qualitative-research-pro 1.0.0

package/skills/document-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+name: document-analysis
+description: Use when analyzing documents, artifacts, policies, or media as qualitative data sources.
+---
+
+# Document and Artifact Analysis
+
+Documents include policies, emails, meeting minutes, curricula, clinical records (where permitted), social media threads, photographs, videos, and organizational charts. In qualitative research, documents are not “background”; they are potential **primary data** when your questions concern texts, practices encoded in artifacts, or institutional meaning-making.
+
+## Types of documents
+
+- **Public records:** laws, reports, websites—often accessible but require contextual interpretation.
+- **Personal documents:** diaries, letters, portfolios—high intimacy; consent and harm considerations intensify.
+- **Organizational documents:** SOPs, training decks, KPI dashboards—reveal formal and informal priorities when read critically.
+- **Media and digital traces:** news, forums, apps—raise provenance, bot, and archival volatility issues.
+
+Classify each document by **authorship, audience, purpose, and genre** before heavy interpretation.
+
+## Authentication and contextualization
+
+Ask: Who produced this, when, under what constraints, and for whom? Triangulate with interviews or observations when documents conflict with practice (“official story” vs “work-as-done”). Note redactions, version control gaps, and translation effects if documents cross languages.
+
+## Content analysis basics (qualitative orientation)
+
+Qualitative content analysis codes meaning units into categories while preserving context. Steps typically include: define corpus boundaries; sample or include all relevant texts; define recording units (paragraph, post, case note segment); develop codes inductively, deductively, or hybrid; maintain a codebook with examples; iterate definitions as patterns clarify.
+
+## Discourse analysis basics
+
+Discourse-oriented reading examines how language constructs subjects, objects, and power relations. Useful prompts: What is presupposed? Who is included/excluded? What metaphors recur? What silences matter? Align discourse analysis commitments (e.g., critical, Foucauldian, discursive psychology) with your paradigm statement.
+
+## Coding documents in a grounded theory framework
+
+Treat a document segment as an **incident**: compare segment to segment and segment to emerging concepts. Avoid letting document headings dictate your categories if the data pushes elsewhere. Keep a memo trail for interpretive leaps (e.g., why a policy clause signals “risk shifting” as a category).
+
+## “All is data” and critical reading
+
+GT’s “all is data” does not mean naive acceptance. Documents can misrepresent, lag reality, or perform legitimacy. Critical reading asks what the text *does* socially while still mining it for **participant/informant meanings** embedded in wording and format.
+
+## Practical workflow
+
+1. Inventory documents with metadata (source, date, access path).
+2. Select chunks relevant to the evolving theory; avoid infinite corpus sprawl.
+3. Apply consistent naming for files and excerpts used in publications.
+4. Link excerpts to audit trail entries (why this passage matters analytically).
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Corpus boundaries and inclusion criteria documented.
+- [ ] Provenance, authorship, and audience analyzed.
+- [ ] Coding approach matches methodology (GT openness vs structured content analysis).
+- [ ] Potential bias/misrepresentation flagged and triangulated where possible.
+- [ ] Confidentiality and copyright constraints respected.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. *Qualitative Research Journal*.
+- Prior, L. *Using documents in social research*.
+- Glaser, B. G. *Doing Grounded Theory* — documents as comparable incidents.
+
+## Quick reference
+
+**Before coding a page:** note genre, intended audience, and production constraints (who could edit this, and why it exists).
+
+**While coding:** treat each excerpt as an incident; compare to interviews/observations when interpretations hinge on “official vs practiced” gaps.
+
+**In write-ups:** distinguish textual claims from your interpretation; flag uncertain authorship or missing pages rather than smoothing gaps silently.

package/skills/ethnographic-methods/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: ethnographic-methods
+description: "Use when conducting ethnographic research involving prolonged engagement, participant observation, and cultural description."
