qualitative-research-pro 1.0.0

package/skills/category-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+name: category-development
+description: Use when developing and densifying categories with properties, dimensions, conditions, and consequences.
+---
+
+# Category Development and Densification
+
+A **category** is a higher-order concept that groups related incidents under an abstract label. Dense categories specify **properties** (characteristics) and **dimensions** (ranges along which properties vary), plus **conditions** under which patterns hold and **consequences** that follow.
+
+## From code to category
+
+Move up a level when multiple codes repeatedly co-occur or share a latent pattern. Rename categories using **participant-relevant** language when possible (in vivo lift), then refine to conceptual clarity.
+
+## Properties and dimensions
+
+- **Property:** what kind of thing this category is (e.g., “visibility” as a property of stigma management).
+- **Dimension:** the range (high/low, public/private, formal/informal).
+
+Example: if “time pressure” is a category, properties might include *source* (institutional vs interpersonal) and *duration* (acute vs chronic); dimensions map variation across cases.
+
+## Conditions and consequences
+
+Ask:
+
+- **When** does this category appear? **Under what conditions** does it intensify or disappear?
+- **What follows** from it—emotionally, interactionally, structurally?
+
+Use **conditional matrices** (see `visual-modeling`) when relationships multiply.
+
+## Densification through comparison
+
+Compare incidents within the same category to discover **new properties**. Compare across categories to locate **boundaries** (what this category is not).
+
+## Thin vs thick categories
+
+A **thin** category is a label without variation spelled out. A **thick** category has:
+
+- Clear definition.
+- Exemplar incidents.
+- Property/dimension map.
+- Known conditions/consequences.
+- documented negative cases.
+
+## Relationship to saturation
+
+Saturation is **about categories**: you stop sampling for a category when fresh data no longer reveals new properties/dimensions relevant to your emerging theory. Some peripheral categories may remain thin if they are not theoretically central—justify that choice.
+
+## Category profile template (use in memos)
+
+- **Name:**
+- **Definition:**
+- **Exemplars (IDs):**
+- **Properties & dimensions:**
+- **Conditions:**
+- **Consequences:**
+- **Related categories (hypothesized links):**
+- **Negative cases:**
+
+## Worked example (abbreviated)
+
+Category: **“Patching workarounds.”**
+
+- Property: *visibility* (hidden vs visible to management).
+- Dimension: *risk* (low vs high sanction).
+- Condition: arises when formal protocols conflict with patient safety pressures.
+- Consequence: temporary relief but accumulates moral distress.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Category defined at one conceptual level (not a grab-bag).
+- [ ] Properties/dimensions extracted via comparison.
+- [ ] Conditions/consequences hypothesized and tested with new data.
+- [ ] Negative cases actively sought.
+- [ ] Links to core category articulated as the theory matures.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Glaser, B. G. *Theoretical Sensitivity* — theoretical coding families and category logic.
+- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. *Basics of Qualitative Research* — conditional/consequential thinking (read critically alongside Glaserian distinctions).
+- Konecki, K. *Visualizing Grounded Theory* — diagrams for category relations.

package/skills/chicago-formatting/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: chicago-formatting
+description: Use when formatting academic work in Chicago/Turabian style — notes-bibliography or author-date systems.
+---
+
+# Chicago / Turabian Formatting for Qualitative Work
+
+The *Chicago Manual of Style* offers two citation systems: **notes-bibliography** (NB) and **author-date** (AD). Many humanities dissertations use NB; many social sciences accept AD. Pick one system and **stay consistent**.
+
+## Notes-bibliography system
+
+Citations appear as **footnotes or endnotes** with superscript numbers in text. Notes include full or shortened source forms depending on whether it is the first citation. A **bibliography** lists all sources alphabetically at the end.
+
+Typical use: history, some education and religious studies, legal-adjacent writing, narrative-heavy qualitative theses.
