Introduction to thematic coding
Researchers who work with interviews, focus groups, or open-ended survey responses often employ thematic coding to turn large volumes of narrative data into patterns they can test against research questions. Thematic coding labels meaningful segments with succinct tags, setting the stage for cross case comparison and clear reporting.
If you’ve ever worked with interviews, focus groups, or open-ended survey responses, you know how quickly narrative data piles up. Thematic coding helps you make sense of it all by tagging key pieces of text with short labels—so you can spot patterns, compare across cases, and answer your research questions with confidence.
Doing this by hand? It’s possible, but slow. That’s where purpose-built software comes in. Qualitative data analysis tools like NVivo and ATLAS.ti keep your codes organized, track every decision you make, and even generate visuals to help you see connections in the data that might otherwise stay hidden.
In this guide, we’ll walk through the logic of thematic coding, clarify how it differs from full thematic analysis, and show how qualitative data analysissoftware can support each step. If you are still weighing options for qualitative data analysis platforms, Lumivero’s overview of QDA software offers a concise starting point.
What is thematic coding in qualitative analysis?
Thematic coding is probably one of the first approaches to qualitative coding that you will learn as a qualitative researcher. But what does it entail? Let's look at some of the basics in this section.
Thematic coding is the practice of tagging passages of qualitative data—sentences, turns of talk, or entire paragraphs—with short labels that capture their main idea. Each label, or “code,” represents a theme that the researcher is tracking. By assigning the same code to segments that address a similar concept, the analyst builds a bridge from raw language to patterns that can be counted, compared, and illustrated.
The process is deliberately iterative. Researchers read and reread transcripts, memos, or field notes, updating codes as they notice fresh nuances. Some research teams begin with a provisional list drawn from theory; others generate codes directly from the data. Either way, consistency grows as coders check agreement and refine the codebook. Attride-Stirling’s thematic network model shows how basic codes can be clustered into organizing themes and, eventually, into an overarching map of meaning.
Coding also lays the groundwork for queries and visualizations in software. Once coded, segments can be retrieved on demand, cross tabulated with demographics, or mapped to show cooccurrence. These operations add a level of transparency that is difficult to achieve when coding is done with highlighters or spreadsheets. The structure established through systematic coding supports nuanced comparison and clear explanation of findings.
Definition and key features of coding qualitative data
Thematic coding is the systematic assignment of descriptive labels to stretches of qualitative data so they can later be grouped and compared. A code condenses the meaning of a passage into a concise tag such as peer feedback or time pressure. Codes sit in a codebook that records the label, a clear definition, typical examples, and inclusion–exclusion rules. Hierarchical organization lets broad domains branch into specific facets, keeping the list manageable.
Coding styles vary: some projects apply deductive codes drawn from theory, others work inductively, naming concepts that emerge only after initial reading. Most studies end up with 30–80 active codes.
Why is qualitative data coding important for research
Narrative datasets often contain thousands of sentences spread across interviews, open-ended surveys, or observational notes. Without an organizing scheme, analysts risk selective attention. Coding imposes order that links each claim to explicit evidence. Because every tagged segment can be traced back to its source, collaborators—and later, peer reviewers—can inspect how interpretations were built.
The routine of revisiting coded material also supports reflexivity: researchers regularly ask whether their labels still match the language of participants instead of forcing the data into fixed boxes. Harvard Library’s guide to qualitative analysis summarizes accepted checkpoints for maintaining such rigor.
How coding works in qualitative data analysis
Researches typically begin with a familiarization read to mark passages that appear relevant. If there are multiple researchers, the team then meets to translate those highlights into draft codes and agree on segmentation rules.
A short trial round follows; coders apply the draft scheme to a subset of cases, compare results, and refine definitions. Once agreement reaches an acceptable threshold—often using statistical measures such as Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient the remaining data are coded. Analysts then retrieve coded segments, cluster them into candidate themes, and test those themes against additional cases while writing memos that capture analytic decisions.
Benefits of thematic coding and a reliable codebook
A well-maintained codebook transforms narrative data into a searchable matrix. Researchers can pull every instance, for example, of workload stress, compare its frequency by role, and see which other codes frequently co-occur.
Qualitative data analysis software (QDA) adds further value with queries, code hierarchies, word trees, and network diagrams that prompt new questions. The digital audit trail also supports method sections and reproducibility requirements set by journals and funders. For a practical walkthrough that shows how consistent coding leads to clear findings, see our guide on perfecting the art of qualitative coding.
What are examples of thematic coding
Thematic coding has been applied to numerous fields of qualitative research within the social sciences. Let’s imagine a couple of fictional examples that show how thematic coding can be used in research.
Student reflections on collaborative learning
In this first thematic coding example, an education researcher asked first-year university students to write short reflections after each group project. The corpus contained 120 reflections (about 45,000 words).
During coding, sentences that highlighted how teams functioned were marked with labels such as unequal workload, helpful feedback, role clarity, and time pressure. Once all reflections were coded, the researcher grouped related labels under broader themes—fairness of contribution, quality of peer support, and deadline management.
