Developing a framework for

analysing interviews with

policy makers.
Background: Although there is a small body of literature publishing results
from studies which have used framework analysis, there are few resources
explaining the process of actually developing a framework. Here, I describe the
process I used, which included: identifying key concepts from a literature review,
incorporating concepts from pilot interviews, and iterative development through
the analysis of my interview data.
Aims: To describe the process of developing a framework to analysis data
from semi-structured interviews with policy-makers.
Methods: By drawing on concepts from different sources, and systematically
and iteratively fitting them together, I develop a conceptual framework with
which to analyse, question, and explain qualitative data from a set of semistructured interviews with policy makers.
Results: I present here a clear method to develop a framework for analysing
qualitative data, based on Ritchie and SPencers framework analysis, in an
attempt to show transparently and clearly how the ideas and analysis developed.
Conclusions: Setting out the stages in framework development allows
reflection of how key concepts affected the research process; as well as allowing
the researcher to see how key concepts developed.

1. What is framework analysis

Qualitative data is open to many different types of analysis; the utility and
rigour of most approaches are still hotly debated, and probably contribute to
feelings of uncertainty about the applicability or trustworthiness of qualitative
research for policy and practice. Many approaches are primarily inductive, or
data-driven for example, interpretive or thematic approaches.(1) However,
these approaches are vulnerable to researcher bias, perhaps particularly for lone
researchers. It would be easy to represent the findings subjectively, or cherrypick the data which seems relevant. (the quantitative equivalent would be datamining).
One way to try and overcome these problems is to base qualitative work on a
pre-declared conceptual framework, which makes researcher assumptions clear
a priori, and reminds the researcher to remain objective, and neutral. Unlike
many qualitative approaches, it does not encourage creativity, or theory

development, but is about presenting and explaining the data, and

contradictions in the data. This approach allows the researcher to combine
inductive and deductive approaches. This means that it is easier to escape the
charge of journalism or just reporting what participants say, aggregated into
themes because the process explicitly sets out to ask questions of the data set.
Are these concepts used, or testable from the data? Do participants discuss
things which relate to these concepts, or are they not of concern? Equally,
because the framework can be expanded, it remains flexible to new findings
arising from the interview data, allowing the researcher to systematically capture
new ideas which emerge from the data. This will undoubtedly seem positivist or
empiricist to many qualitative researchers, and others will disagree with the
approach on the grounds that it is too inflexible and pre-defines the terms of
analysis. However, as it remains flexible to emerging themes, the framework
here can function as a reminder and aid. to the researcher, rather than a rigid
tool.
One of the most commonly used analysis methods for policy-applied research
is framework analysis, originally developed by Ritchie and Spencer at NatCen.(2)
They describe a four-stage processes of framework analysis; familiarisation,
identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, mapping and
interpretation. The researcher must listen to and read the research material, and
jot down thoughts related to key ideas themes, and the research process. Once
all reviewed, these notes are used to set up a thematic framework within which
to analyse the data. (2) This is similar to the approach described above. Where
this paper differs from their work is in explicitly developing a framework before
starting the qualitative research, using it to develop an interview tool, and to
organise and analyse the data; rather than using hunches and jottings postinterview, as they describe.(2;3) Although they themselves describe the utility of
explicitly laying out the stages in qualitative analysis, this initial stage of the
development of a thematic framework for analysis explicitly derived from a
conceptual framework has not been described before.

2. The study
The example presented here is drawn from an analysis of semi-structured
interviews with public health policy-makers, which aimed to explore evidence use
in policy making for urban health in the UK. As well as aiming to identify some
journalistic findings around what types of evidence were used, considered
useful, and so on, I also wanted to explore policy makers accounts of the policy
process; events, processes, and how people they interpret the world. For more
details about this project, please see (ADD)

2.1.

Key concepts from literature reviews

Figure 1: Framework using concepts from literature reviews

Key Concept
Sub-concepts
Notes/theory
The policy
Levels of decision
Can testing old
process
making.
models of policy
process, cycles, etc.
and developing own
new theory. Case
studies

Use of evidence

Power and
networks

Uses, cycles and

states, sources.
Barriers and
facilitators, types of
evidence preferred
Elite groups, control
of knowledge

Knowledge
utilisation theory,
diffusion theory.
Network theory,
elite theory

The first step was drawing out some key concepts from literature reviews in the
area. In this case, I drew on a review of urban health policy-making (processes,
actors, theories about power and influence) and a review of evidence-use in
policy-making (barriers and facilitators, models of use, knowledge translation
theories.) I concluded that the in order to cast some light on how policy-makers
form decisions about public health these were the key concepts, summarised in
Figure 1.