+
+## Author-date system
+
+Citations appear parenthetically in text: (Smith 2020, 45–46). Reference list entries resemble APA-like author-date entries but follow Chicago punctuation and capitalization rules.
+
+Typical use: anthropology, parts of sociology when Chicago is required.
+
+## When to use each
+
+Use NB when:
+
+- Discursive footnotes carry substantive commentary.
+- Advisors expect classical humanities form.
+
+Use AD when:
+
+- You want in-text compactness similar to APA.
+- You write for social-science journals using author-date Chicago.
+
+## Formatting differences from APA (high level)
+
+- Title capitalization in notes/bibliography follows **headline-style** for sources in Chicago (contrast with APA sentence-style for article titles).
+- Publication locations appear for some book entries in NB (check current Chicago for rules on omitting cities).
+- Quotation integration and punctuation with quotes differ—follow Chicago’s “American style” quote rules unless instructed otherwise.
+
+## Bibliography vs reference list
+
+NB ends with **Bibliography** (often alphabetical by author).
+
+AD ends with **Reference list** (alphabetical).
+
+Do not mix NB footnotes with an APA-style reference list without explicit guidance.
+
+## Common source types (patterns to verify in CMOS)
+
+- **Book:** Author. *Title*. Place: Publisher, Year.
+- **Chapter:** Author. “Chapter Title.” In *Book Title*, edited by Editor, pages. Place: Publisher, Year.
+- **Journal:** Author. “Article Title.” *Journal* volume, no. issue (Year): pages. URL/DOI if applicable.
+
+Always confirm italics/quotation marks for titles against the current edition.
+
+## Chicago-specific rules (selected reminders)
+
+- **Ibid.** usage has evolved across editions—verify for your CMOS version.
+- **Shortened notes** after first full citation reduce clutter.
+- **Access dates** for unstable URLs may be required—follow department style.
+
+## Qualitative writing notes
+
+Long ethnographic excerpts may require **block indentation** per Chicago. If you reproduce participant dialogue, ensure consent and anonymization align with ethics; Chicago cares about **accuracy** and **ellipsis** ethics too.
+
+## Turabian
+
+*A Manual for Writers* aligns with Chicago but streamlines student work. Use Turabian when assigned; otherwise CMOS is authoritative.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] NB vs AD chosen; not mixed.
+- [ ] First full note/reference correct; shortened forms consistent.
+- [ ] Bibliography/reference list alphabetized and complete.
+- [ ] Title capitalization and italics match Chicago.
+- [ ] Block quotes and ellipses follow Chicago mechanics.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- *The Chicago Manual of Style* (17th ed.).
+- Turabian, K. L. *A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations* (9th ed.).

package/skills/coding-pipeline/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: coding-pipeline
+description: Use when orchestrating the full open → selective → theoretical coding pipeline in grounded theory analysis.
+---
+
+# Grounded Theory Coding Pipeline (Open → Selective → Theoretical)
+
+The coding pipeline is not a one-way assembly line. It is a **disciplined progression** where you repeatedly move between coding, comparing, sampling, and memoing until a theory **fits**, **works**, and earns **relevance**.
+
+## Pipeline overview
+
+1. **Open coding:** break data into incidents; label actions/meanings; keep comparisons tight.
+2. **Selective coding:** elevate a core category; relate other categories to it; delimit the theory’s scope.
+3. **Theoretical coding:** integrate categories using theoretical codes (families) to specify relationships among categories.
+
+Throughout: **memoing** captures hypotheses about relationships; **theoretical sampling** targets missing variation.
+
+## Transition criteria (practical signals)
+
+Move toward **selective coding** when:
+
+- A category repeatedly explains variation and connects to many others.
+- Additional data mainly **densifies** rather than fractures the emerging core story.
+
+Move toward **theoretical coding** when:
+
+- Major categories are stabilized enough to ask **how they relate** (processually, conditionally, strategically).
+
+Return to open coding when **anomalies** appear—regression is healthy.
