thematic analysis | how to present the results

A results chapter built from thematic analysis should be organized around a clear thematic framework shown to readers early, then unfolded theme-by-theme with evidence and interpretation. The central rule is straightforward but often missed: readers need to see the framework—usually in a table or diagram—within the first few minutes, before the narrative moves into individual themes. From there, the chapter should cycle through the main themes (typically separate sections), with each section introducing the theme briefly, then grounding it in data extracts (quotes) and follow-up interpretation.

Order matters less than coherence. Instead of arranging themes strictly by frequency or by which participant discussed them most, the chapter should follow a story that makes sense. A practical way to achieve that flow is to imagine explaining the findings to someone else—at a conference, to a friend, or to family—and ask what would come first for comprehension. If starting with one theme forces too many references to themes the reader hasn’t met yet, it’s better to begin with a different theme that provides context, then return later. The guiding principle is common sense: the sequence should feel understandable and readable, not mechanically “correct.”

Within each theme section, the structure should stay consistent: define the theme, present evidence, and interpret what that evidence means. Evidence in qualitative work is primarily extracts—participant quotes—used to show how the theme appears across the dataset. A key mistake is treating the section like an exhaustive walkthrough of one participant after another. Instead, the focus stays on the theme: move across participants as needed to strengthen the point, but avoid exhausting a single interviewee’s data before moving on. The approach can vary by research design—participant-centered structures may be more acceptable in ethnography or detailed case studies—but the default remains theme-centered.

Presentation format is flexible, with no universal rule that tables, models, or visuals must be used. Still, tables are strongly recommended for summarizing the thematic framework at the start. A good table can include theme names, definitions, coding frequency or strength (if relevant), and sometimes example extracts. Visual tools can complement the table: simple diagrams or models are useful when relationships between themes matter, but they shouldn’t be forced when the topic is straightforward. Audience preferences also matter; some readers find models easier to grasp than text, while others struggle with them.

The transcript illustrates these choices through a published mixed-methods study on English Medium Instruction (EMI), funded by the British Council, where qualitative results were analyzed thematically. Different presentation tools were used depending on what needed to be communicated. For “approaches to EMI,” results were discussed in text rather than modeled because relationships weren’t the focus. For “driving forces,” the theme was handled similarly because responses were limited and fairly consistent. For “attitudes,” complexity increased: advantages were organized into a model, while challenges were presented using both a table and a model. The study also used tables to show differences across groups (students, content teachers, and EAP staff) and even included percentages of interview data tied to advantages versus challenges to signal relative emphasis. When the analysis moved into more specific sub-challenges (e.g., language-related versus institutional), the presentation returned to text-only sections.

Overall, the results chapter becomes a navigable narrative: show the framework early, keep each theme section theme-focused with selective extracts and interpretation, and choose visuals only when they add clarity for the reader and fit the nature of the themes.