrix allows interviews, or data, to be compared and contrasted side by side in small bites. Ritchie sets out four main guidelines which must be adhered to in order for the process to be successful. The researcher must indicate where the transcript came from, emphasise the tone and language used by a participant, do not insert too many direct quotes and use abbreviations (Bryman, 2008). In order to determine snippets needed and to gather themes, there are a few signs to look for. These could be repetitions, metaphors or transitions. Other points to look for could be missing data and similarities or differences between the data i.e. the individual interviews (Bryman, 2008).
A weakness of thematic analysis could be that the process itself, “does not necessarily tell the user how to identify themes” (Bryman, 2008). If the correct themes are not identified by the researcher, the whole process could become pointless as the use of the data is not being maximised. Although, as previously mentioned, it is important to try to convey the feel of the interview into the dataset, the chances of being able to do this in reality is somewhat slim. The pauses and hesitations in someone’s speech are removed thus also partly removing the emotion and vital moments of indecision in the interviewee’s voice. This can lead to the decontextualizing of the data as Kvale explains, “transcripts decontextualized conversations; they are abstractions” (Kvale, Doing Interviews, p. 98). The strengths of such a system on the other hand are that it can be used both inductively, looking at literature which already exists but also deductively by means of conducting new interviews. Furthermore, thematic analysis also provides consistency and accuracy in its results.
In comparison to other methods of qualitative data analysis, thematic analysis is not as well known; indeed many find it hard to distinguish it from others of its type, although the introduction of a framework matrix does set it apart. Critical discourse analysis uses the power of language in order to relate to changing ideologies (Bryman, 2008). Kvale explains, “…the focus is on how the talk is constructed and what the social consequences are of the different discursive presentations of a social situation” (Kvale, 2007, p. 113). Content analysis is much closer in method to that of thematic analysis in that it investigates the constructs and meaning of a text (Bryman, 2008). Although thematic analysis can be consistent, based on the discoveries of one individual researcher, content analysis, because it has a set technique to follow, can set out coding schemes to ensure that replications and follow-up studies are feasible (Bryman, 2008).
To conclude, thematic analysis could be a successful tool to use when gathering data, although the process is somewhat complex, the end product is laid out in a very simple fashion which is easy to read and to decode. However, it does have some very significant weaknesses such as the fact that it does not show the researcher how to find codes or themes from a text. The method is entirely based around the ability of an individual. Whereas, in my opinion, content analysis is not only well known but it also offers more advantages, particularly when considering that it does have a set technique to follow, ensuring that an individual can find codes from a dataset, no matter what their skill level.
Bibliography
Alan Bryman, (2008), Social Research Methods, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, E. (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy Research. In, Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (eds.) Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge.
Steinar Kvale, (2007), Doing Interviews, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
The Word Stable 