+---
+
+# Ethnographic Research Methods
+
+Ethnography is a **qualitative research tradition** rooted in anthropology, now widely used in education, organizational studies, health, and digital contexts. It combines **prolonged engagement**, **participant observation**, and **thick description** to document how people enact culture in everyday settings.
+
+## Types of ethnography
+
+### Classic ethnography
+
+Long-term immersion in a community (historically “the field”), often with holistic attention to institutions, rituals, kinship, and meaning systems.
+
+### Focused ethnography
+
+Shorter, problem-centered fieldwork in bounded settings (e.g., a clinic team, a classroom unit). Depth is traded for feasibility while retaining ethnographic logic.
+
+### Digital ethnography (netnography, virtual ethnography)
+
+Fieldwork extends to **online communities**, platforms, and hybrid spaces. Data may include posts, threads, multimodal content, and platform affordances. Ethics require platform-specific norms, consent, and privacy safeguards.
+
+### Autoethnography
+
+The researcher systematically analyzes **personal experience** as cultural phenomenon, connecting self to wider social structures. Demands rigorous reflexivity and ethical care to avoid solipsism.
+
+## Fieldwork procedures
+
+1. **Access and rapport** — Gatekeepers, introductions, reciprocity, and transparent purpose.
+2. **Iterative presence** — Repeated visits build trust and correct early misreadings.
+3. **Triangulation** — Combine observation, informal talk, interviews, and documents.
+4. **Exit and member reflections** — Plan how to leave the field and optionally share interpretations with participants.
+
+## Participant observation roles (Gold’s continuum, adapted)
+
+Roles range from **complete observer** to **complete participant**. Choices depend on ethics, safety, and whether insider status distorts or deepens insight. Document role shifts and their effects on data.
+
+## Field note writing
+
+- **Jottings** — Quick in-field notes (when appropriate).
+- **Expanded notes** — Same-day expansion with sensory detail, dialogue, spatial layout, and researcher reactions.
+- **Analytic memos** — Theoretical hunches, codes, and questions for next visits.
+- Separate **descriptive** observation from **interpretive** commentary to support auditability.
+
+## Key informants
+
+Trusted insiders who explain norms, history, and conflict. Guard against over-reliance on one voice; treat key informants as **partial** rather than representative.
+
+## Cultural analysis
+
+Move from **description** (what people do) to **interpretation** (what actions mean locally) to **analysis** (how meanings connect to power, history, and structure). Compare insider accounts with observed practice.
+
+## Thick description (Geertz)
+
+Thick description embeds action in **layers of meaning**—not just behavior but the webs of significance that make it intelligible locally. It resists reduction to thin behavioral labels and supports transferable insight without false generalization.
+
+## Emic vs etic perspectives
+
+- **Emic** — Insider categories and meanings (how participants frame their world).
+- **Etic** — Analyst concepts that compare across cases or theories.
+- Strong ethnography often **bridges** emic and etic, explicitly labeling when the researcher imports external theory.
+
+## Digital ethnography considerations
+
+- **Public vs private** spaces and **reasonable expectations** of visibility.
+- **Archiving** — Screenshots and URLs may identify people; consider redaction and data retention.
+- **Algorithmic curation** — Feeds shape what is visible; document platform dynamics as part of the “setting.”
+- **Consent** — Follow institutional IRB guidance and evolving norms for online research.
+
+## Quality and rigor
+
+- **Prolonged engagement** reduces reactivity and superficial readings.
+- **Reflexivity** — How the researcher’s positionality shapes access and interpretation.
+- **Auditability** — Field notes, decision logs, and traceable analytic moves.
+- **Transferability** — Rich context so readers judge applicability to other settings.
+
+## When to use ethnography vs other methods
+
+Choose ethnography when **culture-in-action**, **setting**, and **social process over time** are central. Choose **interview-only** designs when immersion is impossible. Choose **GT** when theory-building via constant comparison is the primary aim within ethnographic or interview data.
+
+Use this skill for fieldwork planning, observation protocols, thick description, or digital ethnography ethics.

