qualitative-research-pro 1.0.0

package/skills/open-coding/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+---
+name: open-coding
+description: "Use when conducting line-by-line open coding, generating substantive codes, in vivo codes, and initial categories from qualitative data."
+---
+
+# Open Coding (Classic Grounded Theory)
+
+Open coding is the **first major analytic move** in classic grounded theory: you fracture qualitative data into **incidents** and label them with **codes** that stand for **conceptual** meanings. The goal is not to summarize paragraphs but to **generate concepts** that can be compared, refined, and later integrated around an emergent **core category**.
+
+Use this skill whenever you are beginning analysis, returning to fresh data after a break, or deliberately **re-opening** coding after discovering a better fit.
+
+---
+
+## Purpose and outcomes
+
+**Purpose**: Turn raw data into **discrete conceptual indicators** that can enter **constant comparison**.
+
+**Typical outputs**:
+
+- A working **code list** (codes with short definitions and examples).  
+- **Annotated data** (tags, margin notes, or software-linked segments).  
+- **Memos** capturing hypotheses about meaning, relationships, and puzzles.  
+- **Early categories** (higher-level groupings of codes with properties/dimensions beginning to appear).
+
+---
+
+## Line-by-line and incident-to-incident technique
+
+### Line-by-line (dense passages)
+
+For rich narrative segments, move **line by line** (or sentence by sentence) asking:
+
+1. **What is going on here?** (substantive meaning)  
+2. **What category(ies) does this indicate?** (conceptual label)  
+3. **What other incidents compare/contrast?** (comparison cue)
+
+Do **not** code “the whole paragraph” as one blob unless it truly expresses **one** incident.
+
+### Incident-to-incident comparison
+
+An **incident** is a **meaningful chunk** of data that can be compared: an event, action, feeling, statement, turning point, or interactional move.
+
+After coding an incident:
+
+- Ask: “What is this incident like? Unlike?”  
+- Pull **another incident** (same interview, different interview, different source) and compare at the **conceptual** level.  
+- Refine code definitions when comparisons reveal **properties** (attributes) and **dimensions** (ranges).
+
+---
+
+## Types of codes you will use
+
+### Substantive codes
+
+Conceptual labels derived from **what the data is about**. Examples (illustrative only): *shielding credibility*, *deferring decisions*, *patching workflow*. These should be **abstract enough** to travel across interviews, yet **faithful** to data.
+
+### In vivo codes
+
+Use participants’ **own terms** when they **condense meaning** powerfully. In vivo codes keep you close to **emic** language while still enabling comparison.
+
+**Caution**: Not every catchy phrase is conceptual. If an in vivo term is **too idiosyncratic**, translate it into a **more general** substantive code while preserving the participant language in a memo.
+
+### Gerund coding (“-ing”)
+
+Glaser often recommends **gerunds** to keep **process** in view: *managing time*, *containing conflict*, *signaling competence*. This helps you see **action/interaction** rather than static nouns.
+
+### Provisional “hypothesis codes”
+
+Early codes that may be wrong are fine. Classic GT **expects** code churn. Rename, split, merge—**document** changes in memos.
+
+---
+
+## Fracturing data (practical moves)
+
+- **Break on shifts**: new topic, new actor, new emotion, new tactic, new consequence.  
+- **Break on strong lines**: especially vivid, repeated, or consequential moments.  
+- **Break on comparisons** you can already imagine: “This sounds like X, but also unlike X because…”  
+- **Tag “don’t know yet”**: if unsure, use a temporary label + memo the uncertainty.
+
+---
+
+## Worked example (abbreviated)
+
+**Data excerpt (fictional)**:
+
+> “I didn’t tell my manager about the side project at first. I needed to see if it would even work. Once it looked real, I scheduled a short chat and framed it as ‘experiment’ not ‘commitment.’”
+
+**Possible open codes (illustrative)**:
+
+- *delaying disclosure* (substantive)  
+- *probing viability privately* (substantive)  
+- *softening risk framing* (substantive; gerund-friendly: *framing-as-experiment*)  
+- *staging legitimacy* (hypothesis code—might merge/split later)
+
+**Comparison prompts**:
+
+- Compare to another incident where the participant **disclosed immediately**—what conditions differ?  
