qualitative-research-pro 1.0.0

package/skills/literature-synthesis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+name: literature-synthesis
+description: Use when conducting a literature synthesis — systematic review, narrative review, scoping review, or meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.
+---
+
+# Literature Synthesis for Qualitative Researchers
+
+Synthesis means more than summarizing articles: you **compare, contrast, integrate, and evaluate** patterns across a body of work to produce new insight—whether that is a gap map, a theory critique, or a higher-order interpretive synthesis.
+
+## Types of reviews
+
+- **Narrative review:** Expert-led, flexible scope; strong for framing fields; risk of selection bias if unstructured.
+- **Systematic review:** Pre-specified question, explicit search, screening, appraisal, synthesis—minimizes ad hoc cherry-picking.
+- **Scoping review:** Maps breadth of concepts, sources, and gaps when the field is diffuse.
+- **Meta-synthesis / qualitative evidence synthesis:** Integrates findings across qualitative primary studies (e.g., meta-ethnography, thematic synthesis, meta-aggregative approaches in some health traditions).
+
+## Search strategy development
+
+Translate your question into **PICOS-like** elements adapted for qualitative work (population, phenomenon, context). Use controlled vocabulary + free-text; document databases, date limits, language limits, and grey literature sources. Save reproducible search strings.
+
+## PRISMA for systematic reviews
+
+PRISMA flow diagrams and checklists target systematic reviews broadly. For qualitative systematic reviews, use extensions/guidance where available (e.g., ENTREQ reporting guidance for qualitative evidence syntheses—verify current preferred reporting standards for your discipline).
+
+## Qualitative meta-synthesis approaches
+
+**Meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare):**
+
+- Reciprocal translation, refutational synthesis, line-of-argument synthesis.
+- Aims to produce **higher-order interpretations**, not just pooled themes.
+
+**Sandelowski & Barroso’s meta-summary (quantitative-leaning facet):**
+
+- Extract findings statements and sometimes frequency-qualify them—useful when discipline demands structured outputs; interpretive depth varies.
+
+Choose a method that matches your epistemology (interpretive vs aggregative).
+
+## Synthesis matrices
+
+Build a matrix: rows as studies; columns as constructs, contexts, methods, findings, limitations. Color-code **agreements, tensions, silences**. Matrices reveal **contradictions** worth theorizing.
+
+## Writing the synthesis
+
+Structure by **themes** or **analytic constructs**, not by “Article A, Article B.” For each theme:
+
+- Define it.
+- Show cross-study evidence.
+- Note methodological strengths/weaknesses influencing confidence.
+- State what remains unknown.
+
+## Gap identification
+
+Distinguish **empirical gaps** (no studies in context X) from **theoretical gaps** (unexplained mechanisms) from **method gaps** (weak designs dominating a topic).
+
+## Grounded theory caution
+
+Classic GT delays substantive-area literature until later analytic stages. A standalone literature synthesis skill is for **literature-first projects** (reviews, proposals) or **post-emergence integration**—do not use it to smuggle forcing into early GT coding.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Review type matches question and timeline.
+- [ ] Search reproducible; screening documented.
+- [ ] Quality appraisal method chosen and applied consistently.
+- [ ] Synthesis method matches paradigm (interpretive vs aggregative).
+- [ ] Reporting guideline selected (PRISMA/ENTREQ/etc. as appropriate).
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. *Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies*.
+- Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. *An introduction to systematic reviews* (2nd ed.).
+- Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. *Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research*.

package/skills/member-checking/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+name: member-checking
+description: Use when conducting member checking or participant validation to enhance credibility of qualitative findings.
+---
+
+# Member Checking in Qualitative Research
+
+Member checking invites participants to review or react to researcher representations of their experience. Done well, it can deepen interpretation; done poorly, it can confuse **empirical grounding** with **consensus** or **epistemic authority**.
