qualitative-research-pro 1.0.0

package/skills/research-proposal-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: research-proposal-writing
+description: Use when writing research proposals or grant applications for qualitative or grounded theory studies.
+---
+
+# Research Proposal Writing (Qualitative & Grounded Theory)
+
+A strong proposal convinces reviewers that the study is **important, feasible, ethical, and methodologically coherent**—even when outcomes are emergent rather than hypothesized.
+
+## Proposal structure (typical)
+
+- Summary/abstract.
+- Specific aims or objectives.
+- Significance/innovation.
+- Background (tailored—see GT paradox below).
+- Methods: design, setting, participants/sampling, data collection, analysis, rigor, ethics, timeline, team roles.
+- Dissemination; broader impacts (funder-dependent).
+- Budget and justification; facilities/resources.
+
+## The grounded theory proposal paradox
+
+GT proposals must demonstrate preparedness without **predetermining findings**. Frame the topic as an **area of interest** and justify why emergent theory is needed. Describe **analytic procedures** (constant comparison, memoing, theoretical sampling) rather than a finalized conceptual framework.
+
+## Writing for non-qualitative reviewers
+
+Translate:
+
+- “Saturation” → explain as **stopping criterion based on category development**, not magic N.
+- “Emergence” → clarify disciplined procedures that prevent cherry-picking.
+- “Rigor” → name concrete techniques (audit trail, triangulation, debriefing) appropriate to your paradigm.
+
+Avoid jargon walls; include a concise **why qualitative** paragraph.
+
+## Significance section
+
+Connect to gaps: what is unknown, costly, unjust, or theoretically weak. Specify **who benefits** and how knowledge will be used—without overpromising causal claims qualitative designs cannot support.
+
+## Methodology justification
+
+Defend **why GT** (or other approach) fits the phenomenon. Describe **initial sampling** and how **theoretical sampling** will evolve. Name software if used, but emphasize **analytic discipline**, not button clicks.
+
+## Timeline
+
+Use phased milestones: IRB, pilot, initial interviews, iterative coding cycles, selective/theoretical coding, write-up. Build time for **transcription** and **team reconciliation**.
+
+## Budget
+
+Include transcription, participant incentives, travel/site costs, software licenses, translation/back-translation if needed, and conference dissemination if allowed.
+
+## Broader impacts (NSF-style framing)
+
+Education/training products, public engagement, tools/templates (de-identified), community partnerships—aligned with funder values.
+
+## NIH-specific considerations (qualitative)
+
+Qualitative work may appear in mixed-methods aims; justify **integration**. Human subjects sections must be meticulous. Check relevant FOAs for qualitative-friendly language and review panels.
+
+## NSF-specific considerations
+
+Broader impacts and data management plans must be realistic for qualitative constraints; describe **metadata and sharing limits** ethically.
+
+## Red flags reviewers notice
+
+- “We will prove hypothesis X” in classic GT proposals.
+- Vague analysis (“themes will be identified”) with no procedural depth.
+- Sampling that cannot possibly support claims.
+- Ethics underspecified for sensitive topics.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Paradox of emergence handled with procedural specificity.
+- [ ] Rigor strategies named and matched to paradigm.
+- [ ] Timeline includes iterative analysis realities.
+- [ ] Budget covers hidden qualitative costs.
+- [ ] Data management/sharing ethically truthful.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Stern, P. N. (Ed.). *Grounded theory in applied practice* — proposal and project realities.
+- O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? *Journal of Mixed Methods Research*.
+- Funder solicitation texts and sample funded proposals (when accessible).

package/skills/research-questions/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+name: research-questions
+description: Use when formulating qualitative research questions — open-ended, exploratory, process-oriented questions appropriate for the chosen methodology.
+---
+
+# Qualitative Research Questions
+
+Qualitative research questions invite **meaning, process, and context**. They should be **open-ended**, non-leading, and aligned with what your methodology can actually deliver.