+- Compare to an incident of **never disclosing**—what consequences differ?
+
+**Memo seed**:
+
+> “Hypothesis: disclosure timing is managed through **viability thresholds** + **linguistic risk reduction**. Need more negative cases where disclosure backfired.”
+
+---
+
+## Output format (recommended)
+
+### 1) Code entry template
+
+```text
+Code name:
+Definition (1–3 sentences):
+Inclusion criteria:
+Exclusion criteria (common confusions):
+Example incidents (2–3 brief quotes with source IDs):
+Related codes (merge/split notes):
+Open questions:
+```
+
+### 2) Session log (audit trail)
+
+```text
+Date / dataset:
+Incidents coded (count) + IDs:
+New codes added:
+Codes renamed/merged/split (why):
+Memos written (titles):
+Next comparison targets:
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quality checks during open coding
+
+- **Abstract enough** to compare across cases, **concrete enough** to trace to incidents.  
+- **Avoid laundry lists** of topics; aim for **analytic** codes.  
+- **Memo** whenever you claim a relationship (“because,” “in order to,” “leads to”).  
+- **Seek negative cases** early: incidents that seem to contradict your “favorite” code.
+
+---
+
+## When to move toward selective coding
+
+You are **not** finished with open coding in a single week; it matures through comparison. Move toward **selective coding** when:
+
+1. A **core category** candidate **recurs**, **explains** a wide swath of variation, and **connects** many other categories.  
+2. You can **delimit**: additional open coding feels **redundant** relative to the emerging integrated story.  
+3. **Theoretical sampling** questions become **targeted** at the core and its related conditions/strategies/consequences.
+
+If you move too early, you risk **forcing** a core. If you move too late, you risk **endless sprawl**. Let **comparison + memo sorting** guide the transition.
+
+---
+
+## Common pitfalls
+
+- **Paraphrasing** instead of conceptualizing.  
+- **Over-coding** with synonyms; **merge** aggressively after comparison.  
+- **Under-memoing**; losing the trail of theoretical reasoning.  
+- **Theme sorting** without comparison (categories that “sound nice” but don’t explain).  
+- **Premature literature import** that names your phenomenon before you’ve earned concepts.
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1998). *Doing grounded theory*. Sociology Press.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `constant-comparison`, `memo-writing`, `theoretical-sensitivity`  
+- `selective-coding` (next major transition)  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory` (full process map)

package/skills/paradigmatic-positioning/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+name: paradigmatic-positioning
+description: Use when articulating the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions underlying a qualitative study.
+---
+
+# Paradigmatic Positioning in Qualitative Inquiry
+
+Paradigmatic positioning explains **what you believe reality is (ontology)**, **how you can know it (epistemology)**, and **how methods follow from those commitments (methodology)**. Clear positioning helps readers interpret your claims and rigor criteria.
+
+## Major paradigms (compact map)
+
+- **Positivism / post-positivism:** realist lean; emphasis on objectivity, measurement, and generalization (qualitative use is contested/varied).
+- **Constructivism / interpretivism:** meaning is socially constructed; knowledge co-created; context-bound interpretations.
+- **Critical theory / transformative:** knowledge linked to power, liberation, and structural critique; research as emancipatory praxis.
+- **Pragmatism:** what works for the problem; plural methods; less anxiety about “one true ontology” if inquiry is purposeful.
+- **Participatory:** community governance, shared expertise, ethics of partnership.
+
+These labels are **ideal types**; hybrid stances are common.
+
+## Ontology–epistemology–methodology alignment
+
+If you treat participant meanings as **primary reality** for your study (interpretive ontology/epistemology), methods should support **thick description, reflexivity, and emergent analysis**—not pretend to neutral brute facts.
+
+If you adopt **critical** aims, include **how** analysis surfaces ideology, marginalization, or structural conditions.
+
+## Guba & Lincoln’s paradigm framework
+
+Naturalistic/constructivist inquiry historically challenged positivist criteria, proposing **trustworthiness** over narrow replication. Use this lineage explicitly when defending qualitative rigor to mixed audiences.