+
+## What member checking is
+
+A structured process where participants engage with transcripts, themes, interpretations, or draft findings and provide feedback. It is **not** a statistical validation step; it is a dialogic or confirmatory practice depending on design.
+
+## Types of member checking
+
+- **Transcript review:** Participants correct factual errors and clarify wording.
+- **Interpretive review:** Participants react to researcher codes/themes (“Does this fit?”).
+- **Synthesized member check:** Participants comment on narrative summaries or models of the findings.
+
+Each type serves different goals: accuracy vs meaning vs overall story fidelity.
+
+## Glaser’s critique in grounded theory
+
+Glaser cautions against letting participants **define theory** or veto concepts that fit data but feel uncomfortable. In classic GT, the analyst earns categories through **constant comparison**, not through participant sign-off as a gold standard. This does not forbid member checks—it warns against **substituting participant agreement for theoretical elaboration**.
+
+## When member checking is appropriate
+
+Appropriate when: factual accuracy matters; collaborative ethics prioritize shared sense-making; stakeholder feedback improves **practice** or **implementation**; you need to catch misreadings of local language or norms.
+
+## When it can be inappropriate or risky
+
+Risky when: power dynamics make “agreement” coerced; revising interpretations to please gatekeepers would **misrepresent** data; revisiting traumatic content harms participants without benefit; institutional timelines pressure shallow “checkbox” validation.
+
+## Conducting member checking effectively
+
+1. **Clarify purpose** (accuracy vs interpretation) so participants know what feedback you seek.
+2. **Use manageable chunks**—short summaries or selected excerpts, not overwhelming packets.
+3. **Separate** factual corrections from theoretical claims; log both in an audit trail.
+4. **Offer flexible formats** (written, call, in-person) to reduce burden.
+5. **Compensate** time fairly when possible.
+
+## Handling disagreements
+
+Disagreement is data: it may signal **variation**, **identity performance**, **positional difference**, or **analytic error**. Do not automatically overwrite analysis. Instead, compare the disagreement against the full corpus, seek **negative cases**, and document your reasoning.
+
+## Ethical considerations
+
+Re-contacting may re-trigger harm; obtain **ongoing consent**. Be transparent that you cannot guarantee confidentiality if others helped produce the original account. For group contexts, avoid exposing one participant’s statements to another without consent.
+
+## Reporting
+
+Describe: who was invited; response rate; what materials they saw; how feedback altered (or did not alter) analysis and why. In GT, explain how member checking **complemented** rather than replaced constant comparison.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Type of member check matches goals (accuracy vs interpretation).
+- [ ] Risks assessed; trauma-informed safeguards in place.
+- [ ] Disagreements analyzed, not hidden or auto-overridden.
+- [ ] GT studies articulate Glaserian cautions where relevant.
+- [ ] Audit trail records feedback and analytic decisions.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Birt, L., et al. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? *Qualitative Health Research*.
+- Morse, J. M. (2015). Data were saturated…. *Qualitative Health Research* — related debates on verification practices.
+- Glaser, B. G. *Doing Grounded Theory* — on theory ownership and forcing.

package/skills/memo-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+---
+name: memo-writing
+description: "Use when writing theoretical memos, code notes, operational notes during grounded theory analysis."
+---
+
+# Memo Writing in Grounded Theory
+
+In classic grounded theory, **memos are the core intellectual product** of analysis. Coding fractures data and labels incidents; **memoing** captures **ideas about what codes mean**, how categories relate, what conditions might matter, and what must be sampled next.
+
+If you cannot point to a **memo trail**, you likely cannot defend **how** your theory emerged.
+
+Use this skill throughout **open**, **selective**, and **theoretical** coding—and during **sampling** decisions.
+
+---
+
+## Types of memos (practical taxonomy)
+
+### Theoretical memos
+
+**Content**: hypotheses about relationships among categories; “if/then” thinking; models-in-words.  