+
+## Parallel processes
+
+Never pause memoing to “finish coding.” Memos are where theory grows. Schedule **memo-first** blocks after intense coding sessions.
+
+## Quality checkpoints
+
+- **Fit check:** Do codes fit incidents without stretching?
+- **Work check:** Does the emerging theory explain how problems are handled/processes unfold?
+- **Relevance check:** Does it address the real concern in the data (not the literature’s concern)?
+- **Modifiability check:** Can you revise categories when new data demands it?
+
+## Iteration patterns
+
+Common loops:
+
+- Open → memo → theoretical sampling → open.
+- Selective → theoretical → return to selective when integration breaks.
+
+Document each loop in an audit trail entry (“why we reopened category X”).
+
+## Common stalling points
+
+- **Code sprawl:** too many codes at similar abstraction—schedule **code consolidation** sessions.
+- **Premature core category:** excitement about a pet theme—assign a **devil’s advocate** debriefer.
+- **Analysis paralysis:** set a rule—code N incidents, then write one **integrative memo**.
+
+## Timeline expectations
+
+Timelines vary by data density and team size. A usable heuristic: expect **many cycles**; dissertations often spend months in open/selective interplay. Proposals should budget accordingly.
+
+## Software note
+
+CAQDAS tools can help retrieval but cannot replace **constant comparison discipline**. Export periodic codebooks; version them.
+
+## Handoff to writing
+
+When theoretical integration stabilizes, begin sorting memos into an outline. Writing is another pass of **theoretical refinement**.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Open coding grounded in incidents, not preconceptions.
+- [ ] Memos continuous; hypotheses dated.
+- [ ] Selective coding justified by centrality and recurrence in data.
+- [ ] Theoretical coding specifies relationships, not just labels.
+- [ ] Regression to earlier stages documented when anomalies arise.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Glaser, B. G. *Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing*.
+- Glaser, B. G. *Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions*.
+- Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. *Classic Grounded Theory: Applications With Qualitative and Quantitative Data*.

package/skills/conceptual-frameworks/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+name: conceptual-frameworks
+description: Use when building or using conceptual and theoretical frameworks in qualitative research.
+---
+
+# Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks
+
+A **conceptual framework** organizes key concepts and their proposed relationships for inquiry. A **theoretical framework** anchors the study more explicitly in named theories. Frameworks can clarify focus—or **force** data if deployed insensitively.
+
+## Conceptual vs theoretical
+
+- **Conceptual:** often diagrammatic; may combine constructs from several sources without full commitment to one grand theory.
+- **Theoretical:** cites specific theories (e.g., Bourdieu, stress-process models) to interpret mechanisms.
+
+The boundary is fuzzy in practice; be explicit about what you are doing.
+
+## Role in qualitative research (non-GT)
+
+In case studies, ethnographies, or thematic analyses, frameworks can:
+
+- Provide **sensitizing concepts** (Blumer).
+- Guide initial sampling or interview topics.
+- Offer **dialogue partners** in discussion sections.
+
+## Glaser’s stance: no framework before GT (classic)
+
+In Glaserian classic GT, avoid importing a substantive-area framework **before** emergence. Literature prior to analysis can **force** categories. Instead, develop theoretical sensitivity through **broad reading outside** the substantive area and through **memoing**.
+
+If a framework appears later, treat extant theory as **more data** to compare against your emergent theory.
+
+## When frameworks are appropriate
+
+Framework-first approaches can be appropriate when:
+
+- Your question is explicitly **theory-testing** or **critical** (not classic GT).
+- You use **program theory** evaluation designs.
+- You conduct **deductive** qualitative content analysis with transparent rules.
+
+## Building a framework from literature (when allowed)
+
+1. Map constructs and claims across sources.
+2. Identify **contradictions** and **boundary conditions**.
+3. Draft a diagram with **directional hypotheses** framed as **working ideas**, not shackles.
+4. Iterate after early data—revise or abandon what fails to fit.