2.2.

Concepts from pilot interviews.

Pilot interviews were arranged to finalise my data collection tools, although

there were a number of additional aims. For an account of the process and
impact of these pilot interviews, please see (paper on the topic). Although at the
time I construed the process as identifying which are the right questions to ask,
in retrospect, I was also working out which concepts were related to actors
accounts of the policy process and how this compared with the conceptual
framework I had already developed.
Figure 2: Conceptual framework after the pilot interviews
Key Concept
Sub-concepts
Notes/theory
The policy
Levels of decision
Can testing old
process
making. discretionary
models of policy
activity, defining
process, cycles, etc.
success and
and developing own
failure
new theory. Case
studies
Use of evidence
Uses, cycles and
Knowledge
states, sources.
utilisation theory,
Barriers and
diffusion theory.
facilitators, types of
evidence preferred
Power and
Elite groups, control
Network theory,
networks
of knowledge
elite theory
Leadership
Power, influence
Papers Cecile sent
through networks.
me
Personality,
charisma,
relationships,
reputation.
Public health
Identity? Politicised
nature of research in
the area
Scope of role.

Governance and
context

Structures and
decision-making
bodies. Formal
hierarchies

Include case studies

of specific policies in
the conurbation

Through analysing the notes I took at the time, I developed new topics or
themes. I summarised these notes into a table which clarified what I had learned
about each concept in the framework. I tried to fit these into the original
framework where possible; when it wasnt I collated these notes and arranged
them into topics or themes, adding a new category for the framework where
required. New categories were followed up by reading around the concept in the
literature (e.g. the Leadership category).
The pilot interviews contributed to my understanding of the scope and
context of public health policy-making, which helped me to identify key actors
and think about what types of evidence might be pertinent. They also
demonstrated the importance of governance and structure, and also of
leadership. Key individuals, as a concept and in specific examples, emerged as a
major factor in developing policy, implementing policy, and in softer roles around
finding evidence, influencing people, and managing organisations. These themes
were added to the framework. An interview schedule based on these topics was
developed, which asked about power, influence, evidence use the policy process
(using case studies) and the importance of relationships

2.3.

Concepts from interview data

I used framework above derived from the reviews and scoping interviews as a
starting point for organising the data from the interviews, and also my thoughts
and reflections arising from the different stages of analysis: transcribing,
checking the transcripts, familiarising myself with them, and then coding in
Nvivo. While transcribing the interviews I wrote down notes about themes or
concepts which seemed important or to recur frequently. Again, these were fitted
into the framework or collated into new topics.
Figure 3: Final framework for analysis
Framework
Sub-concepts
section
The policy
Discretionary/creative policy vs discharging day-to-day
process
business
Control of the agenda
What is the
Triggers and drivers. Success, failure. Stages in policy
policy process,
process
what stages,
Case studies.
who is
Politics with a big/small P. Political judgements, values
involved?
Move of public health to local authorities more
politicised?
EvidenceTailoring evidence to different needs
based policy
Types of evidence used, talked about. Difference sources,
what is preferred for different things
Is evidence
What evidence means to different groups (e.g. local data
used, what
vs trials), How it is used, what for.
types, at what
Cycles, stages. Barriers and facilitators.
stages, where

is it from, who
from?

Knowledge brokers: key for influencing, adding

credibility

Roles,
responsibilitie
s and
leadership

Power and influence. Elites? New epistemic community:

managers, not professionals.
Reputation. Personality, charisma, authority. Legitimacy
and credibility
Autonomy of public health directors leadership/
creative policy etc.
Importance of champions.
Policy animateurs, Importance of managers.
Negotiated roles, different non-professional skills
neutrality
Stereotypes and reputation: academics vs PH intelligence
people vs public health people vs policy etc. All have
perceptions about each other.
Scope, range of activity
Include case studies of specific policies in the conurbation
Structures and decision-making bodies. Formal
hierarchies
Levels of decisions-making
Governance: metaphors or terminology used? Checks and
balances. Webs, systems.
Move to local authorities
Identity? Politicised nature of research in the area

Who is
influential/pow
erful? What
does this
mean?