+
+## Glaser’s position (use carefully in writing)
+
+Glaser’s classic GT is often read as having **objectivist/realist** tendencies: theory is **discovered** in data through disciplined procedures, not invented arbitrarily. Some scholars debate labels; when you write, **define what you mean** rather than relying on sloganized “objectivist GT.”
+
+## Charmaz’s constructivist position
+
+Kathy Charmaz’s constructivist GT emphasizes **co-construction** of data and **researcher interpretation** as inevitable. Rigor includes **reflexivity** and **partial perspectives**, while still demanding **systematic comparison**.
+
+## Writing a philosophical positioning section
+
+Include:
+
+1. **Stance statement:** 1–2 sentences naming paradigm influences.
+2. **Ontology/epistemology:** what counts as data/knowledge in *this* study.
+3. **Methodological consequences:** why interviews/ethnography/GT fits.
+4. **Rigor framework:** credibility/trustworthiness/fit-work-relevance, etc.
+5. **Researcher role:** how positionality matters.
+
+Avoid long textbook summaries; **apply** philosophy to decisions.
+
+## Common student pitfalls
+
+- Declaring constructivism while writing purely realist “proof” language.
+- Listing paradigms without linking to methods.
+- Treating philosophy as boilerplate unrelated to analysis.
+
+## Grounded theory paragraph template (adapt)
+
+“This study adopts a Glaserian classic grounded theory stance, treating emergent categories as earned through constant comparison while acknowledging the researcher’s disciplined interpretive work. Rigor is evaluated through fit, work, relevance, and modifiability, complemented by audit trail practices supporting dependability.”
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Ontology/epistemology/methodology coherent.
+- [ ] GT variant named (classic vs constructivist vs other).
+- [ ] Rigor criteria match paradigm.
+- [ ] Positionality/reflexivity integrated where constructivist/critical.
+- [ ] Language of claims matches philosophical stance.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. “Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (in Denzin & Lincoln *Handbook of Qualitative Research* editions).
+- Charmaz, K. *Constructing grounded theory* (2nd ed.).
+- Glaser, B. G. *Doing Grounded Theory* — researcher role and emergence.

package/skills/peer-debriefing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+name: peer-debriefing
+description: Use when conducting peer debriefing or external audit processes to enhance the dependability and confirmability of qualitative research.
+---
+
+# Peer Debriefing and External Audit
+
+Peer debriefing is a **structured dialog** with a knowledgeable colleague who challenges your assumptions, probes alternative interpretations, and helps surface researcher bias. It supports **dependability** and **confirmability** by externalizing decision-making without surrendering analytic responsibility.
+
+## What peer debriefing is
+
+Regular sessions where you present: data excerpts, coding decisions, emerging categories, sampling rationale, and sticky analytic problems. The debriefer asks probing questions, suggests counter-interpretations, and notes blind spots.
+
+## Selecting a debriefer
+
+Choose someone who:
+
+- Understands qualitative methodology broadly (and your approach specifically, when possible).
+- Can be **respectfully critical** without dominating your study.
+- Is sufficiently **outside** day-to-day data collection to notice taken-for-granted assumptions.
+
+Avoid debriefers with conflicts of interest (e.g., stakeholders who need a particular outcome).
+
+## Session structure (60–90 minutes)
+
+1. **Context recap** (5–10 min): study aims, where you are analytically.
+2. **Data grounding** (20–40 min): share 2–4 rich excerpts and current interpretations.
+3. **Challenge zone** (20–30 min): debriefer asks “What else could this mean?”, “What disconfirming cases exist?”, “What influenced this coding choice?”
+4. **Action items** (10 min): what you will try next (memo, re-code slice, new sample).
+5. **Documentation** (after session): write a debrief memo within 24 hours.
+
+## Questions to discuss
+
+- Where might my positionality shape what I notice or ignore?
+- What alternative codes or theories could fit this excerpt?
+- What negative cases am I under-weighting?
+- Are category definitions drifting without documentation?
+- Is my sampling following habit or analytic need?
+
+## Documenting sessions
+
+Keep **debrief logs**: date, topics, challenges raised, decisions made (or deferred), and whether the session changed coding rules or sampling. Store logs in your audit trail folder with access controls.