+
+## Visual representation
+
+Use boxes for constructs, arrows for proposed influences, footnotes for contested links. Keep **legends** and **definitions** adjacent; avoid spaghetti diagrams.
+
+## Sensitizing concepts (Blumer)
+
+Sensitizing concepts give **direction** without determining findings: they suggest **what kinds of things matter** (e.g., “career,” “negotiation”) while leaving content open.
+
+## Integration with analysis
+
+If you start with sensitizing concepts, log **every moment** a concept did not fit—those moments often birth **new categories**.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Framework purpose stated (sensitizing vs testing vs GT-post-emergence).
+- [ ] Classic GT: pre-study substantive forcing avoided.
+- [ ] Definitions operationalized enough to guide (not strangle) inquiry.
+- [ ] Visual model readable; arrows interpreted.
+- [ ] Revisions tracked when data challenge the framework.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Blumer, H. *Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method* — sensitizing concepts.
+- Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. *Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook* — matrix-based conceptual displays.
+- Glaser, B. G. *Theoretical Sensitivity* — caution on imported frameworks in GT.

package/skills/constant-comparison/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+---
+name: constant-comparison
+description: "Use when conducting the constant comparative method — comparing incidents to incidents, incidents to concepts, and concepts to concepts."
+---
+
+# Constant Comparative Method
+
+The constant comparative method is the **engine** of classic grounded theory. It converts raw experience into **concepts** and concepts into **theory** by systematic comparison. Without comparison, coding collapses into **summary**; with comparison, coding becomes **analytic**.
+
+Use this skill whenever you are generating codes, merging categories, defining properties/dimensions, testing a core category, or evaluating saturation claims.
+
+---
+
+## What constant comparison accomplishes
+
+- **Refines codes** (definitions, inclusion/exclusion boundaries).  
+- **Surfaces properties and dimensions** of categories.  
+- **Suggests hypotheses** about conditions, strategies, and consequences.  
+- **Prevents forcing** by continually confronting ideas with **new** and **deviant** data.
+
+---
+
+## Four stages (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and how they operate today
+
+Classic texts describe comparing as progressing through **comparing incidents applicable to each category**, **integrating categories and their properties**, **delimiting the theory**, and **writing theory**. In practice, these **overlap**—but the sequence is still pedagogically useful.
+
+### Stage 1 — Compare incidents to incidents (within emerging codes)
+
+**Goal**: Ensure a code is **conceptually consistent** and **data-grounded**.
+
+**Micro-procedure**:
+
+1. Pick a code (e.g., *delaying disclosure*).  
+2. Collect **several** incidents tagged with that code.  
+3. Ask: **What is similar?** What differs?  
+4. Update the code definition; split into two codes if differences are **systematic**.
+
+**Output**: tighter definitions; early **properties** (“kinds of delaying,” “degrees of delaying”).
+
+### Stage 2 — Compare incidents to concepts (refinement)
+
+**Goal**: Use new data to **test** the conceptual label.
+
+**Micro-procedure**:
+
+1. Read a new incident.  
+2. Ask: “Is it still **this** category, or a **variant**, or a **different** category?”  
+3. If it stretches the definition uncomfortably, **rename/split** rather than “make it fit.”
+
+**Output**: dimensional thinking; boundary conditions; negative cases queued.
+
+### Stage 3 — Compare concepts to concepts (integration)
+
+**Goal**: Build **relationship statements** among categories.
+
+**Micro-procedure**:
+
+1. Take two mature categories (e.g., *psychological safety* and *disclosure timing*).  
+2. Ask: **Do they co-occur?** **Does one enable/constrain the other?** **Under what conditions?**  
+3. Write a **memo hypothesis** and mark it as provisional.
+
+**Output**: contingent hypotheses; later fodder for **theoretical coding**.
+
+### Stage 4 — Delimiting comparisons (selective phase)
+
+**Goal**: Stop expanding sideways; deepen **core-related** comparisons.
