Thematic analysis frameworks, explained simply

The five frameworks at a glance

Reflexive thematic analysis

The all-rounder. You read your data, tag anything interesting, then group those tags into themes that make a point. It expects you to bring your own judgement rather than pretend the themes were just sitting there.

Reach for it when: Most student projects, especially interviews and open survey answers.

A quick example: Coding student interviews about exam stress, then building a theme like “stress spikes when feedback arrives late”.

Read the source: Braun & Clarke (2006)

Thematic synthesis

Built for combining what several studies already found, rather than analysing raw data. You code the findings of each paper, group them into descriptive themes, then push to analytical themes that say something new across the whole set.

Reach for it when: Systematic reviews and literature reviews that pool multiple studies.

A quick example: Pulling ten papers on remote work and drawing out a theme none stated alone.

Read the source: Thomas & Harden (2008)

Framework analysis

The organised one. You build a grid: themes down the side, cases across the top, and you fill in the cells. It keeps a large project tidy and lets a team see who said what at a glance.

Reach for it when: Health and policy research, and any project with a team or clear questions up front.

A quick example: Charting patient interviews against set topics like access, cost, and trust.

Read the source: Gale et al. (2013)

Grounded theory

The theory-builder. Instead of describing patterns, you keep comparing pieces of data until concepts and categories emerge, working bottom-up toward an explanation of how something happens.

Reach for it when: Studies aiming to explain a process, not just describe experiences.

A quick example: Explaining how first-year students gradually build a sense of belonging.

Read the source: Chun Tie et al. (2019)

Qualitative content analysis

The most descriptive. You sort content into categories and often note how often each shows up. It stays close to the surface meaning and reads like a structured summary.

Reach for it when: When you want a clear, countable category system more than deep interpretation.

A quick example: Grouping open feedback into categories and reporting how common each was.

Read the source: Hsieh & Shannon (2005)

Which one should you choose?

If you are not sure, this shortlist covers almost every case:

• Analysing your own interviews or survey answers? Start with reflexive thematic analysis. It is the default for a reason, and our full Braun & Clarke guide walks through every phase.
• Pulling together findings from many papers? Use thematic synthesis. See synthesising findings across studies.
• Working in a team with set questions? Framework analysis keeps everyone charting the same grid.
• Trying to explain a process? Grounded theory builds toward that explanation.
• Just want a tidy category count? Qualitative content analysis stays descriptive and close to the surface.

Still deciding between letting codes surface and applying a fixed scheme? That choice sits underneath every framework here, and inductive vs. deductive coding unpacks it. For the method in general, start with what thematic analysis is.

Try any of them on your own data

The analysis tool on this site runs all five frameworks. You pick one, paste your findings, and it codes and clusters them in that framework's own language — codes and themes for reflexive TA, index codes and charts for framework analysis, concepts and categories for grounded theory. The first three studies are free, so you can try a framework before committing to it in your methods section. New to the tool? Here is how to use it.