Public health:
governance
and context

Who is
involved?
What are the
networks?
Scope?
Range??
Reorganisation Changes to network responses.
and change
Panels of network data: core actors.
Impact on
networks
The first stage in framework analysis is familiarisation with the data, to gather
key themes or concepts. For me, as I already had several themes, this was a
process of checking my existing framework, adding further categories, or reworking categories and sub-categories. I listened again to all the interviews, and
re-read the transcripts. I used a table to organise my field notes which Id taken
at the time, and analytical notes coming out of the familiarisation process. At the
end of this process, I went over each transcripts field and analysis notes and
compared it with the framework to check emerging and existing concepts,
including substantive ideas about the content of their accounts, the ways
accounts were presented, and other aspects of the research process.
I did this intensively for the first few interviews until I felt could fit all new
concepts into the overall framework, at which point I created the framework
within NVivo and started coding data under these themes. In this way, I
familiarised myself with the data and carried out a lot of the analytical thinking
required for organising and exploring the interview data before using the
CAQDAS. At this point, I had a complete thematic framework with which to
analyse my data.

3. Conclusions

3.1.

Main findings

Setting out the stages in developing a framework for analysis, using a priori and
post-hoc themes shows how it is possible to rigorously combine inductive and
deductive approaches in qualitative data analysis.
My new framework helped me to think constructively about the lived experience
of policy making and evidence use, while drawing on the literature for a sound
theoretical basis for my interviews.

3.2.

Strengths

Ritchie and Spencer describe how this approach can overcome problems
associated with having lots of people in a team, not all of whom would be by
necessity involved in the data collection. This might be true but having an
upfront framework also prevents any prejudices of the lone researcher distorting
the results. In their description in Bryman (1994) they describe indentifying a
thematic framework as a process of taking notes from interview familiarisation,
and jotting down recurrent themes and issues. To me, this seems little different
from a standard thematic analysis, and subject to the same vulnerabilities. Green
and Thorogood say that What moves Framework analysi beyond a sophisticated
thematic analysis I the final stage of looking at the relationships between the
codes.Mapping and interpretation.(1) Although this is true, this paper also
shows how developing a rigorous conceptual framework as part of the process of
analysis also challenges the data and the analyst in ways which are more
sophisticated than a descriptive or inductive thematic analysis. Other studies
using Framework Analysis describe drawing on the interview topic guide to form
the charts. These topics themselves probably are based on concepts from
literature reviews; but this process is not usually explicitly described as above.
Ritchie and Spencer say themselves that because [Framework] is a welldefined procedure, it is possible to reconsider and re-work ideas precisely
because the analytical process has been documented and is therefore
accessible.(2)(p.177) Here, this approach has been taken even more
exhaustively. Applying this framework will allow gaps in data to be identified; for
example, where respondents have not discussed or referred to particular
concepts which are of importance in the literature, this is surely of interest to
researchers in the field perhaps those concepts are irrelevant or out-dated.
Furthermore, it helps the researcher to distinguish between the content (what is
said) from the account (how it is said); in other words, to tease out where
interviewees are positioning or presenting certain images of themselves. This
might not be obvious from a standard thematic analysis, because there, the
analytic process is driven only by the data which is there, which can obscure the
original research questions. Even if only as an aide-memoire, this conceptual
framework approach helps maintain rigour, objectivity and transparency; a factor
which Ritchie and Spencer themselves say could increase use of qualitative
research by policy-makers.

3.3.

Limitations

The framework cannot itself replace imaginative and intuitive thinking on the
part of the researcher, nor can it deal with the positioning of respondents. But it
helps the researcher to prepare in thinking about it.

As the framework states what themes are from early in the research process, the
researcher risks t only looking for in the data for themes which are in framework
already; or biasing herself towards those themes. But systematically dealing with
all the data should address this. In all likelihood, all qualitative researchers
approach their qualitative analysis with a priori assumptions and concepts or
questions already in mind. This framework helps to make those aspects of the
research process explicit.
Reference List
(1)

Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative Methods for Health Research. SAGE; 2009.

(2)

Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In:
Bryman A, Burgess R, editors. Analyzing Qualitative Data.London:
Routledge; 1999.

(3)

Analyzing Qualtative Data. 4th ed. London: Routledge; 1999.