+
+## What makes a good qualitative RQ
+
+- Explores **how/why/what** in a situated way (wording depends on tradition).
+- Avoids pre-judging mechanisms or imposing variables.
+- Matches **data access** and ethics (what you can actually observe/ask).
+- Is **focused** enough to bound the study yet **flexible** enough to learn.
+
+## Grounded theory: area of interest vs forced questions
+
+Classic GT often begins with a broad **area of interest** rather than a tight hypothesis. Questions should not telegraph expected categories. As theory emerges, questions in later interviews become **theoretically sampled** to fill analytic gaps.
+
+## Phenomenology
+
+Central question form often resembles: **“What is the lived experience of X?”** Follow with probes about essence, embodiment, time, and relationality—aligned with your phenomenological variant (descriptive, interpretive, hermeneutic).
+
+## Ethnography
+
+Ask **cultural/process** questions: What meanings, practices, and norms constitute membership? How is everyday life organized in this setting? How do insiders explain their actions?
+
+## Case study
+
+Yin-style case studies often ask **how/why** about a bounded system. Questions should clarify **case boundaries** (unit of analysis) and the theoretical proposition the case illuminates—without smuggling quantitative causality claims.
+
+## Avoiding quantitative framing
+
+Steer away from “How much?”, “How many?”, or “Does X cause Y?” unless you truly have measurement designs. If magnitudes matter, consider mixed methods rather than forcing a qualitative core question into a survey frame.
+
+## Evolving RQs in GT
+
+It is legitimate to **revise** the research question as the core category emerges. Document the evolution in your audit trail (“initial focus → refined focus after selective coding”). Proposals can present **staging**: initial orienting question + plan to refine.
+
+## From RQ to interview guide
+
+Translate the RQ into **topic areas** and **open prompts**, not a litany of micro-questions that exhaust participants.
+
+## Evaluation rubric (quick)
+
+- Open?
+- Non-leading?
+- Feasible?
+- Ethical?
+- Method-aligned?
+- Single-bounded phenomenon (not ten dissertations in one)?
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] RQ matches methodology (GT/phenomenology/ethnography/case).
+- [ ] Process/meaning central; quantification not smuggled in.
+- [ ] GT: openness preserved; theoretical sampling plan noted.
+- [ ] Case/ethnography: boundaries defined.
+- [ ] Evolution pathway documented where emergent designs apply.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Maxwell, J. A. *Qualitative research design: An interactive approach* (3rd ed.).
+- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. *Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches* (4th ed.).
+- Glaser, B. G. *Doing Grounded Theory* — emergent question evolution.

package/skills/sampling-strategies/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+---
+name: sampling-strategies
+description: Use when selecting sampling strategies for qualitative research — purposeful, theoretical, snowball, criterion, maximum variation.
+---
+
+# Sampling Strategies in Qualitative Research
+
+Qualitative sampling prioritizes **information-rich cases** and **analytic progression** over statistical representativeness. Your sampling chapter should explain logic, not pretend to randomize for generalization in a positivist sense.
+
+## Purposeful sampling (Patton)
+
+Purposeful sampling selects cases that illuminate the phenomenon intensely. Common variants:
+
+- **Maximum variation:** Deliberately include diverse contexts to surface core patterns and boundaries.
+- **Homogeneous:** Deepen understanding within a similar subset when noise reduction helps early theory.
+- **Typical case:** Clarify the “usual” pattern when stakeholders misunderstand extremes.
+- **Critical case:** A instance that can falsify or strongly test an emerging claim.
+- **Criterion:** All participants meet explicit inclusion criteria tied to the research question.
+- **Snowball/chain:** Referrals lead to new participants; efficient for hidden populations.
+
+## Theoretical sampling (Glaser)
+
+After initial coding, **theoretical sampling** seeks data to elaborate **properties, dimensions, conditions, and consequences** of emerging categories. You sample for **analytic gaps**, not demographic quotas (unless demographics are theoretically relevant). The question is: “What data do I need next to develop this category?”
