| 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:
- What kind of claim am I making?
- Mechanism → causes/contingencies
- Outcomes → consequences
- Tactics → strategies
- Shared norms → cultural/consensus
- What is the weakest part of my outline?
- If you have lots of strategies but thin conditions → add contingencies/contexts.
- 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)
- List major categories (6–12 max for modeling; merge synonyms).
- Draft relational sentences between core and each major category.
- Tag each sentence with a family label (causal, conditional, etc.).
- Stress-test with negative cases: do contingencies need refinement?
- 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