Page 6 - Braun06ThematicAnalysis

82 V Braun and V Clarke

(or are certainly typically not discussed in might appear in relatively little of the data
the method section of papers), but which set. So, researcher judgement is necessary to
need explicitly to be considered and dis- determine what a theme is. Our initial
cussed. In practice, these questions should guidance around this is that you need to
be considered before analysis (and some- retain some flexibility, and rigid rules really
times even collection) of the data begins, do not work. (The question of prevalence is
and there needs to be an ongoing reflexive revisited in relation to themes and sub-
dialogue on the part of the researcher or themes, as the refinement of analysis (see
researchers with regards to these issues, later) will often result in overall themes,
throughout the analytic process. The and sub-themes within those.)
method section of Taylor and Ussher’s Furthermore, the ‘keyness’ of a theme is
(2001) thematic DA of S&M provides a not necessarily dependent on quantifiable
good example of research which presents measures / but rather on whether it cap-
this process explicitly; the method section tures something important in relation to
of Braun and Wilkinson (2003) does not. the overall research question. For exam-
ple, in Victoria’s research on representa-
What counts as a theme? tions of lesbians and gay parents on 26
A theme captures something important talk shows (Clarke and Kitzinger, 2004),
about the data in relation to the research she identified six ‘key’ themes. These six
question, and represents some level of themes were not necessarily the most pre-
patterned response or meaning within the valent themes across the data set / they
data set. An important question to address appeared in between two and 22 of the 26
in terms of coding is: what counts as a talk shows / but together they captured an
pattern/theme, or what ‘size’ does a theme important element of the way in which
need to be? This is a question of prevalence, lesbians and gay men ‘normalize’ their
in terms both of space within each data item families in talk show debates. In this in-
and of prevalence across the entire data set. stance, her thematic analysis was driven by
Ideally, there will be a number of instances this particular analytic question. How she
of the theme across the data set, but more ‘measured’ prevalence is relevant, as pre-
instances do not necessarily mean the valence can be determined in a number of
theme itself is more crucial. As this is different ways. Prevalence was counted at
qualitative analysis, there is no hard-and- the level of the data item (ie, did a theme
fast answer to the question of what propor- appear anywhere in each individual talk
tion of your data set needs to display show?). Alternatively, it could have been
evidence of the theme for it to be considered counted in terms of the number of different
a theme. It is not the case that if it was speakers who articulated the theme, across
present in 50% of one’s data items, it would the entire data set, or each individual
be a theme, but if it was present only in occurrence of the theme across the entire
47%, then it would not be a theme. Nor is it data set (which raises complex questions
the case that a theme is only something that about where an ‘instance’ begins and ends
many data items give considerable attention within an extended sequence of talk / see
to, rather than a sentence or two. A theme Riessman, 1993). Because prevalence was
might be given considerable space in some not crucial to the analysis presented, Vic-
data items, and little or none in others, or it toria chose the most straightforward form,