+
+## Snowball and chain referral sampling
+
+Use when populations are hard to reach or trust is network-based. Mitigate bias from seed participants by using **multiple entry points** and monitoring whose voices dominate. Document referral chains in audit materials.
+
+## Maximum variation vs typical case
+
+Maximum variation guards against **provincial theory**; typical case helps communicate **mundane patterning**. In GT, these are tools in service of emergent categories—choose based on what the evolving theory demands.
+
+## Convenience sampling (with caveats)
+
+Convenience sampling is acceptable only when limitations are **transparent** and you take compensatory steps (prolonged engagement, triangulation, negative case search). Never dress convenience up as theoretical sampling without analytic justification.
+
+## Sample size in qualitative research
+
+“How many?” depends on **study scope, data richness, and saturation**. A focused GT project may achieve workable saturation with fewer cases if incidents are dense; a comparative multi-site study may need many more. Report **saturation reasoning** and **disconfirming efforts**, not a fake power analysis.
+
+## Saturation-based sampling
+
+Saturation means **no new properties/dimensions** are emerging for a category (in the Glaserian sense), not mere repetition of wordings. Track saturation **by category**, not only globally—some categories saturate early while others remain thin.
+
+## Integration tip
+
+In proposals, distinguish **initial purposeful sampling** (who can get you started) from **later theoretical sampling** (who/what you need next as categories form). This shows methodological maturity in GT.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Sampling logic matches methodology (purposeful vs theoretical).
+- [ ] Inclusion/exclusion criteria explicit and ethically justified.
+- [ ] Referral/snowball bias considered and mitigated where possible.
+- [ ] Saturation tracked with documented negative case searches.
+- [ ] Limitations of non-probability sampling frankly acknowledged.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Patton, M. Q. *Qualitative research and evaluation methods* — purposeful sampling typology.
+- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. *The Discovery of Grounded Theory* — theoretical sampling origins.
+- Emmel, N. *Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research*.

package/skills/selective-coding/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+---
+name: selective-coding
+description: "Use when the core category has emerged and you need to delimit the theory by coding selectively around the core."
+---
+
+# Selective Coding (Classic Grounded Theory)
+
+Selective coding begins when a **core category** has **emerged** and **earned** its place as the center of the developing theory. You shift from coding **everything** to coding **only** what develops the **story** that integrates the core category with major related categories (conditions, strategies, consequences, etc.).
+
+Use this skill when your open coding and constant comparison suggest a **central pattern**, and you need to **delimit** scope while increasing **theoretical density** and **integration**.
+
+---
+
+## What selective coding is (and is not)
+
+**It is**:
+
+- **Focused** coding around the **core** and its multivariate relations.  
+- A disciplined way to **stop sprawl** while deepening **explanatory** power.  
+- A bridge from **many codes** to a **coherent theoretical outline**.
+
+**It is not**:
+
+- Cherry-picking quotes to fit a pet theory.  
+- Ignoring contradictory data (negative cases remain essential).  
+- Replacing comparison with a **single storyline** that ignores variation.
+
+---
+
+## Identifying the core category
+
+Glaser describes the core as the category that:
+
+- **Recurs** frequently in varied forms.  
+- **Relates meaningfully** to many other categories.  
+- Helps **explain** variation (why some incidents differ).  
+- Often connects to participants’ **main concern** and how they **continually resolve** it.
+
+### Practical tests for a core candidate
+
+Ask:
+
+1. **Coverage test**: If I remove this category, does the theory **fall apart**?  
+2. **Connection test**: Does it **link** multiple other categories (not just sit beside them)?  
+3. **Process test** (when relevant): Does it read as a **basic social process** (BSP) or central social-psychological process?  
+4. **Variation test**: Does it help explain **differences** across incidents and cases?
