I’m really enjoying the process of trying to work out how to ‘do’ thematic analysis of my data, but it’s also very clear that I’m barely scratching the surface of what I’d need to know, do and understand to be able to do this in a really meaningful way. I am doing my best however, to be diligent and thoughtful and conduct the analysis in the best way I can, given the time constraints and my starting point.

I’m primarily focussing on Braun and Clarke’s approach to thematic analysis because it offers the flexibility to be able to incorporate multiple types of data and, as far as I understand, it isn’t attached to a particular theoretical model. It therefore allows me to work out where I am in relation to various criteria as I go along and try to make sense of my data. Using the slide below from Braun and Clarke’s lecture shown below as a framework, I understand my data coding to be primarily inductive in that I didn’t know what the participants would say from the start and I’m basing my codes on their contributions. However, I don’t think it’s purely inductive as inherent in my research question is the pre-conceived idea of what our Moodle template actually consists of, or its defining features. Therefore my coding is inevitably influenced by my research question i.e. to what extent these features offer support to students and staff who might otherwise experience barriers.

In addition, I believe I am taking an experiential orientation to the data in that my data is very deliberately based on the experience of participants (I started my interviews with a request to talk through what participants do on Moodle and what barriers or supports they encountered. This was followed by prompts, which were based on certain areas I was interested to discuss, but participants had a free rein to select the topics and avoid others.)

Familiarisation with the data:

My data collection techniques were: semi-structured interviews, a short questionnaire (mostly quantitative but with one free text box) and drawings of participants’ experience of using Moodle. Three participants gave me drawing and one gave me a ‘voice drawing’ an audio description of what it’s like to use Moodle from her perspective.

Coding:

My approach to coding is semantic as opposed to latent. Again however, I believe this isn’t cut and dried. As Braun and Clarke (2018) point out, these are all spectrums and I think I am somewhere between the two. My codes and categories are largely descriptive and meaning based (semantic end of the spectrum) but they are also partially formed (through the interview process) and informed by my existing knowledge of digital accessibility, inclusive practice and my research question, which I believe pushes my approach somewhat towards a latent coding approach.

Fryer describes the contrast between data-led and theory-led coding: ‘(data-led coding) can have the benefit of allowing the data to surprise us, to challenge our preconceptions, or to move beyond previous theorising—whereas theory-led coding has more of a tendency to encourage us to find what we seek.’ (Fryer, 2022). However, like Braun and Clarke, he says is it not a binary choice and an element of both approaches is almost inevitable.

In my process, it took me two or more attempts to establish the codes I wanted to use. The process of categorising (Lochmiller 2021) involved more code development. The image below shows part of my coding process using the platform Miro. Participants are given different coloured sticky notes as identifiers and codes are added as coloured tags. In most cases, related codes are given the same colour. E.g. Contextual information: usefulness, Contextual information: presentation.

The reason I used Miro for this purpose was to keep the data as movable items (individual sticky notes), but also because Miro will cluster items according to tags. In the screenshot below, each sticky note has been grouped according to the tag ascribed. At this point it’s possible to see if the codes include comments from more than one participant (by looking at the colour coded sticky notes), and also if there are codes which are too large or too small and should perhaps be split or combined. At this particular stage, I could also separate out the data I had yet to code (the ‘no tag’ group) and so I could add these to the existing groups.

In adding the additional data, I made some amendments to the codes. For example, a new code was introduced – site layout – and Finding what you need was divided up, along with appearance. Within the new code Site layout, there were some sub groups as shown below. Later, some of these data would be moved again, during the analysis phase.

This is the point where the categories came in, shown below in white boxes next to the groups of codes. This process helped me to manage the data and at the same to revisit it and check the coding and groupings. I changed the categories several times and tried to consistently refer back to the research question, shown on the top left in a grey box. At this point, I also added the drawings which I think best illustrated the points made in the category.

Generating and reviewing themes:

The process of analysis is obviously a thread through the different stages of TA, but the process of generating themes is one I found very difficult. Braun and Clarke are very clear that themes do not ’emerge’ and they have have moved away from describing the process are ‘searching’ for themes, as they specifically emphasis the active role of the researcher and as such have chosen the more active term ‘generating’ themes (Braun and Clarke, 2018). I like this distinction although it also makes me slightly uneasy as it’s a new way of looking at data from research for me.

In working out what the themes should be, I found this description helpful; ‘Patton‟s (1990) dual criteria for judging categories – internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity – are worth considering here. Data within themes should cohere together meaningfully, while there should be clear and identifiable distinctions between themes.’ (p. 20 Braun and Clarke, 2006)

Eventually I managed to generate 4 themes which I think are both distinct from each other and individually bring together different codes in a meaningful way. For a full description of the themes and the final report, please see Project findings: report and summary.

Reflections:

In doing this again, I would do the process of transcribing differently. At the start I listened to the interviews and wrote notes directly on the sticky notes. I didn’t realise that at this stage I was effectively transcribing and I felt it was ‘cheating’ to write actual quotes on the sticky notes as I listened to the interviews. However, it because clear that this was actually wrong and what I needed was a full transcription to be able to see some of the quotes I did have in context without having to listen over and over, and also the notes were not useful, I needed them all to be actual quotes.

As a result in the analysis stage, I had to keep returning to listen to the interviews, understand the context and also check the accuracy of the quote. This did mean I was very familiar with it by the end but it wasn’t efficient in terms of timing.

As I said at the start, I need to understand more about the context of thematic analysis but I found it a useful and enjoyable (up to a point…) process.

Bibliography:

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2 (January 2006) pp.77–101 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Braun V. and Clarke V. (2018) Thematic analysis: An introduction. June 25 2018 Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zFcC10vOVY (Accessed: 29 December 2023)

Clarke V. (2017) What is thematic analysis? Dec 9 2017. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4voVhTiVydc. (Accessed 27 December 2023)

Fryer, Tom. ‘A Critical Realist Approach to Thematic Analysis: Producing Causal Explanations’. Journal of Critical Realism 21, no. 4 (8 August 2022): 365–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2076776.

Lochmiller, Chad. ‘Conducting Thematic Analysis with Qualitative Data’. The Qualitative Report, 20 June 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008.

References:

Friese S, Soratto J, Pires D, 2018 Carrying out a computer-aided thematic content analysis with ATLAS.ti MMG Working Paper 18-02

Nickerson, C. 2023, Social Constructionism Theory: Definition And Examples. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-constructionism.html (Accessed 29 December 2023)