+
+## External audit procedures (Lincoln & Guba)
+
+An **external auditor** reviews process documentation (field notes, coding memos, audit trail) to assess whether interpretations are traceable to data. This is heavier than informal peer debriefing but similar in spirit. Provide the auditor a clear scope—what they are/not judging.
+
+## Relationship to dependability
+
+Dependability is not “the same code every time without thinking”—it is **traceable process**. Peer debriefing makes methodological moves visible and revisable.
+
+## Frequency and timing
+
+Early debriefs reduce compounding errors; mid-study debriefs test emerging categories; late debriefs stress-test near-final claims. Aim for **regularity** (e.g., monthly) rather than crisis-only debriefs.
+
+## Grounded theory alignment
+
+Use debriefing to guard against **forcing** preconceived frameworks and to test whether categories **earn their relevance**. The debriefer should press for constant comparison discipline.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Debriefer selected; role and boundaries clarified.
+- [ ] Sessions structured; challenges recorded, not only praise.
+- [ ] Logs integrated into audit trail.
+- [ ] Disconfirming prompts routinely used.
+- [ ] External audit scope defined if used separately from debriefing.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. *Naturalistic inquiry* — dependability and confirmability via audit.
+- Spillett, M. A. (2003). Peer debriefing. *Qualitative Health Research*.
+- Barusch, A. *Designing and using qualitative research* — practical peer inquiry tips.

package/skills/phenomenological-methods/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+name: phenomenological-methods
+description: "Use when conducting phenomenological research — descriptive (Moustakas/Husserl), hermeneutic (van Manen/Heidegger), or interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA/Smith)."
+---
+
+# Phenomenological Research Methods
+
+Phenomenology studies **lived experience**—how people experience a phenomenon as it appears to consciousness. Designs differ by philosophical lineage: descriptive (Husserlian), hermeneutic (Heideggerian), and idiographic approaches such as interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA).
+
+## Major types of phenomenology
+
+### Descriptive phenomenology (Husserl; Moustakas)
+
+Focuses on **essential structures** of experience through disciplined description. The researcher aims to bracket prior assumptions to attend to phenomena as given in experience.
+
+### Hermeneutic phenomenology (Heidegger; van Manen)
+
+Emphasizes **interpretation** as inseparable from understanding. The researcher is historically situated; meaning is co-constituted through language and context. “Bracketing” is reframed as reflective vigilance rather than full elimination of fore-understanding.
+
+### Interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith, Flowers, Larkin)
+
+IPA is **idiographic**, **interpretative**, and **phenomenological**. It examines how individuals make sense of a lived experience in a particular context, usually through detailed case-by-case analysis before cross-case patterns are considered.
+
+## Epoché and bracketing
+
+- **Epoché** (Husserlian sense) — Suspension of judgment about the natural attitude; a disciplined shift toward describing how things appear.
+- **Bracketing in practice** — Document assumptions before analysis; use memos, supervision, or peer debriefing. Hermeneutic scholars argue total bracketing is impossible; the goal is **reflexive transparency** about how prior knowledge shapes interpretation.
+
+## Imaginative variation (descriptive tradition)
+
+The researcher varies aspects of the phenomenon mentally to discern **invariants**—what must be present for the experience to be what it is. Supports movement from concrete accounts to essential structures.
+
+## Structural and textural descriptions (Moustakas)
+
+- **Textural description** — What was experienced? The “felt” qualities and concrete features participants describe.
+- **Structural description** — How context, time, relationships, and bodily presence shape the experience. Combines textural accounts into an integrated depiction of underlying structures.
+- **Composite description** — Synthesis across participants capturing the **essence** of the phenomenon for the sample studied.
+
+## IPA: idiographic approach
+
+1. **Case-first analysis** — Deep engagement with one transcript before the next; emergent themes for each case.
+2. **Cross-case analysis** — Cluster individual themes into **superordinate themes** while preserving case specificity.
+3. **Interpretation** — The researcher offers a “double hermeneutic”: participants interpret their world; the researcher interprets participants’ interpretations.
+
+## Data collection
+
+- **In-depth, semi-structured interviews** are the most common IPA and phenomenological data source.
+- **Diaries, drawings, and focused observations** can supplement when they illuminate lived experience.