+
+If a candidate fails these tests, keep comparing—**do not promote** a core by fiat.
+
+---
+
+## Basic social process (BSP)
+
+In many Glaserian studies, the core is a **process**: something participants **do** or **work through** over time (e.g., *status passage*, *becoming*, *managing uncertainty*).
+
+**Indicators you may be dealing with a BSP core**:
+
+- Temporal language (*then*, *after*, *at first*, *eventually*).  
+- Stages/phases that **vary** by condition but retain a **family resemblance**.  
+- Strategies that appear as **recurrent tactics** tied to conditions/consequences.
+
+Not every core must be a BSP, but if your data are strongly processual, **gerund formulations** often help.
+
+---
+
+## Delimiting the theory
+
+**Delimiting** means you intentionally **stop** trying to code all possible interesting topics. Instead, you ask of each new incident:
+
+> “What does this contribute to **the core** and its **integrated** relationships?”
+
+### Delimiting rules of thumb
+
+- **Retain** data that clarifies **properties/dimensions** of core-related categories.  
+- **Retain** negative cases that define **boundaries** and **conditions**.  
+- **Deprioritize** tangents that do not change your **theoretical statements** even if they are “interesting.”
+
+Document delimiting decisions in **memos** to preserve transparency.
+
+---
+
+## Focused coding procedure
+
+1. **State the core category** in a memo in **one sentence** (provisional).  
+2. List **major related categories** already suggested by comparison (conditions, context features, strategies, outcomes).  
+3. For each new data segment, ask:  
+   - “How does this **develop** the core story?”  
+   - “Does it add **properties**, **dimensions**, **conditions**, or **consequences**?”  
+4. **Compare** new incidents to **theoretical statements** you are beginning to trust—then revise statements if mismatch appears.  
+5. **Sort memos** into an emerging **outline** structured around the core.
+
+---
+
+## Transitioning from open to selective coding
+
+### Signals you may be ready
+
+- Repeated **redundancy** in open coding relative to the same conceptual points.  
+- Memo outlines keep returning to the **same center of gravity**.  
+- You can **summarize** the study’s main pattern without relying on dozens of disconnected themes.
+
+### A safe transition practice
+
+Run a **two-track week**:
+
+- Track A: continue open coding on **one** new transcript.  
+- Track B: selective-code **only** for core development on the same transcript.  
+Compare results: does selective coding **lose** essential variation? If yes, you’re not ready or your core is wrong.
+
+---
+
+## Relationship to theoretical coding
+
+Selective coding clarifies **what** must be integrated. **Theoretical coding** (coding families) clarifies **how** categories relate (e.g., conditional, causal, strategy).
+
+Sequence (typical in classic GT):
+
+1. Substantive coding matures (open → selective).  
+2. Theoretical codes help **write** integrated hypotheses as the outline stabilizes.
+
+Avoid bolting on theoretical codes **before** substantive relationships are comparatively earned.
+
+---
+
+## Output format (recommended)
+
+### Core statement template
+
+```text
+Provisional core category:
+One-sentence core claim (hypothesis):
+Main concern (if identifiable):
+Primary related categories (list):
+Negative cases queued for comparison:
+What would falsify this core claim in upcoming data?
+```
+
+### Selective coding excerpt log
+
+```text
+Source ID / location:
+Why this excerpt matters to the core:
+New properties/dimensions discovered (if any):
+Revised relationship statements (if any):
+Next sampling impulse (theoretical sampling note):
+```
+
+---
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+- **Premature selective coding** after one interview.  
+- **Renaming** without comparative justification (cosmetic “core”).  
+- **Suppressing outliers** that define scope conditions.  
+- **Theme rebranding**: calling a theme a “core” without **explanatory** work.  
+- **Mixing units**: confusing participant goals with analytic categories—keep analytic language in memos and theory.
