theoretical-coding

name	theoretical-coding
description	Use when integrating substantive codes into theoretical models using Glaser's 18 coding families.

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

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