+**When**: after comparisons spark insight; when integrating two codes; when revising a core claim.
+
+### Code notes
+
+**Content**: definitions, inclusion/exclusion boundaries, merge/split rationale, examples.  
+**When**: whenever a code changes meaning or competes with a neighbor code.
+
+### Operational / methodological memos
+
+**Content**: data access issues, interview dynamics, reflexivity notes, ethics dilemmas, tool choices.  
+**When**: these factors **shape** what data mean or what you can know—GT treats many such notes as legitimate “data about the study.”
+
+### Sorting memos / outline memos
+
+**Content**: higher-order integration—chapter-like storylines, outlines for theory write-up.  
+**When**: weekly or after major analytic milestones.
+
+### Sampling memos
+
+**Content**: the analytic rationale for **next** data collection targets.  
+**When**: before scheduling interviews/observations.
+
+---
+
+## Glaser’s memo-writing rules (interpreted for practice)
+
+Classic guidance distills to disciplined habits:
+
+1. **Stop and memo** when a conceptual idea crystallizes—do not trust memory.  
+2. **Write to think**: memos are drafts, not polished prose.  
+3. **Stay conceptual**: move beyond summary to **claims** and **conditions**.  
+4. **Link to evidence**: cite **source IDs** and locations for traceability.  
+5. **Date and title** memos so sorting remains possible months later.  
+6. **Allow revision**: later memos can contradict earlier ones—mark **supersedes** notes.
+
+---
+
+## Memo structure (reusable template)
+
+```text
+Title:
+Date:
+Linked sources (IDs/locations):
+
+Main idea (1–3 sentences):
+
+Supporting comparisons (incident IDs + why they matter):
+
+Hypotheses / claims:
+H1:
+H2:
+
+Boundary conditions / negative cases:
+
+Implications for coding (rename/split/merge):
+
+Implications for next sampling:
+
+Open puzzles:
+```
+
+Short memos are fine. **Density** beats length.
+
+---
+
+## Memo sorting and the “memo fund”
+
+**Memo fund** refers to your accumulated memo corpus—your **laboratory notebook** of theorizing.
+
+### Sorting routines
+
+- **Weekly sort**: move memos under emerging **outline headings** tied to the core category.  
+- **Tag** memos by function: `hypothesis`, `definition`, `sampling`, `reflexivity`.  
+- **Highlight** stable claims vs speculative guesses.
+
+### From memos to theory outline
+
+1. Collect memos that repeatedly assert the **same relationship**.  
+2. Merge redundant memos into a **single stronger statement**.  
+3. Identify **gaps**—relationships with weak evidence become **sampling priorities**.
+
+---
+
+## Worked examples (abbreviated fictions)
+
+### Example A — early open-coding memo (code note + hunch)
+
+**Title**: *delaying disclosure* vs *hiding incompetence*  
+**Idea**: Early incidents tagged “delaying disclosure” include two different logics: (1) **viability probing** and (2) **impression shielding**. These may be separate categories.  
+**Next step**: compare across cases for **trigger conditions**—do “shielding” incidents correlate with **evaluation anxiety** language?
+
+### Example B — mid-study theoretical memo
+
+**Title**: Core candidate — *staging legitimacy*  
+**Claim**: Participants convert uncertain projects into “acceptable” organizational objects by **incremental evidence** + **soft risk frames**.  
+**Evidence**: interviews 04, 09, 12; field notes meeting B.  
+**Negative case**: interview 07 shows **immediate disclosure** when manager already co-owned risk—condition may be **shared accountability**.
+
+### Example C — selective-coding integration memo
+
+**Title**: Outline v0.4 — core + satellites  
+**Core**: *staging legitimacy*  
+**Satellites**: *viability thresholds*, *soft framing*, *manager co-ownership*, *peer vetting*  
+**Hypothesis sketch**: Soft framing works **unless** performance metrics are **publicly ranked** (boundary).