+- Sample sizes in IPA are typically **small** (often 3–10) to preserve idiographic depth; descriptive/hermeneutic studies vary by purpose and institutional norms.
+
+## Analysis procedures by type
+
+| Approach | Emphasis | Typical moves |
+|----------|----------|----------------|
+| Descriptive (Moustakas) | Essences, invariants | Horizontalization, meaning units, clusters, thematic/structural synthesis |
+| Hermeneutic (van Manen) | Meaning of being-in-the-world | Thematic analysis (holistic, selective, detailed), writing as inquiry |
+| IPA | Sense-making in context | Exploratory comments, emergent themes, personal experiential themes, superordinate themes |
+
+## Phenomenology vs grounded theory
+
+- **GT** builds explanatory social theory through coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling.
+- **Phenomenology** prioritizes **experience and meaning** over formal theory of social processes.
+- **Sampling** — GT’s theoretical sampling differs from phenomenology’s purposive sampling for **information-rich** cases.
+- **Output** — Phenomenology yields **essential or interpretative accounts** of experience; GT yields **integrated categories and hypotheses** about process.
+
+## Writing and representation
+
+Phenomenological writing should **evoke** lived meaning without reducing participants to types. Favor **vivid, concrete** description tied to transcripts; show **how** you moved from transcripts to structures or interpretations. In IPA, retain **case-based texture** in the results before presenting cross-case themes so readers see **idiographic** depth.
+
+## Quality and rigor (pragmatic checklist)
+
+- **Sufficient engagement** — Enough interviews or episodes to support claims about experience in context (IPA: often justified through **convergence** and **nuance** within a small N).
+- **Reflexivity** — Ongoing documentation of researcher assumptions and interview dynamics.
+- **Coherence** — Clear trace from quotes to interpretive claims to essences or superordinate themes.
+- **Ethical care** — Sensitive topics require **distress protocols**, **signposting**, and **clear consent** for how intensely personal material is used.
+
+## Choosing among phenomenological approaches (quick guide)
+
+- Choose **descriptive (Moustakas)** when the study aims for **essential structures** and you can defend **bracketing** procedures.
+- Choose **hermeneutic (van Manen)** when **interpretation**, **language**, and **being-in-the-world** are central and you accept **situated** knowing.
+- Choose **IPA** when you want **psychological sense-making** in **particular contexts** with **small samples** and **case-first** analysis.
+
+## Key references
+
+- Husserl, E. — *Ideas* (epoché, phenomenological attitude).
+- Moustakas, C. — *Phenomenological Research Methods*.
+- van Manen, M. — *Researching Lived Experience*; *Phenomenology of Practice*.
+- Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. — *Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis* (2nd ed.).
+- Heidegger, M. — *Being and Time* (foundation for hermeneutic phenomenology).
+
+Use this skill when the user’s question concerns lived experience, essence, IPA procedures, or choosing between phenomenology and grounded theory.

package/skills/qualitative-rigor/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+---
+name: qualitative-rigor
+description: Use when establishing or evaluating the trustworthiness and rigor of qualitative research using Lincoln & Guba's criteria and related frameworks.
+---
+
+# Qualitative Rigor and Trustworthiness
+
+“Rigor” in qualitative research is less about replication in a narrow sense and more about **demonstrating that findings are credible, contextually meaningful, carefully documented, and reflexively produced**. Lincoln and Guba’s **trustworthiness** framework remains widely used; newer approaches add **critical, participatory, and justice-oriented** quality criteria.
+
+## Trustworthiness criteria (Lincoln & Guba)
+
+- **Credibility:** Are findings believable from the standpoint of participants and the data?
+- **Transferability:** Can readers judge applicability to their settings via rich contextualization?
+- **Dependability:** Is the inquiry process stable and trackable enough to audit?
+- **Confirmability:** Are interpretations tied to evidence rather than solely researcher bias?
+
+## Techniques mapped to criteria
+
+**Credibility**
+
+- Prolonged engagement and persistent observation.
+- Triangulation (data, methods, investigators—used thoughtfully).
+- Peer debriefing and negative case analysis.
+- Thick description of processes, not only outcomes.
+
+**Transferability**
+
+- Thick description of setting, actors, constraints, and local meanings.