Queries then showed, for example, that comments on unequal workload appeared in 76 % of reflections that also mentioned deadline management, suggesting a link worth probing in later interviews.
Patient narratives of chronic pain management
In this second example, a public health team collected 30 in-depth interviews with adults living with chronic back pain. Transcripts were coded with labels like trial-and-error medication, daily pacing strategies, doctor–patient disagreement, and social isolation.
The team mapped these codes into themes that captured distinct aspects of self-management: medical negotiation, lifestyle adaptation, and emotional coping. A query revealed that social isolation co-occurred most often with medical negotiation, pointing to how communication challenges may amplify feelings of being alone with the condition. A recently published step-by-step guide to thematic analysis in the International Journal of Qualitative Methods outlines how such theme development strengthens conceptual models in qualitative health research.
How the qualitative data is coded
In both qualitative research studies, coding began with open reading to draft preliminary labels, followed by a calibration round where two analysts compared their code choices and refined definitions until agreement was acceptable. Analysts then applied the revised codebook to the full dataset, used software queries to pull all passages tagged with specific codes, and wrote analytic memos to record why segments fit certain labels.
NVivo’s suggest code fature can accelerate the coding processes. Researchers would start by reading and coding for broad topic areas – these are easy coding decisions. Then they can use the suggest code feature to generate finer code for each broad topic area. Users can accept or reject the suggestions. Analysts can still decide final lables, but automation surfaces patterns quickly and flags text may otherwise be missed. After coding, NVivo’s cross-tab query can compare themes across participant attributes, while visualizations such as mind maps and concept maps help teams explain their findings.
What is the difference between the thematic analysis process and thematic coding?
Before choosing a workflow or thematic analysis coding software, researchers often ask whether “thematic analysis” and “thematic coding” are interchangeable terms. They are related but not identical: coding is one operation within the larger cycle of analyzing qualitative data, while thematic analysis covers everything from initial familiarization to writing up findings.
Understanding that relationship helps research teams plan schedules, allocate tasks, and report methods accurately.
Thematic analysis overview
Thematic analysis is a flexible strategy for interpreting qualitative data. After reading the corpus, analysts generate an initial code set, search for patterns, review those patterns against the data, define coherent themes, and write the narrative that links themes to research questions.
The approach can be purely inductive, theory driven, or a blend of both, and it scales from small classroom projects to multisite studies. Each phase builds on the last, so clear records of coding and theme development are critical.
Thematic coding as a step in thematic analysis
Thematic coding sits in the second phase of this broader process of qualitative data analysis. It assigns concise labels to meaningful segments—sentences, clauses, or longer passages—so that analysts can later group similar segments and gauge frequency or cooccurrence. Good coding practice includes a transparent codebook, periodic checks for intercoder agreement, and memo writing to capture analytic decisions. Coding transforms raw language into organized evidence that supports later theme construction, cross-case comparison, and visual queries in software.
Key differences between data coding and thematic analysis
- Scope: Coding handles unit-by-unit tagging; thematic analysis moves from those tags to higher-level interpretation and reporting.
- Outputs: Coding produces a codebook and a coded dataset; thematic analysis yields named themes, supporting excerpts, and an explanatory story.
- Decisions required: Coding focuses on inclusion rules and segment boundaries; thematic analysis requires judgments about which codes cluster together, how themes relate, and what they mean for the research questions.
- Time frame: Coding is intensive but time-bounded; thematic analysis spans the whole project, often looping back to recode data when emerging themes prompt new questions.
What software can be used for thematic coding, and how does it help with reviewing themes?
Purpose-built qualitative data analysis software streamline every step of coding qualitative data, from first code to final theme. They keep transcripts, code lists, memos, and visuals in one place, reducing file juggling and easing audits.
While general purpose tools can handle small datasets, dedicated QDA software scales more smoothly when projects involve multiple coders, mixed media, or external reviewers.
Introduction to qualitative data analysis software
Qualitative data analysis programs let researchers highlight a segment of text, audio, or video and assign one or more codes with a click or shortcut. Each assignment is stored with a time stamp and user ID, creating a searchable record. Code hierarchies, color cues, and memo fields help teams keep track of lofty categories and their granular subcodes.
Built-in queries then retrieve passages by code, cross-tabulate them by participant attribute, and export matrices for further statistics or visualization. Most platforms also provide charts—code maps, word trees, and Sankey diagrams—that show cooccurrence patterns at a glance.
Detailed review of NVivo and ATLAS.ti
When it comes to thematic coding, NVivo and ATLAS.ti are two of the most widely trusted tools out there—both built to handle complex qualitative data and streamline every step of the process.
NVivo supports Windows and macOS projects stored locally or in the cloud. It imports documents, PDFs, web pages, spreadsheets, and social media captures, and can sync with NVivo Transcription.