+
+---
+
+## Quality criteria checkpoint
+
+Revisit **fit, work, relevance, modifiability**:
+
+- **Fit**: Does the core fit **all** major data contexts you’ve compared (including deviant cases)?  
+- **Work**: Does it **explain** why strategies differ and outcomes differ?  
+- **Relevance**: Does it address what participants **continually work on**?  
+- **Modifiability**: Can you refine the core if tomorrow’s data demands it?
+
+---
+
+## 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
+
+- `open-coding`, `constant-comparison`, `memo-writing`  
+- `theoretical-coding`, `theoretical-sampling`, `theoretical-saturation`  
+- `substantive-theory` (write-up structure)

package/skills/situational-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+name: situational-analysis
+description: "Use when conducting Clarke's situational analysis — mapping the situation of inquiry using situational, social worlds/arenas, and positional maps."
+---
+
+# Situational Analysis (Clarke)
+
+**Situational analysis (SA)** extends grounded theory–inflected inquiry into **complex, heterogeneous, postmodern** situations where **multiple actors, discourses, technologies, nonhumans, and silences** matter. Adele E. Clarke (2005, 2018) developed SA to **map** the **situation** of inquiry beyond a single core storyline.
+
+## Intellectual location
+
+SA grows from **Straussian** grounded theory and **Anselm Strauss’s social worlds/arenas** framework, while embracing **situational complexity**. It resists forcing messy realities into **single axial** stories when **multiplicity** is theoretically important.
+
+## Three families of maps
+
+Maps are **analytic devices** and **heuristic visuals**, not mere illustrations. They should be **iterated** as analysis deepens.
+
+### 1. Situational map (messy and ordered)
+
+**Messy situational map** — Brainstorm **all** elements in the situation: **human actors**, **nonhuman actants**, **institutions**, **discourses**, **technologies**, **spatial/temporal elements**, **key controversies**, and **silences**.
+
+**Ordered situational map** — Organize messy elements into **categories** (e.g., individual actors, collectives, discursive constructions, implicated/silent actors, political/economic elements, related discourses). The ordered map prompts **relational questions**: Who and what matters? What is missing?
+
+### 2. Social worlds / arenas maps
+
+Drawn from **Strauss’s** work:
+
+- **Social worlds** — Groups with **shared commitments** to action in a domain (e.g., clinicians, advocates, regulators).
+- **Arenas** — **Sites of debate and negotiation** where worlds intersect around issues (e.g., policy arenas, clinical settings).
+
+Map **which worlds** participate, **how** they align or conflict, and **what arenas** structure contention. Useful for **multi-agency**, **interprofessional**, or **contested** fields.
+
+### 3. Positional maps
+
+Capture **positions taken and not taken** on **key axes of controversy and concern** in the situation.
+
+- **Axes** — Construct dimensions that organize discourses (e.g., autonomy vs safety, market vs public good).
+- **Plots** — Place **discursive positions** (not only individuals) relative to axes.
+- **Silences** — Explicitly note **unspoken** or **marginalized** positions.
+
+Positional maps surface **normative tensions** and **absences** that interviews alone may underrepresent.
+
+## How to construct each map (workflow)
+
+1. **Initial coding** — Use GT-style coding to anchor yourself in data (interviews, documents, media, field notes).
+2. **Messy map** — Freelist elements; chase **what else** belongs; include **nonhumans** and **institutions**.
+3. **Ordered map** — Sort, label gaps, and **rewrite** categories as needed.
+4. **Relational analyses** — Ask how elements **implicate** one another; memo **relations**.
+5. **Social worlds/arenas** — Identify **commitments** and **sites of negotiation**; revise after new data.
+6. **Positional maps** — Select **salient controversies**; define axes; plot discourses; mark **silences**.
+7. **Integration** — Return to **writing**; let maps discipline **claims** and **discussion**.
+
+## Relationship to Strauss’s social worlds theory
+
+SA **inherits** the **social worlds/arenas** lens and **extends** it with:
+
+- Stronger emphasis on **discursive constructions** and **power/knowledge** (Foucauldian inflection).
