How codes become themes (Part 2) | Generating thematic framework

The central takeaway is that themes don’t emerge from codes in a single “correct” way; they’re shaped by the study’s research questions, and the resulting thematic framework must be immediately understandable to a reader. The shift from codes to themes happens when analysis starts asking, “Which parts of the coded data answer what the study is trying to find?”—including decisions to merge codes, rename them, or delete items that don’t help address the questions.

Using a hypothetical study about mental health access and provision in Saudi Arabia, the analysis begins with a messy middle stage: a set of codes that are partly organized but still unclear. Codes include effects of mental health on social, family, professional, and psychological well-being; obstacles such as stigma, cost of treatment, and lack of knowledge; and “good things” that help, like supportive family, empathetic doctors, friends who can be talked to, and self-education through books or online materials. The key point is that this mixture is common—students often feel stuck—yet it may take only a short, focused restructuring effort to turn codes into a coherent thematic framework.

Before building frameworks, the guidance sets two reader-facing rules. First, the thematic framework must signal what the study is about: by looking at the themes a reader should understand the target of the research. Second, themes must be self-explanatory: theme labels should clarify what they refer to without requiring insider knowledge.

A common failure mode is keeping overly vague labels. “Cost of treatment,” for instance, is treated as a code-level label that doesn’t communicate meaning on its own. Moving it under a broader, reader-friendly theme like “obstacles/negative experiences” makes the framework interpretable. Similarly, “effects” scattered across multiple codes can be consolidated into a single theme such as “effects on mental health,” with sub-themes for social, family, professional, and psychological impacts.

From there, two alternative thematic frameworks are built to demonstrate flexibility—both are considered valid. Version 1 aligns tightly with the research question about improvement: “good things” and supportive experiences are transformed into “ways to improve mental health services and availability.” Participant statements about knowledgeable doctors, supportive family, and self-education are reinterpreted as actionable implications (e.g., ensuring professionals are educated, raising public awareness, and reducing shame). At the same time, items that don’t directly help answer the questions—like “first symptoms” or “history of illness in the family” (in this version)—may be deleted or repurposed.

Version 2 takes a different route. Instead of converting supportive experiences into “ways to improve,” it keeps them as “factors that benefit mental health access and provision,” then categorizes them as internal versus external. External factors include supportive family, empathetic or knowledgeable doctors, and female doctors; internal factors include learning through books/online materials and shifting mindsets away from shame. Version 2 also keeps “history of illness in the family,” treating it as a likely positive influence because prior exposure may reduce stigma and increase acceptance.

Overall, the method emphasizes that theme construction is an interpretive, decision-driven process—guided by research questions, constrained by clarity for readers, and validated by whether the framework supports a coherent discussion of barriers, impacts, and improvement (or enabling factors) in the specific context studied.