Divergences and Similarities Within and Between Thematic Analysis and Content Analysis; Navigating a Complex World.

There is a wide spectrum of data analysis methods available to qualitative researchers. These methods can be grounded in different epistemological perspectives and may fit different research questions (e.g. Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Among the available approaches, Thematic Analysis (TA) and Content Analysis (CA) are two widely used methods (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2006; Vaismoradi et al., 2013). They are suitable for describing and/or interpreting data derived from many different qualitative data collection methods such as interviews, focus groups, and open-ended survey questions.

Both thematic analysis (TA) and content analysis (CA) are qualitative methods for which multiple forms have been proposed. Within TA, for instance, Boyatzis (1998) distinguishes between theory-driven, prior-research-driven and data-driven approaches. Braun and Clarke (e.g. 2006 & 2021) emphasize reflexivity in their well-known Reflexive Thematic Analysis, and many others, such as Ritchie and Spencer, have also outlined specific approaches. CA likewise exists in multiple forms: while it is often associated with Krippendorff’s work (e.g., 2018), or the work of Schreier (2012), other approaches have been described by Hsieh and Shannon (2005), Mayring (2014) and Elo and Kyngäs (2008). In addition to this internal diversity, TA and CA share substantial areas of overlap. This combination of within-method variation and between-method similarity can make it challenging to choose an appropriate approach. To help navigate this complexity, some researchers have clarified some of the differences and similarities between and within TA and CA. For example, Vaismoradi and colleagues (2013) compared thematic analysis and content analysis, and Braun and Clarke (2021) provided an overview of the differences between their Reflexive Thematic Analysis and other qualitative analyses techniques such as qualitative content analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, and grounded theory. Despite the usefulness of these contributions, there remains a need for a more comprehensive overview of similarities and differences, including suggestions on when to use a specific method (or a combination of methods) and how to report this in an empirical paper. This need is apparent when reading empirical studies that claim to use TA or CA. Some researchers do not specify which version of TA or CA was applied in their study, and even when a particular method is mentioned, it is often unclear which steps are followed. For example, stating that one used ‘thematic analysis’ may mean working with a codebook, or it may mean deliberately deciding not to. Similarly, when using content analysis, the philosophical stance may be positivist, but it might just as well be an interpretivist one. Referring to ‘themes’ may indicate the use of thematic analysis but could just as well reflect content analysis, and differences between languages may add to this confusion.

Researchers face many choices concerning the vocabulary used for concepts, the order of analytic steps, whether to apply some form of intercoder agreement or collaborative coding, the underlying philosophical assumptions, and the accepted level of subjectivity. Choosing and performing a thematic or content analysis is therefore far from straightforward, and many researchers (ourselves included) often feel lost in the complexity of these techniques. Questions arise such as: When am I doing a good job? When is a method truly suited for my data? And how can I transparently describe my analytic steps?

This panel discussion is intended as a step toward answering these questions. We aim for a thorough and collaborative exchange between qualitative researchers and methodologists from different backgrounds in which we will discuss how to navigate the many different types of thematic and content analyses available. This exchange aims to provide an overview of important differences and similarities between the different approaches of TA and CA. Additionally, the panel would like to come up with a take-away page with suggestions on how to decide which approach to take, and how to report these choices.

The panel discussion will be organized as follows. First, we will briefly introduce the panel members and their current project, which aims to clarify the field of qualitative analyses. After that, based on a critical review of available literature, several topics will be proposed as starting points for the discussion, such as the differences between inductive, deductive and abductive approaches of TA and CA. Panel members will discuss their perspectives with each other and the audience. Senior researchers with a lot of experience in analyzing qualitative data, or even founders of specific methods are invited to join the discussion, just as well as novice researchers who want to share their ideas and new perspectives. Also, we invite researchers and methodologists from all disciplines, philosophies of science, various cultural and religious backgrounds and diverse fields of interest, academic or more applied. The diversity in our panel adds to the depth of the discussion and the applicability of the outcomes.

The session will unfold in three stages. After a brief introduction round, the junior researcher will present the current project the group is working on (a critical methodological review) and suggest some points of entry for the discussion based on an ongoing critical methodological review. The senior panelists will then open the discussion by sharing their perspective and reflections with each other and the audience: Which method do they choose when and why? What do they find difficult in this process? The audience will be invited to join the discussion, not only verbally, but also through the use of a digital whiteboard. The discussion will be wrapped up by summarizing the results in a 'one sheet take-away paper' and by giving participants the opportunity to share their take-home message. The discussion will contain elements of the nominal group technique which will ensure that besides the intra panel discussion, all participants will be able to join actively. Also, the moderator and panelists will ensure an inclusive discussion in which there is no room for exclusionary remarks, racism and discrimination.

We anticipate that by the end of the session, participants will have developed a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences between CA and TA.  They will be more aware of the opportunities and challenges involved in selecting a specific method and better informed about possible ways of reporting their chosen approach. By coming together and openly discussing our challenges, we hope participants will gain a clearer sense of direction, while at the same time learning to accept, and even embrace, the uncertainties they may encounter in their future analyses. To ensure all these results, we will share the final results of the discussion with participants as a take-away.

In sum, this panel addresses the challenges that many qualitative researchers encounter in practice: how to navigate the complexity of TA and CA? The panel contributes to WCQR’s mission of fostering debate and advancing methodological innovation. It offers participants new insights into the choice process of qualitative analysis methods and may give rise to new perspectives on the use of TA and CA approaches. Also, to enable participants to join an ongoing debate, we will be open to explore collaborations in our current project on TA and CA.