Phases of thematic content analysis
| Phases | First investigator | Second investigator |
|---|---|---|
| Familiarizing with the data | Read the entire dataset twice (n = 10 semi-structured interviews) and extracted relevant segments of verbatims (n = 375) into an Excel sheet file | Read the 375 segments of the relevant selected verbatims from the first investigator’s Excel sheet file |
| Generating initial codes | Entered codes and interrogations in a separate datasheet. For instance, the code “T1” was given for Mindfulness processes that referred to the self, and “T2” for processes referring to the others, to form coding paradigms of self-related processes | Entered codes and interrogations in a separate datasheet. For instance, the codes “Action” or “Inaction” were attributed to form coding paradigms of change. Question marks were added when unsure |
| Searching for themes | Collated codes into themes and subthemes and regrouped all data from each code (e.g. all T1 codes were gathered along with their subthemes) | Collated codes into themes and subthemes and regrouped all data from each code (e.g. all “Inaction” codes were gathered along with their subthemes) |
| Reviewing themes | Checked if the themes fitted with the coded verbatims and aligned the entire data set, and generated a first thematic map with three (3) dominant themes | Checked if the themes fitted with the coded verbatims and aligned the entire data set, and generated a first thematic map with four (4) dominant themes |
| Defining and naming themes | Refined the specifics of each theme and subthemes, and generated clear definitions and names for each theme (e.g., defined “Evolution of the Sense of Self” as a progression where the participant described an improvement in their conceptual self, such as more self-efficacy) | Refined the specifics of each theme and subthemes, and generated clear definitions and names for each theme (e.g., defined “Outcomes” as a progression where the participants described the consequences of the practice, such as self-regulation) |
| Triangulating and producing the report | Compared both thematic maps, reviewed the labels and definitions, merged the two Excel sheets | |
| Negotiated and argued over each theme and subtheme to keep just one label of each kind. For instance, Investigator 1 agreed to create Theme 4 “Negative aspects”, following the coding paradigm “Action/Inaction” of Investigator 2, instead of creating “change” and “no change” subthemes into each theme. Investigator 2 agreed to label themes in terms of “Evolution of” and subthemes in terms of processes | ||
| Decided on the final themes and subthemes and calculated the proportions for each | ||
| Maintained the theme “Miscellaneous” for two ambiguous segments | ||
| Phases | First investigator | Second investigator |
|---|---|---|
| Familiarizing with the data | Read the entire dataset twice ( | Read the 375 segments of the relevant selected verbatims from the first investigator’s Excel sheet file |
| Generating initial codes | Entered codes and interrogations in a separate datasheet. For instance, the code “T1” was given for Mindfulness processes that referred to the self, and “T2” for processes referring to the others, to form coding paradigms of self-related processes | Entered codes and interrogations in a separate datasheet. For instance, the codes “Action” or “Inaction” were attributed to form coding paradigms of change. Question marks were added when unsure |
| Searching for themes | Collated codes into themes and subthemes and regrouped all data from each code (e.g. all T1 codes were gathered along with their subthemes) | Collated codes into themes and subthemes and regrouped all data from each code (e.g. all “Inaction” codes were gathered along with their subthemes) |
| Reviewing themes | Checked if the themes fitted with the coded verbatims and aligned the entire data set, and generated a first thematic map with three (3) dominant themes | Checked if the themes fitted with the coded verbatims and aligned the entire data set, and generated a first thematic map with four (4) dominant themes |
| Defining and naming themes | Refined the specifics of each theme and subthemes, and generated clear definitions and names for each theme (e.g., defined “Evolution of the Sense of Self” as a progression where the participant described an improvement in their conceptual self, such as more self-efficacy) | Refined the specifics of each theme and subthemes, and generated clear definitions and names for each theme (e.g., defined “Outcomes” as a progression where the participants described the consequences of the practice, such as self-regulation) |
| Triangulating and producing the report | Compared both thematic maps, reviewed the labels and definitions, merged the two Excel sheets | |
| Negotiated and argued over each theme and subtheme to keep just one label of each kind. For instance, Investigator 1 agreed to create Theme 4 “Negative aspects”, following the coding paradigm “Action/Inaction” of Investigator 2, instead of creating “change” and “no change” subthemes into each theme. Investigator 2 agreed to label themes in terms of “Evolution of” and subthemes in terms of processes | ||
| Decided on the final themes and subthemes and calculated the proportions for each | ||
| Maintained the theme “Miscellaneous” for two ambiguous segments | ||
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.