See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328675228

What is a theme? Teaching thematic analysis in qualitative communication

research methods

Article  in  Communication Teacher · November 2018

DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2018.1536794

CITATIONS READS

4 4,034

2 authors, including:

Kristina M. Scharp
University of Washington Seattle
57 PUBLICATIONS   459 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Communication and Socialization in Black Families View project

Parent-Child Estrangement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristina M. Scharp on 07 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Communication Teacher

ISSN: 1740-4622 (Print) 1740-4630 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmt20

What is a theme? Teaching thematic analysis in

qualitative communication research methods

Kristina M. Scharp & Matthew L. Sanders

To cite this article: Kristina M. Scharp & Matthew L. Sanders (2018): What is a theme? Teaching
thematic analysis in qualitative communication research methods, Communication Teacher, DOI:
10.1080/17404622.2018.1536794

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2018.1536794

Published online: 01 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcmt20
COMMUNICATION TEACHER
https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2018.1536794

ORIGINAL TEACHING IDEA—SINGLE

What is a theme? Teaching thematic analysis in qualitative

communication research methods
Kristina M. Scharp and Matthew L. Sanders
Department of Languages Philosophy, and Communication Studies, Utah State University, Logan, USA

Course: Qualitative Research Methods ARTICLE HISTORY

Objectives: To provide students with an experiential understanding Received 22 June 2017
of the six steps to conducting a thematic analysis: (1) gaining Accepted 10 May 2018
familiarity with the data, (2) creating coding categories or
subcategories, (3) generating themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5)
labeling themes, and (6) identifying exemplars. To help students
understand the value of verification procedures: (1) peer
debriefing, (2) referential adequacy, and (3) the audit trail.

Introduction and rationale

When there is no “right” answer, students often become frustrated or confused. This has
the potential to present problems for teaching qualitative research methods because there
are multiple ways students can interpret data and illustrate evocative findings (Tracy,
2013). Indeed, Tracy (2013) contends that the big gap for qualitative researchers in teach-
ing qualitative methods is explaining what data analysis looks and feels like. This activity
answers Tracy’s (2013) call by providing students a hands-on experience to organize and
verify data. Students engage in thematic analysis by physically organizing “codes” into
themes and then learn the importance of verification. Thus, students can see the ways
that qualitative research can connect to communication processes by (1) offering a view
of meaning making in action, (2) allowing for marginalized voices to emerge, (3)
evoking a sense of affect and experience, and (4) constituting sense making (Manning
& Kunkel, 2014).

Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is a qualitative method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting
patterns within a data corpus. Braun and Clarke (2006) contend that thematic
analysis requires researchers to ask themselves a variety of questions, typically sur-
rounding “What is a theme?” They argue that a theme captures a salient aspect of
the data in a patterned way, regardless of whether that theme captures the majority
experience. Therefore, instead of asking questions of quantity, researchers engaged
in thematic analysis ask whether a set of data answers the research question in a
meaningful way.

CONTACT Kristina Scharp kristina.scharp@gmail.com Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Communication

Studies, Utah State University, 0720 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322, USA
© 2018 National Communication Association
2 K. M. SCHARP AND M. L. SANDERS

Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis method is an iterative process consisting of six
steps: (1) becoming familiar with the data, (2) generating coding categories, (3) generating
themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) locating exem-
plars. Becoming familiar with the data might include transcription or (re)reading the
data. Generating codes requires marking interesting features of the data in a systematic
way and then collating the data. Generating themes requires the researcher to collate
initial codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant to the particular theme.
Reviewing themes is the process of checking whether the themes work in relation to the
coded extracts and the entire data set. Defining and naming themes consists of determin-
ing the heart of what each theme conveys: knowing what it is and what it is not. Finally,
locating exemplars requires the researcher to make a selection of compelling examples that
provide evidence of the theme and relate to the research question.

Qualitative verification
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), data should be transferrable, dependable, and
confirmable. Transferability refers to the similarity between two contexts and can only
be determined when a context is described in evocative detail. One way to determine trans-
ferability is to engage in referential adequacy. Referential adequacy is achieved by archiv-
ing the second half of the data set until the first half is analyzed. The second half of the data
is then analyzed in comparison to the first half. Dependability refers to a process in which
researchers explicitly show how they came to their findings. This might be accomplished
with peer debriefing. Peer debriefing requires the researcher to provide detailed notes to
another trained researcher. This researcher provides an external check to ensure that
observations and interpretations of the data are valid on their face. Finally, confirmability
requires researchers to detail their notes in a systematic way to illustrate a link between
their data and findings. This is achieved by keeping an audit trail (i.e. notes that establish
a connection between the findings and the original data such as decision rules).

The activity
Before the activity begins, teachers should purchase a variety of fun-sized or bite-sized
candy (e.g. individually wrapped chocolate, hard candy, chewy candy, etc.). Purchasing
candy that has some similarities often yields the best results (e.g. chocolate bars and
tootsie rolls; tootsie roll pops and bubblegum pops). Although other objects could be
used, students typically enjoy the candy, which adds to their excitement about this activity.
Depending on time availability, instructors might want to discuss thematic analysis and
verification the class period before. An additional class period might also be fruitful if
instructors want to read and discuss a journal article. Teaching thematic analysis and ver-
ification in combination with the activity can be accomplished in 50–75 minutes.
Teachers should begin by giving some examples of communication theories that might
warrant the use of thematic analysis (e.g. communication privacy management theory,
etc.). They should then explain the importance of identifying a research question,
noting there might be many themes that emerge in qualitative data, but only those that
answer the research question are important to a given analysis. Then, they should describe
and define the six steps to conducting a thematic analysis and the verification procedures.
 COMMUNICATION TEACHER 3