+
+**Micro-procedure**:
+
+1. Hold the **core category** constant.  
+2. Compare new incidents for **what they add** to core-linked hypotheses.  
+3. Drop comparisons that **do not change** your integrated outline.
+
+**Output**: theoretical density without endless sprawl.
+
+---
+
+## Comparison at each level (cheat sheet)
+
+| Level | Question | Typical yield |
+|------|----------|----------------|
+| Incident ↔ incident | “Same meaning?” | Code splits/merges |
+| Incident ↔ concept | “Still fits?” | Property/dimension refinement |
+| Concept ↔ concept | “How connected?” | Hypotheses + theoretical codes |
+| Model ↔ negative case | “Where breaks?” | Boundary conditions |
+
+---
+
+## Practical techniques you can use in a coding session
+
+### 1) Flip-flop comparison
+
+Take two incidents that **look opposite**. Force yourself to name the **conceptual axis** that distinguishes them (a **dimension**).
+
+### 2) Worst-case / best-case contrast
+
+Select extremes within your sample (if available). Ask what conditions produce the difference.
+
+### 3) Silent-voice comparison
+
+Ask: “Who is **not** represented here?” Negative cases may be **data absences**—note as a **sampling** issue, not only analytic failure.
+
+### 4) Source triangulation comparison
+
+Compare **interview** claims to **observation** or **documents** where possible. Treat discrepancies as **analytic gold**.
+
+### 5) Time-slice comparison
+
+Compare **early vs late** interview moments within a longitudinal account (if applicable).
+
+---
+
+## Comparison matrices (lightweight templates)
+
+### Matrix A — Property discovery
+
+```text
+Category: ________
+Incident ID | Evidence snippet | Candidate property | Notes |
+```
+
+### Matrix B — Hypothesis testing
+
+```text
+Hypothesis: If [condition], then [strategy], leading to [outcome].
+Supporting incidents (IDs):
+Contradicting incidents (IDs):
+Revised hypothesis:
+```
+
+### Matrix C — Merge/split decisions
+
+```text
+Code A vs Code B:
+Similarities:
+Systematic differences:
+Decision: merge / split / keep separate
+Rationale (comparative evidence):
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output format (session deliverables)
+
+End each analytic session with:
+
+```text
+Comparisons executed (brief list):
+Code changes (rename/split/merge):
+New/updated hypotheses (bullets):
+Negative cases discovered:
+Next comparison targets (specific incidents/sources):
+```
+
+This becomes part of your **audit trail**.
+
+---
+
+## Common failure modes
+
+- **Coding without comparing** → pretty labels, weak theory.  
+- **Comparing only supportive incidents** → confirmation bias.  
+- **Over-merging** too early → lost variation; **under-merging** → synonym sprawl.  
+- **Comparing quotes** instead of **concepts** → stays descriptive.  
+- **Stopping comparison** when the story “feels done” instead of checking **saturation** criteria.
+
+---
+
+## Relationship to memoing and sampling
+
+- **Memos** store the *results* of comparisons as hypotheses.  
+- **Theoretical sampling** targets the *next* comparisons you need but cannot yet make.
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). *The discovery of grounded theory*. Aldine.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity*. Sociology Press.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `open-coding`, `selective-coding`, `memo-writing`  
+- `theoretical-sampling`, `theoretical-saturation`  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory`

package/skills/constructivist-gt/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+name: constructivist-gt
+description: "Use when conducting Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory, for comparison with Glaser's classic approach."
+---
+
+# Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz)
+
+**Constructivist grounded theory (CGT)**, associated with Kathy Charmaz, adapts grounded theory methods to a **constructivist epistemology**: knowledge is **co-constructed** between researchers and participants through interaction, language, and situated interpretation—rather than “discovered” as a singular objective reality.
+
+## Charmaz’s (2014) approach in overview
+
+Charmaz retains GT’s emphasis on **inductive-abductive reasoning**, **coding**, **memoing**, and **theoretical integration**, but frames analysis as **interpretive** and **reflexive**. The researcher is an **active participant** in meaning-making, not a neutral recorder.
