How to Report Thematic Analysis

The session focuses on reporting the results of thematic analysis, outlining core principles, structuring findings effectively, and applying best practices. The goal is to provide insights into presenting qualitative research results, especially from thematic analysis, in a way that engages the reader.

According to Christancho Watling and Lingard (2021), key principles for reporting qualitative results include scientific storytelling, authenticity, and argumentation. Scientific storytelling means presenting findings in an evocative, novel, and memorable way without embellishments. Evocative means captivating and resonating; novel means offering fresh perspectives, not just groundbreaking discoveries; and memorable means the story should stand out to the reader.

To ensure scientific storytelling, consider the opening statement or paragraph of the report. This section should lay out the 'big picture' before diving into specific themes and quotes. Using metaphors and integrating short, impactful quotations can make the opening more engaging. Alternatively, visual learners can use diagrams or conceptual models to show the relationships between themes, making complex information easier to understand without extensive text.

Another storytelling approach is to center the discussion on one key theme, especially if it serves as a core category among several identified themes. This helps advance the narrative meaningfully, provided there's sufficient data to support it. An example is a study focusing on 'threshold of principle and preference' as a core category, with subsequent discussions revolving around it.

Authenticity in reporting involves selecting quotes that explicitly illustrate the point being made, rather than implying it. Quotes should be direct and representative. Shortening long quotes by extracting key phrases and integrating them into sentences or using ellipses to cut irrelevant parts can enhance readability. Grammatical corrections or additions to quotes can be signaled using square brackets, maintaining the original thought while improving clarity.

For extensive quotes, tables can be used to present 'proof codes' (additional supporting evidence), while 'power quotes' (most impactful ones) are integrated into the narrative. This shortens the report without compromising authenticity. When including quotes from multiple participants, especially in focus group discussions, ensure representativeness by quoting various individuals or an exchange among participants, rather than solely relying on a few articulate ones.

To clearly present an argument supported by a quote, integrate it grammatically and rhetorically. The colon is the default mechanism to separate the researcher's interpretation from the participant's quote. Balancing interpretation and quotation can be achieved by providing more context before and after the quote, often referred to as the 'quotation sandwich' method. Avoid using multiple quotations to support a single point if they convey similar meanings; only use more if they add new layers or nuances.

An example from a study on shame experienced by medical students demonstrates effective reporting. The researchers used a metaphor of fire in their opening to set the stage and defined key themes like 'shame triggers' and 'shame promoters' using this metaphor consistently. They provided illustrative quotes in the narrative and grouped additional supporting quotes in tables, making the report concise and impactful. They also included narratives from participants to present the findings creatively.

Another example illustrates reporting themes in a narrative way, where themes are interconnected and tell a cohesive story. This study on research culture development in teacher education institutions presented six overarching themes as 'milestones' (gestation, expansion, maturation). Instead of quoting extensively, they listed participants who supported specific arguments within the narrative, using just one illustrative quote. The conclusion weaves all themes together to answer the research question dynamically.

Avoid common pitfalls such as failing to analyze data, using research questions as themes, presenting weak or unconvincing analyses, excessive overlap between themes, or mismatches between data/theory and analytical claims. A checklist from Bron and Clark is provided to guide researchers in ensuring the quality of their thematic analysis, covering aspects like transcription accuracy, comprehensive coding, theme coherence, and proper interpretation.

Participants are tasked to develop a compelling opening paragraph or a clear visual diagram based on provided data, introducing and contextualizing key themes. They also need to construct a well-organized outline for the rest of the report, detailing how each theme will be explored and supported by qualitative data.

Participants share their outputs from the activity. One participant presented an opening paragraph that seamlessly connected themes about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PhD students, emphasizing accessibility, flexibility, opportunities, and challenges. Another participant provided a similar narrative-driven opening, highlighting the unexpected positive aspects of online learning despite challenges. The discussion emphasizes the diverse ways qualitative data can be presented to tell a compelling story, even with the same data set.

Questions about reporting mixed-methods research are addressed, suggesting that the opening statement should align with the study's sequence and emphasis (quantitative or qualitative). Announcements are made for upcoming sessions on analyzing, interpreting, and reporting descriptive quantitative data, and information on certificates and lecture materials is provided. The session concludes with appreciation for participant engagement.