Instructors have the option of assigning the Braun and Clarke (2006) reading, selecting
reading from a textbook (e.g. Tracy, 2013), or assigning examples of journal articles
from communication scholars that employ thematic analysis and its accompanying verifi-
cation procedures (e.g. Scharp & McLaren, 2018). We recommend a combination of these
activities.
Students then break up into small groups, and the teacher gives each group a variety of
candy. In distributing the candy, the variety each group receives is more important than
the quantity. About 30 pieces, however, is usually sufficient for a group of four or five stu-
dents. The teacher should then ask each group a research question that focuses the analy-
sis: “What types of candy do people prefer at Halloween?” We select this question because
it is subjective and might yield a variety of themes. Indeed, communication data often cap-
tures perceptions (e.g. “What was supportive?”) that require researchers to group codes
into themes with the most heuristic value by sticking close to the data, even though mul-
tiple possibilities could be meaningful. Learning analysis with a broad question helps
facilitate independent analysis with often subjective communication data.
We then ask them to engage in the six steps of thematic analysis by tasting the candy to
gain familiarity, grouping the candy into codes, grouping the candy into larger themes,
evaluating their work, naming the themes, and choosing a representative for each
theme. Next, ask students to verify their findings using peer debriefing (i.e. each
student conducts their own analysis before coming together to compare findings, argue
through differences, and come to a consensus), and the audit trail (i.e. taking detailed
notes of decisions so that another researcher could reproduce the same analysis by
linking the data to the findings). Discuss as a class the findings of each group, noticing
similarities, differences, and discussing how each group’s organization is a legitimate
way to make sense of the data. At this point in the activity, instructors might engage stu-
dents in a discussion of the ways in which communication constitutes reality. Teachers
should encourage students to use their audit trail notes to argue why their organization
is heuristic and meaningful. For example, some groups might organize their candy by
dark, milk, or white chocolate, whereas others might sort by candies with nuts and
those without. Students can go through their notes and explain not only how they
decided on the themes but what decisions they made when some candies overlapped in
their categorization. For example, students note that tootsie rolls are both chocolate and
chewy. This creates an opportunity to discuss how people might use synonyms or describe
experiences that could be sorted into multiple codes. Thus, it is important to emphasize
the importance of creating and sticking to decision rules for analysis consistency.
To illustrate the ways in which many themes might emerge in a data corpus, teachers
can continue the process by asking each group a new research question: “In what colors
are candies made?” Let the students engage in the thematic analysis process again, this
time instructing them to verify their data using referential adequacy (i.e. split data in
half, analyze first half, and then analyze second half to compare). If time allows, instructors
might consider assigning communication concepts to the candy (e.g. types of supportive
communication) so students can begin thinking about what this might look like in com-
munication contexts. Once the students have completed this iteration of thematic analysis,
the class should discuss the findings, paying particular attention to how broadly they cate-
gorized the codes. For example, instructors might engage the students in a conversation
about whether they identified the theme “brown” or whether they divided the category
4 K. M. SCHARP AND M. L. SANDERS

into “light brown” and “dark brown.” This might be an excellent opportunity to discuss
what makes a theme meaningful; at the chocolate level, the difference between light and
dark brown chocolate could be meaningful. Asking a new question also gives instructors
the opportunity to discuss its importance. We ask “What would happen if a researcher just
started the thematic analysis process without identifying a research question?” or “What
would happen if the question was not open-ended?” Students comment they better under-
stand why determining a research question is the first step in the research process.

Debriefing
Debriefing is an important part of this activity. Teachers should engage the students in a
discussion about the importance of research questions, asking questions such as, “What
other questions could we have asked? How would that have changed the results?” This
helps students see how questions focus and guide data analysis. Next, teachers should
then ask students about saturation (i.e. the point when no new themes emerge; Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) and how researchers conducting thematic analysis know when they have
enough data. Questions could include “Did you have to look at every piece of candy to
form themes? At what point did you no longer see new themes emerging from the data?”
Students often respond that they did not need to examine every piece of candy before
they began seeing a pattern. They also note, however, that as they continue to code, the
pattern they originally identified becomes more nuanced or, in some instances, coalesces
into a larger pattern. One of the best opportunities of the debrief lies in helping students
use the language of “thick description” (see Geertz, 1973). Teachers should give the students
opportunities to describe their “exemplars” vividly to the rest of the class. This helps students
bring their data to life. For example, we ask our students, “Imagine you met an alien who has
never eaten a piece of candy—describe it to them.” Common responses begin with vague
descriptors such as delicious. We then discuss how we could get more specific. By the
end, students recognize the importance of evocative descriptors.

Appraisal and applications

In our experience, students are enthusiastic to try their hand at conducting thematic analy-
sis, especially because they need to familiarize themselves with the “data.” Students also
comment that working with tangible objects helped them clarify how to engage in a sub-
jective analysis, and gave them confidence to do this kind of work with less tangible com-
munication data.
With all activities, some limitations exist. This activity might become more difficult to
do in larger classes where participation, observation, and discussion might be limited. In
addition, engaging in thematic analysis is not inherently communicative. Teachers should
be careful to explain how communication scholars use thematic analysis, discussing con-
texts, processes, and reasons why this method is particularly suitable to scholars who align
themselves with interpretive approaches.

ORCID
Kristina M. Scharp http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9280-6313
 COMMUNICATION TEACHER 5

References and suggested readings

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for devel-
oping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014). Making meaning of meaning-making research: Using qualitative
research for studies of social and personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 31, 433–441. doi:10.1177/02654075145285890
Scharp, K. M., & McLaren, R. M. (2018). Uncertainty issues and management in adult children’s
stories of their estrangement with their parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
35, 811–830. doi:10.1177/0265407517699097
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicat-
ing impact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

View publication stats