package/skills/focus-group-methods/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+name: focus-group-methods
+description: Use when designing and facilitating focus groups for qualitative data collection.
+---
+
+# Focus Group Methods
+
+Focus groups generate data through **interaction**: participants respond to prompts, build on each other’s ideas, and sometimes reveal normative assumptions, vocabularies, and disagreements that individual interviews suppress or never surface.
+
+## When to use focus groups vs interviews
+
+Use **focus groups** when group sense-making, consensus/dissensus, or cultural scripts are central—e.g., testing how a community talks about a stigma-laden topic, exploring how teams coordinate, or mapping shared meanings of a policy. Use **individual interviews** when sensitive disclosures, power asymmetries within a peer group, or detailed personal narratives are primary. Avoid focus groups when participants may fear retaliation from others in the room.
+
+## Group composition
+
+Aim for **homogeneity on the dimension that drives comfort** (e.g., job role, experience level) and **careful heterogeneity** only when cross-perspective friction is analytically desired. Typical size is **4–8** participants; smaller groups suit complex tasks or vulnerable topics. Over-recruit slightly to handle no-shows.
+
+## Moderator guide development
+
+Structure sessions with: (1) welcome, consent, ground rules (respect, confidentiality limits, one speaker at a time); (2) warm-up; (3) 3–5 focused question blocks with planned follow-ups; (4) closing reflection. Questions should invite **concrete examples** (“Tell us about a time…”) before abstract generalizations (“What do people think about…?”).
+
+## Group dynamics as data
+
+Track **who speaks, who is silent, who aligns, who challenges**. Silence can mean agreement, fear, or disengagement—follow up ethically. Manage dominant speakers kindly (“Let’s hear from someone who hasn’t spoken yet”). Note laughter, interruptions, and collective corrections; these are analytic material about norms, not mere noise.
+
+## Analysis of focus group data
+
+Transcribe **by speaker turn** with minimal identifiers in transcripts used for analysis. Code both **content** (themes) and **interaction** (alignment episodes, storytelling chains). Compare focus group findings with interviews or observations when possible to avoid over-weighting performative public accounts.
+
+## Recording logistics
+
+Use multiple microphones when affordable; backup recording when ethical and practical. Obtain explicit consent for recording and clarify that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed among participants—set ground rules accordingly.
+
+## How many groups?
+
+There is no magic N. Plan **iterative rounds** until you observe **pattern repetition** and diminishing novelty for your analytic goals (analogous to saturation thinking). Reporting should justify group count by data quality and stability of themes, not by a fixed rule.
+
+## Grounded theory with focus groups
+
+Treat each exchange as **comparable incidents**. The moderator should avoid imposing preconceived categories; probe emergent distinctions participants introduce. Memo immediately after each session on hypotheses about categories, conditions, and consequences suggested by interaction patterns.
+
+## Facilitation ethics
+
+Do not coerce disclosure; debrief emotionally heavy sessions; offer referrals when appropriate. For industry or workplace groups, clarify whether managers can attend and how that affects candor.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Focus group fit justified vs individual interviews.
+- [ ] Composition supports safety and analytic aims.
+- [ ] Moderator guide balances structure with emergent follow-up.
+- [ ] Interaction dynamics captured in notes and transcription conventions.
+- [ ] Confidentiality limits explained; recording consents secured.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. *Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research* (5th ed.).
+- Barbour, R. *Doing focus groups* (2nd ed.).
+- Morgan, D. L. *Focus groups as qualitative research* (2nd ed.).
+
+## Quick reference
+
+**Opening script essentials:** purpose, voluntary participation, confidentiality limits among peers, recording consent, respectful turn-taking.
+
+**Moderation moves:** “What do others think?” after a strong opinion; invite concrete stories before general norms; manage dominators without shaming.
+
+**Analysis reminder:** code both *what* was said and *how* the group negotiated agreement, humor, silence, or conflict.

package/skills/formal-theory/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+name: formal-theory
+description: "Use when extending a substantive grounded theory to a formal theory applicable across multiple substantive areas."