+
+---
+
+## Output format recommendations (for teams)
+
+- **Single memo repository** (folder or software) with consistent titles.  
+- **Cross-links** from codes to memo IDs.  
+- **Change log** when core category shifts (audit transparency).
+
+---
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+- Treating memos as **personal journaling** without conceptual claims.  
+- Writing memos **only** at the end (reconstructive rationalization).  
+- **Orphan memos** with no data pointers—non-auditable.  
+- Over-polishing memos instead of **comparing** further.  
+- Letting software **replace** thinking (auto-summaries ≠ comparative analysis).
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1998). *Doing grounded theory*. Sociology Press.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `constant-comparison`, `open-coding`, `selective-coding`  
+- `theoretical-sampling`, decision audit trails (project workflow / transparency)  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory`

package/skills/mixed-methods-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: mixed-methods-design
+description: Use when designing mixed methods research that integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches.
+---
+
+# Mixed Methods Design (Creswell & Plano Clark)
+
+Mixed methods combines **qualitative and quantitative strands** to answer questions neither can fully address alone. Integration is the hard part: designs specify **sequence, priority, and mixing points**.
+
+## Notable design families (overview)
+
+- **Convergent parallel:** QUAN + QUAL concurrently; merge at interpretation (joint displays, side-by-side discussion).
+- **Explanatory sequential:** QUAN → QUAL to explain mechanisms, outliers, or surprising scores.
+- **Exploratory sequential:** QUAL → QUAN to develop measures, typologies, or survey items.
+
+Advanced variants (embedded, transformative, multiphase) add complexity—match to aims and ethics.
+
+## Mixing strategies (integration)
+
+Common techniques:
+
+- **Connecting:** outputs of one strand feed the other (e.g., interview themes → survey items).
+- **Merging:** compare/contrast results in discussion (watch for contradiction as insight).
+- **Embedding:** one strand secondary within a larger project.
+
+Document **where** integration happens and **who** decides how conflicts are resolved.
+
+## Philosophical foundations
+
+Mixed methods can sit within **pragmatism** (many US textbooks), **critical realism**, or **transformative** frames. Declare how you handle **incommensurability** if paradigms clash—integration is easier when you articulate a coherent stance.
+
+## When to use mixed methods
+
+Use when you need **both** pattern/generalization-oriented evidence and meaning/process depth—or when one strand reduces waste in the other (e.g., QUAL discovers constructs before QUAN measures them).
+
+## Grounded theory in mixed methods
+
+GT can occupy the qualitative strand, especially in exploratory sequencing. Risks:
+
+- QUAN pressures can **force** premature closure.
+- Integration meetings may privilege “hard numbers.”
+
+Mitigate by protecting **iterative coding cycles** and treating integration as **dialogue**, not automatic trump rules.
+
+## Quality criteria
+
+Beyond mono-method rigor, assess:
+
+- **Integration clarity** (not parallel play).
+- **Meta-inferences** justified by both strands.
+- **Discrepancies** analyzed, not hidden.
+
+## Reporting
+
+Use diagrams of the design; specify priority, sequence, purpose of each strand, and integration points. Follow **MMARS** or journal-specific mixed-methods reporting guidance when required.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Design matches question (explore/explain/converge).
+- [ ] Priority/sequence explicit.
+- [ ] Integration points and products defined (joint display, instrument, typology).
+- [ ] Paradigm stance coherent.
+- [ ] GT strand protected from premature quantification if emergent.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. *Designing and conducting mixed methods research* (3rd ed.).
+- Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs. *Annals of Family Medicine*.
+- Greene, J. C. *Mixed methods in social inquiry*.

package/skills/narrative-inquiry/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+name: narrative-inquiry
+description: "Use when conducting narrative research — analyzing stories, life histories, and narrative accounts of experience."