+
+## Differences from Glaserian classic GT
+
+### Epistemology
+
+- **Glaser (classic)** — Often associated with **post-positivist** or **critical realist** leanings and the metaphor of **emergence** from data with disciplined restraint.
+- **Charmaz (constructivist)** — **Relativist/constructivist**: categories are **constructed** through analytic work; multiple plausible readings may exist.
+
+### Coding language and phases
+
+- **Glaser** — Substantive coding, **theoretical coding**, **selective coding** around a **core category**; strong emphasis on **constant comparison** and **theoretical sampling** until saturation.
+- **Charmaz** — **Initial coding** (line-by-line or segment-by-segment, staying close to data) and **focused coding** (using the most significant codes to synthesize larger segments). **Axial coding** (conditional matrix, etc.) is treated cautiously—optional and not reified as a mechanical procedure.
+
+### Sensitizing concepts
+
+- **Glaser** warns against premature **forcing** from literature or extant theory.
+- **Charmaz** allows **sensitizing concepts** as **starting points** if their partial, provisional status is acknowledged and they do not override participants’ meanings.
+
+### Reflexivity
+
+- **Charmaz** foregrounds **reflexivity**: researcher standpoints, interactional contexts of interviews, and power relations shape data. **Glaser** emphasizes researcher **neutrality** and **theoretical sensitivity** earned through coding/memoing rather than autobiography—though later Glaserian writing also discusses researcher discipline.
+
+### Social justice and critical inquiry
+
+- **Charmaz** aligns CGT with **critical** and **feminist** sensibilities when researchers examine inequality, marginalization, and institutional power. **Glaserian GT** traditionally brackets **explicit political** framing in favor of emergent substance—though researchers apply Glaser across political topics.
+
+## When to choose constructivist over classic GT
+
+Choose **constructivist GT** when:
+
+- You embrace **interpretive** epistemology and want **explicit reflexivity**.
+- **Interview co-construction** and **language** are central to your claims.
+- You may use **sensitizing concepts** early with transparent caution.
+- **Critical/feminist** lenses are integral to the inquiry.
+
+Choose **classic Glaserian GT** when:
+
+- You commit to **emergence** with minimal preconception and **delayed** substantive-area literature as **data** later.
+- You want **core category** integration and **theoretical sampling** tightly coupled to emergent categories.
+- Your institutional or personal stance aligns with **classic GT texts** and **no-forcing** discipline.
+
+Many dissertations **hybridize**—justify any blend methodologically to avoid **method slurring**.
+
+## Charmaz’s quality criteria
+
+Charmaz proposes **four criteria** for evaluating constructivist GT:
+
+1. **Credibility** — Sufficient, diverse data; **detailed accounts**; **member checks** where appropriate; **reflexive** documentation.
+2. **Originality** — Fresh insights, new conceptual links, meaningful reframing.
+3. **Resonance** — Categories reflect participants’ lived experiences and **ring true** to audiences with stake in the topic.
+4. **Usefulness** — Concepts **work** for explaining process, guiding action, or stimulating further research.
+
+These parallel but do not duplicate **Glaser’s fit, work, relevance, modifiability**.
+
+## Coding procedures comparison (summary table)
+
+| Dimension | Glaserian classic GT | Charmaz constructivist GT |
+|-----------|----------------------|---------------------------|
+| Initial work | Substantive coding, constant comparison | Initial coding, constant comparison |
+| Integration | Core category, selective/theoretical coding | Focused coding, **theoretical sorting**, **integrative diagrams** |
+| Literature | Delay substantive-area lit; use as data later | Sensitizing concepts allowed; lit woven reflexively |
+| Role of analyst | Disciplined emergence, minimize forcing | Active interpreter; reflexivity explicit |
+| Saturation | Theoretical saturation of categories | Similar aim; assessed with constructivist credibility |
+
+## Memoing and diagrams
+
+Charmaz treats **memoing** as **core**—capturing comparisons, definitions, and emergent logic. **Integrative diagrams** map relationships among categories and processes.