+---
+
+# Formal Grounded Theory
+
+**Formal grounded theory** lifts conceptual structure beyond a single substantive area to generate a theory with **cross-substantive** reach—often centered on a **generic social process** (e.g., types of *status passage*, *awareness contexts*, *reciprocity cycles*) that appears in **multiple** domains when compared at an abstract level.
+
+Use this skill only after you have a **mature substantive theory** (or multiple substantive theories) that can be **compared** for higher-order patterns.
+
+---
+
+## What formal theory is
+
+**Formal theory** is a conceptual model abstracted across **two or more** substantive areas, preserving **processual logic** and **conditional structure** while stripping domain-specific detail.
+
+**Aim**: explain a **generic pattern** that **recurs** across arenas—useful for sociology’s middle-range ambitions and for **transferable** explanations **without** pretending identical contexts.
+
+---
+
+## Relationship to substantive theory
+
+Substantive theory is the **empirical engine**; formal theory is a **second-order comparative** product.
+
+Typical sequence:
+
+1. Develop **substantive** GT in area A.  
+2. Develop (or locate) **substantive** GT in area B (often a new study).  
+3. **Compare** categories at a higher level of abstraction.  
+4. Retain only relationships that **hold** across areas—document where they **break**.
+
+Trying to “start formal” without substantive density usually produces **vague metaphors**.
+
+---
+
+## How to develop formal theory (Glaser’s procedure, operationalized)
+
+### Step 1 — Stabilize substantive theories
+
+Each substantive theory should have:
+
+- a defensible **core category**  
+- **conditional** hypotheses  
+- documented **variation** and **boundaries**
+
+### Step 2 — Extract generic concepts
+
+Rename domain-specific categories into **abstract** labels **only when**:
+
+- comparison shows **the same pattern** under analogous conditions  
+- differences are **parameterizations** (dimensions), not different mechanisms
+
+**Example move (illustrative)**:
+
+- Substantive: *nurses pacing disclosure of uncertainty* vs *engineers staging prototype legitimacy*  
+- Formal candidate: *incremental legitimation of risky knowledge under accountability pressure* (hypothetical abstraction—must be earned)
+
+### Step 3 — Compare hypotheses, not only labels
+
+Ask:
+
+- Do the **same contingencies** appear?  
+- Do strategies **map** onto each other functionally?  
+- Do consequences share a **family resemblance**?
+
+If only labels align but mechanisms differ, you may have **surface formalism**.
+
+### Step 4 — Build a formal outline
+
+Write **formal hypotheses** using **generic actors** and **generic settings**, then specify **scope conditions**.
+
+### Step 5 — Test with new substantive slices
+
+Return to **new** empirical slices (abbreviated studies, targeted comparisons, secondary analyses) to **stress-test** the formal model.
+
+---
+
+## Examples of formal theories (classic illustrations)
+
+Classic GT scholarship offers **families** of formal theories—use them as **models of abstraction**, not as templates to force.
+
+### Status passage (family of formal theories)
+
+Explains how people move **between** social statuses with **phases**, **rites**, **sponsorship**, and **identity shifts**—studied across occupations, illness trajectories, and life-course transitions.
+
+### Awareness contexts (Glaser & Strauss lineage)
+
+Formalizes how **who knows what**, **when**, and with what **interactional rules** shapes behavior—originally in dying contexts, extended metaphorically to secrecy, launches, investigations, and organizational change.
+
+### Reciprocity / exchange patterns
+
+Formal models of **obligation**, **gift/counter-gift**, **credit/debit** social psychologies appear across many substantive arenas when comparison targets **interactional accounting**.
+
+**Reminder**: citing these as **examples** is not evidence your data instantiate them—you must **earn** formal claims through comparison.
+
+---
+
+## Challenges in formal theory work
+
+### Abstraction drift
+
+The formal story becomes **so thin** it explains everything and nothing.
+
+**Mitigation**: keep **scope conditions** explicit; keep **negative cases** central.