+---
+
+# Narrative Inquiry
+
+Narrative inquiry treats **stories** as both **method** and **phenomenon**: people make sense of lives through narrative, and researchers study experience as **storied**. Applications span education, health, organizational studies, and oral history.
+
+## Major types of narrative inquiry
+
+### Biographical / life history
+
+Focuses on a life trajectory—turning points, identity, and social-historical context. Often integrates interviews with archival or documentary sources.
+
+### Life story research
+
+Emphasizes how tellers **construct a coherent self** through selection, emphasis, and omission. Attention to performance and audience.
+
+### Oral history
+
+Documents lived experience in historical context; balances participant voice with archival verification. Ethical stewardship of recordings and community rights is central.
+
+### Narrative analysis (as distinct tradition)
+
+May analyze **narratives as texts** (structure, plot, voice) from interviews or naturalistic sources, with varying degrees of emphasis on teller collaboration.
+
+## Clandinin & Connelly’s three-dimensional space
+
+Narrative inquiry can be mapped along:
+
+1. **Temporality** — Past, present, and future in the telling; how time is sequenced and given meaning.
+2. **Sociality** — Relationships, dialogue, institutional settings, and power shaping the story.
+3. **Place** — Physical and imagined locations anchoring experience.
+
+Inquiry moves along these dimensions through **field texts** (transcripts, artifacts), **interim texts** (shared summaries with participants), and **final research texts**.
+
+## Riessman’s approaches to narrative analysis
+
+Catherine Kohler Riessman distinguishes complementary lenses:
+
+### Thematic narrative analysis
+
+Identifies **what** is told—the **content** of stories—using codes and themes across narratives. Useful when comparing topics across many accounts.
+
+### Structural narrative analysis
+
+Examines **how** stories are organized—**plot**, **orientation**, **complication**, **evaluation**, **resolution** (Labovian elements), **emplotment**, and **genre** expectations.
+
+### Dialogic / performative analysis
+
+Focuses on **co-construction** in interview interaction, **audience**, **embodiment**, and **context of telling**. Stories are **situated performances**, not transparent windows into fixed memory.
+
+## Narrative analysis techniques (practical)
+
+- **Transcript as poem or stanza** — Preserve rhythm and emphasis (with care for representation ethics).
+- **Sequence charts** — Plot events against time claimed vs implied.
+- **Voice analysis** — Who speaks, who is silenced, quoted speech, pronouns.
+- **Member checking with narrative sensitivity** — Invite response without forcing a single “authorized” story.
+
+## Storied vs non-storied data
+
+Not all qualitative data arrives as a **story**. Researchers may:
+
+- Elicit stories through **narrative prompts** (“Tell me about a time when…”).
+- Treat **episodic** accounts as **small stories** embedded in conversation.
+- Analyze **anti-narrative** fragments when participants resist coherent plotting—resistance itself is meaningful.
+
+## Temporality and plot
+
+- **Chronology vs emplotment** — Events may be reordered for moral or identity work.
+- **Turning points** — Moments that redefine the “before” and “after.”
+- **Counter-narratives** — Stories that resist dominant cultural scripts.
+
+## When to use narrative inquiry vs other methods
+
+Choose **narrative inquiry** when **identity**, **meaning over time**, **experience as sequence**, or **public/cultural stories** are central.
+
+Choose **phenomenology** for **essence of a phenomenon** with less emphasis on plotted time.
+
+Choose **grounded theory** for **social process theory** where narrative may be **data** but not the primary organizing framework.
+
+Choose **thematic analysis** when **patterns across texts** suffice without narrative structure as the main analytic lens.
+
+## Ethics
+
+Stories are **personal and relational**; harm can arise from recognizable detail. Use **pseudonyms**, **composite** strategies only with transparent methodology, and **informed consent** for how stories will be used and stored.
+
+## Quality considerations
+
+- **Resonance** with participants’ sense-making (without collapsing researcher and participant voice).
+- **Contextualization** of tellings (setting, relationship to researcher).
