Coding vs. Theming: A tale of two approaches...
Hello Qualitative Mind,
I was recently reviewing a former mentee’s manuscript and made the following comment on the document, “You did content analysis and often use the word ‘theme’ in your methods and results. FYI…it’s possible reviewers will question your approach to data analysis, and that’s okay. We can work on a response and some references to back it up.”
And I meant it. We could work on a response without removing every single mention of “themes” in the manuscript. Today we’ll talk about how coding and theming might be interpreted, and where the confusion between the two terms start.
Coding: What are codes and how do we code?
We do it by highlighting words or sections in the data and also by using the comments that we make in relation to the data. Janice Morse describes coding as labeling, and as we code we link the labels we are creating. To me, codes are highly descriptive and mirror (i.e., stay close to) the data.
In order to better explain coding, I need to move to theming and use some quotes from the literature that I absolutely love because they make the difference between coding and theming so clear.
Theming: From Saldaña's book The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers…
“A theme is an outcome of coding, categorization, and analytic reflection, not something that is, in itself, coded.”
So codes come from the data/pieces of data as they are found in their original place of existence; whereas a theme is an outcome of coding and something that has an element of reflection and interpretation from the researcher.
Also from Saldaña, “Overall, a theme is an extended phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about and/or what it means" (2016, p. 199). I want you to notice that Saldaña says it is an extended phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about and what it means but it's not necessarily the unit of data.
This makes me jump to the idea of “usable” qualitative health research that comes from a paper written by Sandelowski and Leeman entitled “Writing usable qualitative health research findings.” {And this is the reference I told my former mentee to use if she had to respond to reviewers’ comments} I think I can safely say we all want our qualitative research findings to be useful, and in the paper Sandelowski and Leeman discuss three strategies to enhance usability of qualitative health research findings. The very first is to use thematic sentences and synthesis.
I believe thematic sentences and synthesis are necessary even when conducting content analysis (and mainly coding/categorizing versus theming). What does this mean? It means there is a level of interpretation and theming in all approaches to qualitative data analysis, and Sandelowski and Leeman seem to agree with me. They go further by saying that without thematic sentences, qualitative research findings risk losing their utility and practical application.
So the question remains, are codes and themes different? Yes, they’re different.
Yet it’s not wrong, and arguably is necessary, to engage in some level of theming even if your approach to qualitative data analysis is more descriptive {through coding and categorizing}. Theming is one of the ways to seek “usability” and applicability in qualitative research, especially in health research. Inside Qualitative Research Blueprint (QRB) I teach other strategies too, and very soon you’ll be able to register for the course (registration opens on March 9th, 2021- join the waitlist here).
Don’t miss this incredible opportunity to learn more about how to design, conduct and write usable, impactful and publishable qualitative research!
Talk soon,
Maira