+
+### Forced isomorphism
+
+Different substantive areas are **not** identical; formal theory should preserve **meaningful parametric differences**.
+
+### Weak substantive inputs
+
+If one substantive theory is underdeveloped, formal comparison becomes **projection**.
+
+### Authorship and ethics across sites
+
+Multi-site formal work can flatten power dynamics. Document **whose knowledge** enabled abstraction.
+
+---
+
+## Criteria for evaluating formal theory
+
+- **Abstract portability**: applies across **multiple** sites without hand-waving.  
+- **Substantive grounding trace**: you can point to **which** studies generated each hypothesis.  
+- **Boundary clarity**: states where the formal model **fails**.  
+- **Non-redundancy**: formal claims add insight beyond repeating substantive findings.  
+- **Modifiability**: new substantive comparisons refine rather than break the model.
+
+---
+
+## Output format (formal theory draft)
+
+```text
+Formal core process (name + definition):
+Cross-substantive scope claim (bounded):
+Formal hypotheses (H1…Hn):
+Parametric dimensions (how arenas differ without breaking the model):
+Supporting substantive theories (Area A/B/C summaries):
+Known failures / limits:
+Next comparative slices to collect:
+```
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). *The discovery of grounded theory*. Aldine.  
+- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). *Status passage: A formal theory*. Aldine-Atherton.  
+- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1964). *Awareness of dying*. Aldine. (foundation for awareness context theorizing)  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1998). *Doing grounded theory*. Sociology Press.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `substantive-theory`, `theoretical-coding`, `constant-comparison`  
+- `selective-coding`, `memo-writing`  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory`

package/skills/glaserian-grounded-theory/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+---
+name: glaserian-grounded-theory
+description: "Use when conducting classic grounded theory research following Glaser's methodology. Covers the complete GT process from entering the field through theory write-up, including open/selective/theoretical coding, constant comparison, memoing, theoretical sampling, and saturation."
+---
+
+# Glaserian (Classic) Grounded Theory
+
+Classic grounded theory (CGT), as developed and refined by Barney Glaser, is an inductive methodology for generating **conceptual theory** that explains patterns of social or social-psychological behavior in a substantive area. The product is an **integrated set of conceptually related hypotheses** grounded in systematically analyzed data—not a description, not a list of themes, and not a verification of a prior model.
+
+Use this skill when you need end-to-end guidance for CGT: study design boundaries, analytic procedures, quality criteria, and write-up expectations.
+
+---
+
+## Historical context and lineage
+
+- **Glaser & Strauss (1967)** introduced grounded theory as a reaction to dominant hypothetico-deductive social science. They emphasized discovery through comparative analysis of qualitative data and the generation of theory “grounded” in data.
+- **Divergence**: Over time, Glaser and Strauss (and Strauss with Corbin) moved in different directions. Glaser insisted on **emergence**, **minimal preconception**, and **researcher autonomy in conceptualization**. Other approaches (often labeled “Straussian” or “constructivist”) may permit more a priori framing, axial coding templates, or paradigm models. **This skill follows Glaser’s classic line.**
+
+When in doubt, privilege: emergence, comparison, memoing, and theoretical sampling directed by the emerging theory.
+
+---
+
+## The complete GT process (ten integrated stages)
+
+These stages are **iterative**, not strictly linear. You cycle among them throughout a study.
+
+1. **Preparation and entry**  
+   Clarify a broad **substantive area of interest** (not a forced research question). Secure ethics permissions. Set up data management and audit trails.
+
+2. **Data collection (initial)**  
+   Begin with **purposive** (not theoretically sampled) first interviews/observations to get rich incidents. Treat everything as potential data.
+
+3. **Open coding**  
+   Break data into **incidents** and label them with **substantive codes**. Compare incident to incident. Write **memos** capturing ideas.
+
+4. **Constant comparison**  
+   Continuously compare **incidents to incidents**, **incidents to concepts**, and **concepts to concepts**. Refine code definitions, properties, and dimensions.