Coding with NVivo is fast: users can drag a phrase to a code or apply keyboard shortcuts. The software’s Cross-tab Query cross-tabulates codes with variables such as gender or site, while crosstab visualizations flag where themes cluster across cases. Collaboration features include project merge tools, code-by-code comparison charts, and a full action log for audits.
ATLAS.ti offers desktop, web, and mobile interfaces that share the same file format. Users can code text, video, and geodata, then build network views linking codes, documents, and memos. The CoOccurrence Explorer ranks code pairs by frequency, and the Code–Document Table summarizes coverage across participants. A project-level version history lets supervisors roll back changes or inspect who edited what. For mixed methods research, ATLAS.ti exports to SPSS, R, and Microsoft Excel.
Other software to consider
MAXQDA and QDA Miner provide coding, querying, and visualization features, with a focus on integration. MAXQDA’s Stats module lets users run descriptive and inferential statistics within the same project, while QDA Miner links directly to WordStat for content analysis.
Webbased tools such as Dedoose and Quirkos can appeal to small teams that need low-cost subscriptions and real-time collaboration in a browser. Plugins for Office 365 or Google Workspace add light coding features to familiar environments, though they cannot look across all your data or explore relationships between your codes. General-purpose spreadsheets and note apps remain an option for pilot studies but falter once multiple coders or large media files enter the mix.
What are the step-by-step stages of thematic coding using software?
Organized coding follows a repeatable sequence from data intake to final theme reports. Software automates clerical tasks, but the researcher still decides how codes are defined and applied. The stages below assume work in NVivo or ATLAS.ti; each example shows how these programs support clear, auditable decisions.
Prepare and import your data
Clean transcripts, field notes, or social media exports so speaker turns and metadata are separated. In NVivo, a spreadsheet with columns for participant ID and demographic variables can be linked to each transcript during import. ATLAS.ti lets users attach document groups at the same step, ensuring attributes are ready for later crosstabs.
Audio and video files can be imported directly in NVivo. Select – Transcription – to let NVivo transcription automatically transcribe your file, and the transcribed file will automatically be synched to your audio/video file.
ATLAS.ti also has an automatic transcription feature.
Build an initial codebook
Draft concept labels drawn from theory, prior studies, or research questions. NVivo’s Codes view lets you create parent and child nodes, add definitions, and note inclusion rules. ATLAS.ti’s Code Manager offers the same features, with comments fields for explanations and examples. Because the codebook lives inside the project file, every coder sees current descriptions.
Conduct an exploratory (open) coding pass
Read through a subset of material, tagging segments that look relevant even if they do not fit draft labels. NVivo supports in-context coding via shortcut keys as well as drag and drop; ATLAS.ti handles the same through drag-and-drop capabilities while coding. Analysts can flag uncertain passages with a query note or a temporary code such as “check meaning.”
Calibrate coder agreement and refine definitions
Select several transcripts, code them independently, then run an agreement check. NVivo’s Coding Comparison query calculates Cohen’s Kappa Coefficitent by code; ATLAS.ti’s Intercoder Agreement tool shows overlap percentages in a sortable table. Discuss mismatches, merge similar labels, and adjust examples until agreement reaches the target level.
Apply codes across the full dataset
With definitions stabilized, assign codes to every document. Work in small batches to avoid fatigue. Both programs track coder initials, time stamps, and coverage so supervisors can monitor progress. Autosave routines protect against data loss.
Run queries and visual checks for patterns
When coding is complete, query functions retrieve passages that match combinations of codes or participant attributes. In NVivo, you might cross-tabulate workload stress by job role; ATLAS.ti’s Code–Document Analysis achieves the same. Word clouds, code trees, and network diagrams reveal dense clusters that may signal emerging themes.
Group related codes into provisional themes
Cluster single codes under broader ideas. In NVivo you can create a higher-level code and drag related children beneath it. ATLAS.ti users often build a Network view linking codes and attached memos that describe the thematic logic. Brief memos explain why specific codes belong together.
Review, redefine, and lock the final themes
Return to the data, test each provisional theme against uncoded excerpts, and split or merge as needed. When the structure feels stable, flag the top-level nodes as “Final” in NVivo or lock them in ATLAS.ti’s Code Manager to prevent accidental edits. Generate a coverage report to confirm that each theme draws evidence from multiple cases.
Document decisions and export results
Archive the audit trail by exporting the codebook, coding reports, and memos. Both NVivo and ATLAS.ti allow users to export all aspects of their project for use in other software. Export a coding matrix to share with quantitative colleagues or deposit anonymized excerpts in a data repository. Detailed notes on why codes changed over time preserve transparency and help future readers follow how interpretations were built.
Ready to streamline your thematic coding?
Whether you’re just starting out or looking to sharpen your workflow, having the right tools can save hours and strengthen your findings. Lumivero’s NVivo and ATLAS.ti make it easier to code, query, and visualize your data, all while maintaining the transparency and rigor your thematic coding approach demands.
Want to see Lumivero's research software in action?
Request a free demo with our sales team and find the right solution for your research goals.