+- Clear boundaries: what this study is *not* claiming.
+
+**Dependability**
+
+- Audit trail of decisions (coding changes, sampling pivots, memo evolution).
+- Process transparency: how data became interpretations.
+
+**Confirmability**
+
+- Audit trail + reflexive documentation.
+- Data extracts displayed alongside analytic claims in publications.
+
+## Member checking (use judiciously)
+
+Member checking can support credibility but is debated in grounded theory. Document what type you used and why. See the `member-checking` skill for GT-specific cautions.
+
+## Comparison with validity and reliability
+
+Positivist “validity/reliability” language can mis-fit constructivist paradigms. If your committee demands those terms, map them explicitly (e.g., credibility ≈ internal validity in a loose translation) **and** defend paradigm-appropriate criteria.
+
+## Paradigm-specific quality criteria
+
+Constructivist work may emphasize **reflexivity, co-construction, and situated knowledge**. Critical and participatory approaches may add **actionability, distributive justice, and community benefit**. Pragmatist mixed-methods studies may foreground **usefulness** alongside trustworthiness.
+
+## Reporting structure (suggested)
+
+In methods/findings:
+
+1. State your quality framework and why it fits your paradigm.
+2. List concrete techniques used (not generic promises).
+3. Show evidence: excerpts, decision logs, triangulation tables.
+4. Acknowledge limitations and how you searched for disconfirming evidence.
+
+## Grounded theory note
+
+Glaserian rigor emphasizes **fit, work, relevance, modifiability** of theory relative to data. Connect trustworthiness techniques to those criteria when writing GT studies so reviewers see coherence across frameworks.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Quality criteria named and justified paradigmatically.
+- [ ] At least two credibility techniques beyond “I coded carefully.”
+- [ ] Dependability/confirmability supported by audit trail practices.
+- [ ] Transferability supported by contextual detail, not over-claiming universality.
+- [ ] Limitations and negative case efforts transparent.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. *Naturalistic inquiry*.
+- Tracy, S. J. “Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research.” *Qualitative Inquiry*.
+- Morse, J. M., et al. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods*.

package/skills/reflexive-practice/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+name: reflexive-practice
+description: Use when engaging in researcher reflexivity — examining positionality, assumptions, and their influence on the research process.
+---
+
+# Reflexive Practice in Qualitative Research
+
+Reflexivity is ongoing critical attention to how the researcher’s **identity, assumptions, relationships, and institutional location** shape every stage of inquiry—from question formation to writing. It supports transparency and can improve analytic nuance when balanced with methodological discipline.
+
+## Types of reflexivity
+
+- **Personal reflexivity:** How your biography, emotions, and social identities affect access, rapport, and interpretation.
+- **Epistemological reflexivity:** What you believe counts as knowledge, how you relate to “truth,” and how that shapes coding and claims.
+- **Methodological reflexivity:** How method choices (sampling, interview style, software use) channel certain insights and foreclose others.
+
+## Reflexive journal techniques
+
+Keep a dated journal separate from field notes. Useful prompts:
+
+- What surprised me today—did I dismiss it too quickly?
+- What did I want the participant to say—where is that desire from?
+- Which questions felt risky or leading after the fact?
+- How might a participant read my summary differently?
+
+Tag entries by **phase** (data collection, coding, writing) so you can trace evolution.
+
+## Positionality statement components
+
+A strong statement often includes: social identities relevant to the setting; prior experience with the topic; power relations with participants; ethical stakes; how you mitigated bias (debriefing, triangulation, member checks where appropriate); limits of self-knowledge.
+
+Avoid performative confession; emphasize **analytic consequences**.
+
+## Finlay’s reflexive strategies (overview)
+
+Linda Finlay catalogued multiple reflexive moves used across interpretive traditions—e.g., monitoring intersubjective dynamics, bracketing (where phenomenologically aligned), and questioning ostensibly “neutral” descriptions. Pick strategies that fit your paradigm; do not paste phenomenological bracketing into GT without justification.
+
+## Glaser: reflexivity vs theoretical sensitivity
+
+Glaser emphasizes **theoretical sensitivity** earned through analytic practice and broad reading, warning against **over-insertion** of the researcher’s story as if it were participant data. Reflexivity in GT should discipline **forcing** and **narcissistic narrative**, not replace **constant comparison** with self-analysis.
