- name
- theoretical-sensitivity
- description
- Use when developing the researcher's ability to see conceptual possibilities in data, to recognize what is important, and to give meaning to data.
# Theoretical Sensitivity
**Theoretical sensitivity** is the researcher’s ability to **see meaning in data**, to discern **what matters conceptually**, and to imagine **plausible relationships** among categories—without **forcing** preconceived ideas onto participants’ experiences.
Glaser treats sensitivity as a **craft**: developed through analytic practice, disciplined comparison, and curated reading—not through importing a ready-made framework for the substantive area too early.
Use this skill when you feel “stuck” in description, when codes multiply without insight, or when you need to **calibrate openness** versus **conceptual discipline**.
---
## Glaser’s concept (1978): what sensitivity is not
**Sensitivity is not**:
- Cleverness at inventing jargon.
- A license to impose pet theories.
- The same as “being smart about the topic” before data collection.
**Sensitivity is**:
- Recognizing **indicator-rich** incidents.
- Hearing **process** and **variation** rather than only content.
- Knowing **when** to code, **when** to memo, and **when** to sample next.
---
## Sources of theoretical sensitivity (classic GT)
### 1) Personal experience (used carefully)
Your biography can sensitize you to emotional tones, organizational rhythms, or interactional subtleties.
**Risk**: autobiographical projection.
**Mitigation**: treat personal resonance as a **cue to memo**, then **compare** across cases; seek **negative cases**.
### 2) Professional experience
Prior practice in a domain (e.g., nursing, engineering, teaching) can help you notice **routine expertise** and **tacit norms**.
**Risk**: expert blinders (“that’s just how it is”).
**Mitigation**: convert expertise into **questions**, not answers; privilege **participants’** problem-solving.
### 3) Analytic experience within the study
As codes mature, you become sensitized to **patterns**, **absences**, and **deviance**. This is the **strongest** engine of sensitivity in GT.
**Practice**: regular **memo sorting** and **hypothesis revision**.
### 4) Literature **outside** the substantive area
Glaser encourages reading broadly in sociology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy of science, etc., to build a **repertoire of concepts** and **metaphors** that can **suggest** comparisons.
**Key move**: use external literature to **stimulate imagination**, not to **name** the phenomenon prematurely.
### 5) Literature in the substantive area (timed)
Substantive-area literature becomes more appropriate **later**, often as **additional data** for comparison **after** emergence stabilizes—never as a substitute for participants’ lived problem-solving.
---
## How to cultivate sensitivity (concrete practices)
### A) Comparison drills
Each session, run **three comparisons**:
1. two incidents within the same code
2. one incident against an emerging **hypothesis**
3. one incident against a **negative case** candidate
### B) “What is this a study of?” prompts
Ask repeatedly at different grains:
- Of this **line**?
- Of this **incident**?
- Of this **interview**?
- Of the **project** today?
### C) Gerund reframing
Rewrite nouns into **process language** to reveal action/interaction.
### D) Memo-first discipline
When a strong interpretation appears, **memo** before expanding coding—capture **scope**, **conditions**, and **counterexamples** you already know.
### E) Codebook hygiene
Rewrite definitions when they become **too vague** (“stress”) or **too literal** (topic labels). Good definitions sharpen sensitivity for the **next** pass.
---
## Threats to sensitivity (and fixes)
### Preconception
**Symptom**: every incident “supports” your favorite theory.
**Fix**: actively seek **disconfirming** incidents; split codes when variance appears; invite **outsider** debriefing.
### Forcing (template thinking)
**Symptom**: codes map 1:1 onto a model you imported.
**Fix**: remove the template from sight during early passes; rename codes using **data-grounded** language.
### Sentimentality / moralizing
**Symptom**: analytic language becomes judgmental (“bad management”).
**Fix**: translate judgments into **processual** categories (*managing accountability*, *externalizing blame*)—still critical, but **conceptual**.
### Premature closure
**Symptom**: “we already know the story.”
**Fix**: theoretical sampling aimed at **boundaries**; revisit **early** transcripts with new eyes.
### Tool obsession
**Symptom**: perfect software tags, thin thinking.
**Fix**: short, messy **memos** beat pristine code taxonomies.
---
## Exercises for building sensitivity
### Exercise 1 — One paragraph, ten codes
Take one dense paragraph. Generate **10 distinct substantive codes** (some will be wrong). Then **merge** aggressively after comparison. Goal: **fluency** and **differentiation**.
### Exercise 2 — In vivo extraction
Highlight participant phrases that could be **in vivo** codes. For each, write a **one-sentence** translation into more general concepts.
### Exercise 3 — Hypothesis ping-pong
Write **three** competing hypotheses for the same incident. Use next data to **eliminate** or **revise**.
### Exercise 4 — Literature spark (outside area)
Read a short unrelated theory piece. Write **two memos**:
(a) “What concepts might illuminate my data?”
(b) “How could this **mislead** me if forced?”
### Exercise 5 — Negative case journal
Maintain a running list: **anomalies**, **silences**, **refusals**, **surprises**. Revisit weekly.
---
## Outputs that demonstrate growing sensitivity
- Memos that specify **conditions** and **consequences**, not only themes.
- Codes with **properties/dimensions** discovered through comparison.
- Sampling memos that target **gaps** rather than convenience.
- A core category that **survives** deviant-case scrutiny.
---
## Key references
- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory*. Sociology Press.
- Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press.
- Glaser, B. G. (1998). *Doing grounded theory*. Sociology Press.
---
## Companion skills
- `memo-writing`, `constant-comparison`, `open-coding`
- `theoretical-sampling`, `selective-coding`
- `glaserian-grounded-theory`
在 GitHub 查看