Thematic analysis and grounded theory are both qualitative research methods for analyzing data, but they differ significantly in purpose, approach, and outcomes.

1. Purpose and Outcome:Thematic analysis is primarily used for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data without necessarily aiming to develop a theory. It is generally applied to organize and interpret datasets, emphasizing patterns across participants or data sets rather than generating a new theoretical framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Grounded theory, on the other hand, aims to develop a theory that is grounded in the data itself. Researchers conducting grounded theory analysis seek to explain processes, actions, or interactions in a specific context by systematically generating codes and categories that eventually culminate in a conceptual framework (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

2. Approach and Data Collection:Thematic analysis is more flexible regarding data collection; it does not require specific methods and can be applied across various data sources (e.g., interviews, focus groups, and documents). The analysis is typically conducted in stages, including familiarization with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes, and producing the final report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In contrast, grounded theory relies on a more structured, iterative process called constant comparative analysis, where data collection and analysis occur simultaneously. Data collection continues until theoretical saturation is reached, meaning no new information emerges, and the emerging theory is stable and well-defined (Charmaz, 2006).

3. Coding and Analysis Process:In thematic analysis, coding is generally more flexible and straightforward. Codes are developed based on emerging themes that reflect the research questions rather than aiming to construct a theory (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Grounded theory involves a more complex coding process, including open, axial, and selective coding stages. The open coding stage involves identifying concepts and categories in the data. During axial coding, these categories are interconnected, and selective coding synthesizes these connections to develop a cohesive theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

In summary, while thematic analysis focuses on organizing and interpreting themes within data, grounded theory is an in-depth, theory-generating approach that involves systematic coding to build a new theoretical model based on observed patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2006).

References:

• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Publications.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction.

Skipping over Johanes Okumu cut and paste from an AI, I would say that biggest difference is that GT emphasizes the simultaneous combination of data collection and data analysis, while TA consists only of data analysis procedures that occurs after the data collection is completed.

Beyond that, the "categories" generated by GT are not that different from the "themes" generated by TA.

Generating themes is far different than generating theory. There are connections between theories and themes, but they are not identical--far from it in definition, construction, and purpose.

David C. Coker My understanding is that GT aims to produced theoretically oriented categories. in practice, these are often hard to tell apart from themes.

I personally think of theory as systematic connections among concepts, and ever when it is appropriately limited to substance-oriented theories, most GT falls short of this standard.

David L Morgan I think you are sometimes correct, but I also agree with Braun and Clarke’s complaint that many write themes as summaries, underdeveloped, and categories. I think themes sometimes are much more narrower than theories. I think many theories suffer from the same problem. Well-developed themes could have an overlap, but I see much more of Braun/Clarke’s lamentations than otherwise.

I agree with Prof. Morgan. While thematic analysis is used only for analyzing data, GT is used through out data collection and analysis. It involves theoritical sampling and constant comparison. Therefore, data collection and data analysis happen simultaneously.