+
+## Ongoing reflexive practice (habits)
+
+- Schedule **post-interview memos** before the next task.
+- Review code definitions when you notice emotional charge around certain themes.
+- Use peer debriefing to externalize blind spots.
+- When writing discussion sections, ask: **for whom** is this conclusion plausible, and **what counter-story** exists in the data?
+
+## Reporting reflexivity
+
+Include a concise reflexivity subsection or appendix in dissertations/articles; link reflexive insights to **methodological decisions** (why sampling shifted, why a category was split).
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Journal maintained; entries tied to decisions and surprises.
+- [ ] Positionality articulated with analytic implications.
+- [ ] Paradigm-appropriate reflexive strategies chosen.
+- [ ] GT: reflexivity supports openness; does not substitute for comparison.
+- [ ] Peer or mentor dialogue used to counter self-deception.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, principles, and practice of reflexivity. *Qualitative Health Research*.
+- Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. *Qualitative Research*.
+- Glaser, B. G. *Theoretical Sensitivity* — on sensitivity without autobiographical takeover.

package/skills/research-ethics/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+name: research-ethics
+description: Use when addressing ethical considerations in qualitative research — IRB protocols, informed consent, confidentiality, and ethical practice.
+---
+
+# Research Ethics in Qualitative Studies
+
+Qualitative research often involves **intimate knowledge, unpredictable encounters, and evolving relationships**. Ethics is not only IRB compliance; it is ongoing judgment about respect, harm reduction, and fairness.
+
+## Core ethical principles (Belmont-related framing)
+
+- **Respect for persons / autonomy:** voluntary participation, informed consent, honoring withdrawal.
+- **Beneficence:** maximize benefits, minimize risks—including social and psychological risks.
+- **Non-maleficence:** avoid unnecessary intrusion, re-traumatization, or deceptive practices.
+- **Justice:** fair participant selection; attention to vulnerability and historical exploitation.
+
+## IRB application components (typical)
+
+- Study aims and procedures; recruitment materials; consent/assent processes.
+- Risk/benefit analysis; data security; data retention/destruction.
+- Investigator qualifications; conflict of interest.
+- Plans for sensitive topics, minors, or other regulated populations.
+
+Local IRBs differ—mirror their template language while preserving methodological honesty.
+
+## Informed consent in qualitative research
+
+Use plain language; separate **research participation** from any service relationship. Because qualitative interviews can shift topics, consider **process consent**: re-check comfort when entering sensitive terrain. Clarify recording, quotes in publications, and limits of confidentiality (e.g., mandated reporting).
+
+## Confidentiality measures
+
+Use pseudonyms; remove or aggregate identifying details; secure storage (encrypted drives, access controls); minimize data duplication; train team members. For small communities, **confidentiality may be limited** by recognizability—discuss this in consent.
+
+## Data management ethics
+
+Align retention with IRB approvals; document who can access what; plan for breaches. See `data-management-protocols` for operational detail.
+
+## Ethical dilemmas (examples)
+
+- A participant discloses imminent harm: know reporting duties in advance.
+- A gatekeeper pressures access: protect voluntary participation.
+- Findings may harm a community if misread: frame claims carefully; consider return of results.
+
+## Cultural sensitivity and power dynamics
+
+Avoid extractive research models when possible; credit community contributions; consider co-design or advisory boards for historically marginalized groups. Attend to language, gender norms, and decision-making styles in consent and interview pacing.
+
+## Grounded theory note
+
+GT’s emergent design does not excuse **ethical vagueness**. Pre-register ethical safeguards for sensitive pivots (e.g., how you will handle unanticipated illegal activity disclosures).
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Consent is ongoing where topics evolve; risks updated if procedures change.
+- [ ] Confidentiality limits explained honestly (including group settings).
+- [ ] Data security matches sensitivity tier.
+- [ ] Power dynamics and cultural context addressed in design.
+- [ ] Mandated reporting pathways understood before fieldwork.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects. *Belmont Report*.
+- Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. *Qualitative Health Research*.
+- Mertens, D. M. *Transformative research and evaluation* — ethics in inclusive inquiry.