+- **Reflexivity** about how the interview **co-produces** the narrative.
+
+## Key references
+
+- Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. — *Narrative Inquiry*.
+- Riessman, C. K. — *Narrative Analysis*; *Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences*.
+- Polkinghorne, D. E. — Narrative configuration and qualitative studies.
+
+Use this skill when users analyze life stories, interview narratives, or choose between narrative and thematic or GT approaches.

package/skills/observation-methods/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: observation-methods
+description: Use when designing observation protocols, conducting participant observation, or writing field notes.
+---
+
+# Observation Methods and Field Notes
+
+Observation produces situated data about what people do, how settings are arranged, and how interaction unfolds. Strong observation balances disciplined attention with reflexive awareness of how your presence shapes what you can see.
+
+## Observer roles (Gold’s continuum)
+
+Roles range from **complete participant** (insider status, high access, high risk of “going native”) to **complete observer** (minimal interaction, clearer distance, limited access to meaning). Most qualitative studies use **participant-as-observer** or **observer-as-participant** blends. Choose a role that matches ethics, access, and your analytical goals—not only convenience.
+
+## Structured vs unstructured observation
+
+- **Structured observation** uses preset categories, tally sheets, or time sampling. Useful when you need comparable behavioral records; can miss emergent meanings.
+- **Unstructured observation** prioritizes holistic recording of setting, actors, activities, and interactions. Common in ethnography and early GT familiarization.
+- **Hybrid protocols** begin unstructured, then add focused scans for patterns you now understand.
+
+## Observation protocols
+
+Design a lightweight template you can use in the field:
+
+1. **Header:** date, time, site, weather/noise, your role, who was present.
+2. **Spatial sketch:** layout, objects, movement paths (if relevant).
+3. **Sequence log:** what happened first, next, and how episodes ended.
+4. **Talk captures:** verbatim snippets when possible; paraphrase if not.
+5. **Analytic margin:** immediate questions, surprises, and links to prior sessions.
+
+Revise the protocol after early visits when you learn what matters in this setting.
+
+## Field note writing
+
+- **Descriptive notes** record observable actions, dialogue, and setting details. Separate facts you saw/heard from inference; label inferences explicitly.
+- **Reflective notes** capture your reactions, hypotheses, and methodological decisions (e.g., why you stood in a particular spot). Keep reflective content distinct so you can audit what came from data vs researcher stance.
+
+Write **as soon as possible** after leaving the site; expand jottings into full notes within 24 hours when feasible.
+
+## Managing a dual role
+
+If you are both participant and researcher, schedule debrief moments, avoid covert note-taking that breaches trust, and document role conflicts in a reflexive log. Be explicit with gatekeepers about what you will and will not share.
+
+## Ethics of covert observation
+
+Covert observation is ethically fraught and often prohibited by IRBs except in rare circumstances with strong justification and safeguards. Default to **informed consent** and transparent researcher identity. If anonymity of the setting is promised, describe how you will disguise identifying details.
+
+## Duration and frequency
+
+Plan for **iterative visits** rather than one-off snapshots unless the research question is episodic. Longer engagement supports credibility (prolonged engagement) and helps you distinguish routine from anomaly. Match visit length to fatigue, access rules, and safety.
+
+## Grounded theory link
+
+Treat observations as **incidents** comparable to interview segments. Ask: What is going on here? What recurring patterns appear? What variations exist? Memo emergent categories before forcing observational data into preconceived labels.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Observer role chosen and justified; access and consent aligned.
+- [ ] Protocol balances structure with openness.
+- [ ] Descriptive vs reflective notes separated.
+- [ ] Timely expansion from jottings to full notes.
+- [ ] Ethical stance on visibility/covert observation documented.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. *Writing ethnographic fieldnotes* (2nd ed.).
+- Spradley, J. P. *Participant observation*.
+- Glaser on “all is data” — field events are first-class analytic material in GT.