+
+5. **Memoing**  
+   **Never** treat memoing as optional. Memos are the record of **conceptual leaps**—hypotheses about relationships, conditions, consequences, and processes.
+
+6. **Selective coding**  
+   Once a **core category** emerges and earns centrality, **delimit** the study: code only for what relates to the core and its story.
+
+7. **Theoretical coding**  
+   Relate categories using **theoretical codes** (coding families) to build an **integrated theoretical outline**.
+
+8. **Theoretical sampling**  
+   Collect new data **to develop emerging categories**—not for representativeness alone. Sample for **variation, depth, and theoretical completeness**.
+
+9. **Theoretical saturation**  
+   Stop sampling for a category when **new data no longer yield new properties or relationships** relevant to the emerging theory.
+
+10. **Theory write-up**  
+    Present a **substantive theory**: core category, related categories, and **theoretical statements** (hypotheses) about relationships, often centered on a **basic social process** or core pattern.
+
+---
+
+## Key principles (non-negotiable in classic GT)
+
+### Emergence
+
+Categories and hypotheses must **earn their way** from comparative analysis. If a code “doesn’t work,” discard or modify it. **Forcing** pre-existing frameworks onto data violates the logic of the method.
+
+### All is data
+
+Interviews, observations, documents, artifacts, field notes, **researcher reflections**, and later **literature** (introduced at the right time) can be treated as data. Nothing is a priori “off-limits,” though ethics and scope still bound what you *should* collect.
+
+### Constant comparison
+
+Comparison is the **engine** of analysis. If you are not comparing, you are likely drifting into description or affirmation of prior beliefs.
+
+### No preconception (disciplined openness)
+
+Enter the substantive area without a **pre-rehearsed conceptual framework**. **Theoretical sensitivity** is cultivated through analytic work and broad reading **outside** the substantive area—not by importing a ready-made model of the phenomenon.
+
+### Fit, work, relevance, modifiability
+
+Glaser’s theory criteria (see `substantive-theory` skill):  
+- **Fit**: categories fit the data used to generate them.  
+- **Work**: theory explains variation and the main pattern.  
+- **Relevance**: addresses what participants actually resolve (their “main concern”).  
+- **Modifiability**: open to refinement with new data—not brittle dogma.
+
+---
+
+## Coding procedures in depth
+
+### Open coding
+
+- **Fracture** narratives into discrete **incidents** (meaningful chunks).  
+- Ask: “What is this data a study of?” “What category does this incident indicate?”  
+- Use **gerunds** when helpful to keep **process** visible (e.g., *managing*, *balancing*, *negotiating*).  
+- Generate **in vivo** codes (participants’ language) when they crystallize meaning.  
+- Write **memos** immediately when ideas spark.
+
+### Selective coding
+
+- Identify the **core category**: recurrent, central, relates to most other categories, explains variation.  
+- **Delimit**: stop coding everything; focus on the **story** that integrates the core with related categories.  
+- Aim for **theoretical completeness** around the core, not encyclopedic coverage.
+
+### Theoretical coding
+
+- Use **theoretical codes** (e.g., causal, conditional, strategy) as **integrative** devices—**not** as a front-loaded template.  
+- Apply **coding families** thoughtfully (see `theoretical-coding` skill).  
+- Build a **theoretical outline** that states relationships among categories.
+
+---
+
+## Memoing as the core intellectual activity
+
+Memos are **analytic narratives**: they explain what you think is going on conceptually, propose relationships, note puzzles, and log methodological decisions.
+
+Rules of thumb:
+
+- **Stop coding when a big idea hits**—memo first, then return.  
+- **Sort memos** regularly into an emerging **outline** of the theory.  
+- **Date memos** and link them to **data locations** (interview line, page, timestamp).  
+- Allow memos to **contradict** earlier memos; treat contradictions as opportunities for comparison.
+
+---
+
+## Theoretical sampling (brief)
+
+Sampling is driven by **analysis**, not only by access or convenience. You ask: “What data do I next need to **develop** this category’s properties, dimensions, and relationships?”
