theoretical-coding

# Theoretical Coding and Glaser’s Coding Families **Substantive coding** names **what** is going on (categories and their properties). **Theoretical coding** specifies **how categories relate** to one another in a multivariate model—integrating the substantive story into **hypothetical relationships** (e.g., under certain conditions, certain strategies emerge, leading to certain consequences). In classic grounded theory, theoretical codes are **not** a prefabricated cage. They are **delicate** devices applied as your substantive structure **matures**—often more prominently during **selective coding** and **sorting/writing**. --- ## When to use theoretical coding Use theoretical coding when you can already articulate: - A plausible **core category** - Several **related major categories** with comparative support - A need to **integrate** relationships into a coherent **theoretical outline** Avoid premature integration: if substantive categories still **shift wildly** week-to-week, focus on **comparison and memoing** first. --- ## Glaser’s eighteen coding families (definitions + examples) Below is the widely used family set attributed to Glaser’s elaboration of **theoretical codes** as integrative patterns. Names may vary slightly across secondary sources; keep definitions **analytic**, not decorative. ### 1. Causes **Definition**: Explanatory links—why something happens or becomes likely. **Example**: “Burnout escalates **because** accountability visibility increases without control affordances.” ### 2. Contexts **Definition**: Situational backdrops that embed actions (settings, arenas, fields). **Example**: “Tactics differ in **startup** vs **bureaucratic** contexts.” ### 3. Contingencies **Definition**: Relational dependencies; if/then patterns; “it depends” structures. **Example**: “Disclosure timing **depends on** perceived psychological safety.” ### 4. Covariances **Definition**: Co-movement—two categories vary together without asserting mechanism. **Example**: “As autonomy rises, ritual checking **tends to** increase—**covaries** (mechanism TBD).” ### 5. Consequences **Definition**: Outcomes, aftermaths, ripple effects—intended and unintended. **Example**: “Framing-as-experiment **reduces** immediate conflict but **delays** resource commitment.” ### 6. Dimensions **Definition**: Properties on a range (e.g., low–high; public–private). **Example**: “Risk framing varies along **directness** and **reversibility** dimensions.” ### 7. Strategies (means) **Definition**: Deliberate lines of action; tactics; problem-solving moves. **Example**: “Participants **stage** legitimacy through incremental proofs.” ### 8. Interaction **Definition**: Mutual influence among actors/groups; reciprocity; role-taking. **Example**: “Managers and reports **co-produce** plausible deniability.” ### 9. Consensus **Definition**: Agreement/disagreement processes; alignment; negotiation of shared meanings. **Example**: “Teams **surface** consensus only after **testing** dissent privately.” ### 10. Contractual (implicit/explicit) **Definition**: Obligations, expectations, reciprocity norms, “deals.” **Example**: “Side projects hinge on **unspoken** loyalty exchanges.” ### 11. Cultural **Definition**: Shared symbols, norms, values; moral expectations; taboos. **Example**: “‘Professionalism’ acts as a **moral shield** discouraging complaint.” ### 12. Utilitarian / efficiency **Definition**: Cost/benefit, optimization, economizing effort, “good enough.” **Example**: “Participants **routinize** documentation to minimize cognitive load.” ### 13. Power **Definition**: Control, dependency, resistance, gatekeeping, surveillance. **Example**: “Visibility tools **shift** power—peer monitoring substitutes managerial oversight.” ### 14. Identity **Definition**: Self-conception, role identity, biographical alignment. **Example**: “Becoming a ‘founder’ **reframes** acceptable risk-taking.” ### 15. Cutting points **Definition**: Thresholds where processes change state; tipping points. **Example**: “After the first public demo, accountability **step-changes**.” ### 16. Ordering **Definition**: Sequences, phases, priority hierarchies; temporal/chronological structure. **Example**: “Stabilize workflow **before** seeking sponsorship.” ### 17. Units **Definition**: Social units of analysis (individual, dyad, team, organization). **Example**: “The same tactic **means differently** at team vs org unit levels.” ### 18. Locations (spatial/temporal slices) **Definition**: Where/when in space-time incidents cluster; situational “sites.” **Example**: “Cooling-off periods occur **off-channel** and **after hours**.” --- ## How to select an appropriate family Ask: 1. **What kind of claim am I making?** - Mechanism → causes/contingencies - Outcomes → consequences - Tactics → strategies - Shared norms → cultural/consensus 2. **What is the weakest part of my outline?** - If you have lots of strategies but thin conditions → add **contingencies/contexts**. 3. **Can I state the relationship as a hypothesis?** If not, you may still be describing—push toward **explicit relational language**. **Multi-family integration** is normal: a robust model uses several families without reducing the theory to one metaphor. --- ## Procedure (recommended workflow) 1. **List major categories** (6–12 max for modeling; merge synonyms). 2. Draft **relational sentences** between core and each major category. 3. Tag each sentence with a **family label** (causal, conditional, etc.). 4. **Stress-test** with negative cases: do contingencies need refinement? 5. Build a **theoretical outline** (memo sort) that reads as **integrated hypotheses**. --- ## Output format: theoretical model draft ### Outline template ```text Core category: Main concern (provisional): Hypothesis 1 (conditional): Hypothesis 2 (strategy under conditions): Hypothesis 3 (consequences + boundary): Hypothesis 4 (covariance / unresolved mechanism): Boundary conditions (where theory likely fails): Negative cases accounted for: ``` ### Diagram sketch (optional) Use a **simple** diagram: core in center, satellites for conditions/strategies/consequences, labeled arrows with **family tags** (C=contingency, S=strategy, K=consequence, etc.). Keep diagrams **servant** to the memo outline, not a substitute for it. --- ## Common mistakes - **Forcing** a favorite family (everything becomes “power”) without comparative evidence. - **Confusing covariance with causation**—mark mechanisms as provisional. - **Theoretical coding before** substantive maturity—produces slick but hollow models. - **Jargon stacking**—families should clarify relationships, not impress readers. - **Ignoring levels**—mixing individual psychology and org process without **unit** clarity. --- ## Key references - Glaser, B. G. (2005). *The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding*. Sociology Press. - Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press. - Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity*. Sociology Press. --- ## Companion skills - `selective-coding`, `constant-comparison`, `memo-writing` - `substantive-theory`, `formal-theory` - `glaserian-grounded-theory`