situational-analysis

# Situational Analysis (Clarke) **Situational analysis (SA)** extends grounded theory–inflected inquiry into **complex, heterogeneous, postmodern** situations where **multiple actors, discourses, technologies, nonhumans, and silences** matter. Adele E. Clarke (2005, 2018) developed SA to **map** the **situation** of inquiry beyond a single core storyline. ## Intellectual location SA grows from **Straussian** grounded theory and **Anselm Strauss’s social worlds/arenas** framework, while embracing **situational complexity**. It resists forcing messy realities into **single axial** stories when **multiplicity** is theoretically important. ## Three families of maps Maps are **analytic devices** and **heuristic visuals**, not mere illustrations. They should be **iterated** as analysis deepens. ### 1. Situational map (messy and ordered) **Messy situational map** — Brainstorm **all** elements in the situation: **human actors**, **nonhuman actants**, **institutions**, **discourses**, **technologies**, **spatial/temporal elements**, **key controversies**, and **silences**. **Ordered situational map** — Organize messy elements into **categories** (e.g., individual actors, collectives, discursive constructions, implicated/silent actors, political/economic elements, related discourses). The ordered map prompts **relational questions**: Who and what matters? What is missing? ### 2. Social worlds / arenas maps Drawn from **Strauss’s** work: - **Social worlds** — Groups with **shared commitments** to action in a domain (e.g., clinicians, advocates, regulators). - **Arenas** — **Sites of debate and negotiation** where worlds intersect around issues (e.g., policy arenas, clinical settings). Map **which worlds** participate, **how** they align or conflict, and **what arenas** structure contention. Useful for **multi-agency**, **interprofessional**, or **contested** fields. ### 3. Positional maps Capture **positions taken and not taken** on **key axes of controversy and concern** in the situation. - **Axes** — Construct dimensions that organize discourses (e.g., autonomy vs safety, market vs public good). - **Plots** — Place **discursive positions** (not only individuals) relative to axes. - **Silences** — Explicitly note **unspoken** or **marginalized** positions. Positional maps surface **normative tensions** and **absences** that interviews alone may underrepresent. ## How to construct each map (workflow) 1. **Initial coding** — Use GT-style coding to anchor yourself in data (interviews, documents, media, field notes). 2. **Messy map** — Freelist elements; chase **what else** belongs; include **nonhumans** and **institutions**. 3. **Ordered map** — Sort, label gaps, and **rewrite** categories as needed. 4. **Relational analyses** — Ask how elements **implicate** one another; memo **relations**. 5. **Social worlds/arenas** — Identify **commitments** and **sites of negotiation**; revise after new data. 6. **Positional maps** — Select **salient controversies**; define axes; plot discourses; mark **silences**. 7. **Integration** — Return to **writing**; let maps discipline **claims** and **discussion**. ## Relationship to Strauss’s social worlds theory SA **inherits** the **social worlds/arenas** lens and **extends** it with: - Stronger emphasis on **discursive constructions** and **power/knowledge** (Foucauldian inflection). - Explicit mapping of **nonhuman** and **institutional** elements. - **Positional** mapping of **discursive fields**. ## When situational analysis adds value beyond traditional GT Use SA when: - **No single core category** should dominate because **multiplicity** is substantive. - **Boundary objects**, **technologies**, **policy discourses**, and **nonhuman actors** are as important as individuals. - **Controversies** and **conflicting logics** structure the field. - You want **visual-analytic** discipline for **complex cases** (science & technology studies, health policy, organizational ecologies). Traditional **Glaserian GT** may be preferable when the aim is a **parsimonious substantive theory** of a **core social process** with **theoretical sampling** tightly focused on that process. ## Differences from Glaserian GT (concise) | Aspect | Glaserian GT | Situational analysis | |--------|----------------|----------------------| | Goal | Substantive theory, core category | Situational mapping, complex cartographies | | Emphasis | Emergence, coding families | Worlds/arenas, discourses, actants | | Visuals | Optional diagrams | Maps as **central method** | | Nonhumans | May appear as data | Often **mapped as actants** | | Epistemology | Classic GT (emergence discipline) | Postmodern-inflected **multiplicity** | SA can **complement** GT: use coding to **enter** data, use maps to **hold complexity** accountable in **findings**. ## Reporting Present **maps as figures** with **legends**; explain **how** maps changed over time. Connect maps to **narrative analysis**—maps should **advance argument**, not decorate. ## Key references - Clarke, A. E. (2005). *Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn*. - Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. (Eds.). (2018). *The Situational Analysis Toolkit*. Use this skill for messy multi-actor projects, STS-inflected qualitative work, or explicit mapping alongside grounded coding.