+
+See `theoretical-sampling` skill for directives, probes, and pitfalls.
+
+---
+
+## Theoretical saturation (brief)
+
+Saturation is **about categories**, not raw repetition of stories. A category is saturated when continued sampling **does not** refine its **properties**, **dimensions**, or **relationships** in ways that matter to the emerging theory.
+
+See `theoretical-saturation` skill for checklists and common confusions.
+
+---
+
+## Writing the theory
+
+A classic GT write-up foregrounds:
+
+- The **main concern** and how participants continually **resolve** it.  
+- The **core category** and its **multivariate** relations (conditions, strategies, consequences).  
+- A **processual** account if a **basic social process** (BSP) is core.  
+- **Conceptual** language with **illustrative** (not exhaustive) data excerpts.  
+- **Theoretical statements** that read as hypotheses grounded in comparative evidence.
+
+Avoid “theme lists” without integration. Avoid over-quotes with thin conceptual lift.
+
+---
+
+## Common mistakes and how to avoid them
+
+| Mistake | Why it fails CGT | Corrective practice |
+|--------|-------------------|----------------------|
+| Front-loading a literature model | Blocks emergence; encourages forcing | Delay substantive-area literature; read widely elsewhere |
+| Thematic summary only | Describes; doesn’t theorize | Integrate via core category + theoretical codes |
+| Confusing saturation with *n* | Sample size is irrelevant as a rule | Track category properties/dimensions |
+| Ignoring negative cases | Misses boundaries and conditions | Purposively compare deviant instances |
+| Coding without memoing | Loses the trail of ideas | Memo in the same session |
+| “Core category” by fiat | No earned centrality | Apply core criteria; test against data |
+| Over-quotes | Obscures concepts | Quote to **show** fit, not to **fill** space |
+
+---
+
+## Comparison with other GT traditions (practical distinctions)
+
+- **Classic Glaserian**: emergence-first; theoretical codes used **after** substantive theory forms; strong stance against forced paradigms.  
+- **Strauss & Corbin style**: often teaches structured coding steps (e.g., axial) and conditional matrix tools earlier and more prescriptively—useful for some teams, but **not identical** to Glaser’s classic GT.  
+- **Constructivist GT** (Charmaz): shares inductive spirit; emphasizes interpretive construction and researcher-participant meaning-making—aligns ethically/politically with many projects; **epistemological language differs** from Glaser’s objectivist-realist emphasis.
+
+If your project **must** integrate another tradition, document that choice in your audit trail and clarify what you borrowed and why.
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). *The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research*. Aldine.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1998). *Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (2005). *The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding*. Sociology Press.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills in this library
+
+- `open-coding`, `selective-coding`, `theoretical-coding`  
+- `constant-comparison`, `memo-writing`  
+- `theoretical-sampling`, `theoretical-saturation`, `theoretical-sensitivity`  
+- `substantive-theory`, `formal-theory`
+
+---
+
+## Quick-start checklist (classic GT)
+
+- [ ] Broad area of interest defined; ethics in place  
+- [ ] First data collected and fractured into incidents  
+- [ ] Open coding + incident comparison running in parallel with **memoing**  
+- [ ] Codesheet/evolving codebook + **audit trail** of renames/splits/merges  
+- [ ] Core category candidate tested against **fit** and **explanatory reach**  
+- [ ] Selective coding + theoretical coding toward an **integrated outline**  
+- [ ] Theoretical sampling to saturate **key** categories  
+- [ ] Draft theory written in **conceptual** voice with clear hypothetical statements  
+
+---
+
+## Notes on AI-assisted analysis
+
+AI tools can assist **fracturing**, **draft coding**, **memo prompts**, and **outline experiments**—but the researcher must **own** comparisons, **verify** fit against source data, and **maintain** an audit trail. Treat AI outputs as **provisional hooks for comparison**, not as findings.