+
+## Reporting
+
+Write **process-focused methods** sections: how codes arose, how focused coding condensed themes, how **interpretive choices** were made. Include **exemplar quotes** and **analytic narrative** showing **how** claims were built.
+
+## Key references
+
+- Charmaz, K. (2014). *Constructing Grounded Theory* (2nd ed.).
+- Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. — Contemporary statements on CGT.
+- Glaser, B. G. — *Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis*; *Theoretical Sensitivity* (for contrast).
+
+Use this skill when users ask for Charmaz-style GT, constructivist coding, or explicit comparison to Glaser.

package/skills/data-management-protocols/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: data-management-protocols
+description: Use when creating data management plans for qualitative research — storage, security, anonymization, retention, and sharing.
+---
+
+# Data Management Protocols for Qualitative Research
+
+A data management plan (DMP) specifies how you **collect, organize, secure, retain, and optionally share** qualitative materials. Funders and IRBs increasingly expect DMPs even when data cannot be fully open.
+
+## DMP components (typical)
+
+- Data types (audio, transcripts, field notes, screenshots, photos).
+- File naming/versioning conventions.
+- Storage locations, backups, encryption, access roles.
+- Anonymization/de-identification strategy.
+- Retention period and secure destruction procedures.
+- Sharing constraints and derived sharing products (e.g., redacted excerpts).
+
+## File naming conventions
+
+Use consistent patterns: `YYYY-MM-DD_siteID_participantPseudonym_interview01_audio.wav`. Avoid real names in filenames. Maintain a **separate encrypted key** linking pseudonyms to identifiers if needed for longitudinal contact (IRB-permitted).
+
+## Storage solutions
+
+Prefer institutional encrypted storage over personal laptops. If cloud storage is used, verify **BAA** or equivalent for health data contexts and institutional approval. Keep **3-2-1 backups** where feasible (three copies, two media types, one offsite).
+
+## Anonymization techniques
+
+Remove direct identifiers; generalize places and dates when small communities enable re-identification; paraphrase highly distinctive stories in publications when necessary. Document **what was altered** for auditability.
+
+## De-identification procedures
+
+Distinguish **de-identified** vs **anonymous** data. Qualitative audio often cannot be truly anonymous without destruction—plan accordingly in consent (what participants agree you may retain/share).
+
+## Retention policies
+
+Align with IRB approvals, institutional rules, and legal holds. After retention ends, use **secure wiping** (not simple delete) for sensitive files.
+
+## FAIR principles (adapted for qualitative data)
+
+FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) originated for digital objects; qualitative adaptation emphasizes rich **metadata** (who, where, when, how collected), stable identifiers where sharing occurs, and **ethical reuse conditions**.
+
+## Ethical constraints on sharing
+
+Consent may forbid sharing; community harm risk may forbid open archives. Consider **controlled access repositories** or sharing only derived categories with illustrative redacted excerpts.
+
+## DMP templates
+
+Use funder-specific templates (NSF, NIH) as shells, then add qualitative specifics: transcript versioning, memo logs, software exports (NVivo/Atlas.ti), and team collaboration rules.
+
+## Team workflows
+
+Define: who transcribes; QC process; where “gold” transcripts live; how coding exports are versioned; how Slack/email fragments are purged if they contain identifiers.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Naming, folder structure, and versioning documented.
+- [ ] Encryption and access control match sensitivity.
+- [ ] Anonymization map maintained separately from public files.
+- [ ] Retention/destruction schedule approved and actionable.
+- [ ] Sharing options align with consent and community risk.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Corti, L., et al. *Managing and sharing research data* — qualitative considerations.
+- UK Data Service guidance on anonymization of qualitative data.
+- NIH/NSF data management policy pages (update with current agency language when applying).