package/skills/interview-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: interview-design
+description: Use when designing semi-structured interview protocols, crafting questions, and planning interview procedures for qualitative research.
+---
+
+# Interview Design for Qualitative Research
+
+Semi-structured interviewing balances structure with flexibility: you prepare a guide, but you follow the participant’s meaning rather than a rigid script. Design choices should match your methodology, data needs, and ethical constraints.
+
+## Types of interviews
+
+- **Structured interviews** use fixed wording and order. They maximize comparability but can constrain emergent meaning; uncommon in classic grounded theory (GT) except for specific comparison needs.
+- **Semi-structured interviews** use a guide with core topics and optional probes. They are the default for most qualitative work because they support depth and adaptation.
+- **Unstructured interviews** resemble guided conversations with minimal predetermined questions. Useful for early exploration when you want maximum openness—often paired with strong memoing and later more focused sessions.
+
+## Developing an interview guide
+
+1. **Anchor in purpose.** List what you need to learn (processes, meanings, contexts), not what you assume is true.
+2. **Order for rapport.** Begin with non-threatening, descriptive items; place sensitive topics after trust is established unless safety protocols require otherwise.
+3. **Use open stems.** Prefer “Tell me about…,” “Walk me through…,” “What happened when…?” over yes/no or leading frames.
+4. **Build flexibility.** For each topic, note 2–4 optional probes you can use if the participant’s answer is thin or tangential.
+5. **Pilot and revise.** Run the guide with a volunteer or colleague; time the flow, remove redundant items, and fix confusing wording.
+
+## Question types (techniques)
+
+- **Grand tour:** Broad invitation to narrate a domain (e.g., “Describe a typical day when X happens.”).
+- **Mini tour:** Zoom into a specific episode (e.g., “Pick one instance and walk me through it moment by moment.”).
+- **Probing:** Clarify, elaborate, or specify without steering (e.g., “What do you mean by…?”, “What happened next?”, “Who was involved?”).
+- **Follow-up:** Return to earlier content when new threads appear (e.g., “Earlier you said Y—how does that connect to what you just described?”).
+
+## Pilot testing
+
+Pilot at least one complete interview when feasible. Record what questions misfire, which order feels awkward, and how long sections actually take. Update the guide before “real” data collection begins.
+
+## Rapport and interactional quality
+
+Explain the study plainly; normalize pauses; avoid interrupting mid-thought; mirror the participant’s vocabulary before introducing your own; acknowledge emotion without rushing to “fix” it. For video/phone formats, test technology beforehand and have a backup plan.
+
+## Recording and transcription
+
+Obtain consent for recording. Use high-quality audio; label files immediately. Plan transcription approach (verbatim vs intelligent verbatim), turnaround time, and how you will store files securely. Note nonverbal cues in a separate column or memo if they matter analytically.
+
+## Grounded theory considerations
+
+GT favors **open questions** and **following the data** in situ. Treat the guide as a temporary scaffold: if a participant introduces a theoretically important incident, pursue it even if it skips ahead in your outline. Avoid importing a literature-derived codebook into question wording early on. Memo during or immediately after each interview to capture emergent ideas before they fade.
+
+## Quick checklist
+
+- [ ] Guide matches methodology (especially GT openness vs structured comparison needs).
+- [ ] Questions are open, non-leading, and ordered for rapport.
+- [ ] Probes prepared; sensitive topics ethically sequenced.
+- [ ] Pilot completed; guide revised.
+- [ ] Recording, storage, and transcription workflow documented in the data management plan.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. *Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data* (3rd ed.).
+- Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. *InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing* (3rd ed.).
+- Glaser, B. G. *Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions* — on theoretical sensitivity and emergent interviewing.
+
+## Quick reference (one page)
+
+**Semi-structured spine:** opening rapport → grand tour → focused blocks → sensitive topics (if any) → closing reflection.
+
+**If stuck:** ask for a single concrete episode, then mini-tour through that episode before abstract summaries.
+
+**After each session:** timestamped memo on surprises, provisional codes, and who to sample next for comparison.