+- Explicit mapping of **nonhuman** and **institutional** elements.
+- **Positional** mapping of **discursive fields**.
+
+## When situational analysis adds value beyond traditional GT
+
+Use SA when:
+
+- **No single core category** should dominate because **multiplicity** is substantive.
+- **Boundary objects**, **technologies**, **policy discourses**, and **nonhuman actors** are as important as individuals.
+- **Controversies** and **conflicting logics** structure the field.
+- You want **visual-analytic** discipline for **complex cases** (science & technology studies, health policy, organizational ecologies).
+
+Traditional **Glaserian GT** may be preferable when the aim is a **parsimonious substantive theory** of a **core social process** with **theoretical sampling** tightly focused on that process.
+
+## Differences from Glaserian GT (concise)
+
+| Aspect | Glaserian GT | Situational analysis |
+|--------|----------------|----------------------|
+| Goal | Substantive theory, core category | Situational mapping, complex cartographies |
+| Emphasis | Emergence, coding families | Worlds/arenas, discourses, actants |
+| Visuals | Optional diagrams | Maps as **central method** |
+| Nonhumans | May appear as data | Often **mapped as actants** |
+| Epistemology | Classic GT (emergence discipline) | Postmodern-inflected **multiplicity** |
+
+SA can **complement** GT: use coding to **enter** data, use maps to **hold complexity** accountable in **findings**.
+
+## Reporting
+
+Present **maps as figures** with **legends**; explain **how** maps changed over time. Connect maps to **narrative analysis**—maps should **advance argument**, not decorate.
+
+## Key references
+
+- Clarke, A. E. (2005). *Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn*.
+- Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. (Eds.). (2018). *The Situational Analysis Toolkit*.
+
+Use this skill for messy multi-actor projects, STS-inflected qualitative work, or explicit mapping alongside grounded coding.

package/skills/substantive-theory/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+---
+name: substantive-theory
+description: "Use when building a substantive grounded theory — a theory grounded in data from a specific substantive area."
+---
+
+# Substantive Grounded Theory
+
+A **substantive grounded theory** is a conceptual theory **grounded in data** about a **specific substantive area** (e.g., a particular occupation, illness experience, organizational setting, community practice). It explains **patterns of behavior/process** relevant to people in that area, using **categories** and **hypothetical relationships** earned through **constant comparison**.
+
+Use this skill when moving from **memo outlines** to **draft manuscripts**, dissertations, or journal articles framed in classic GT.
+
+---
+
+## Substantive theory vs formal theory
+
+| Feature | Substantive theory | Formal theory |
+|--------|---------------------|---------------|
+| Scope | A specific empirical domain | Cross-substantive, abstracted |
+| Empirical anchor | Deep in one area | Built by comparing substantive theories |
+| Typical reader payoff | Explains a real-world arena | Explains a generic social process |
+
+Substantive theory is the **default** GT product. Formal theory is a **later**, more abstract step (see `formal-theory`).
+
+---
+
+## Components of a substantive theory
+
+### Core category
+
+The **central** conceptual pattern that **integrates** the theory. It should:
+
+- recur and carry **explanatory** weight  
+- connect to many other categories  
+- often align with a **main concern** and its recurrent **resolution**
+
+### Related categories (major satellites)
+
+Commonly include (when supported by data):
+
+- **Conditions** (what makes X more/less likely)  
+- **Contextual embedments** (where/when/for whom)  
+- **Strategies / tactics** (how people handle problems)  
+- **Interactional processes** (how meanings/roles co-develop)  
+- **Consequences** (outcomes, side effects, feedback loops)
+
+Avoid treating satellites as a **checklist**—include only what **comparison** supports.
+
+### Theoretical propositions (hypotheses)
+
+Substantive GT writes **hypotheses as statements**:
+
+> Under conditions {C}, people tend to deploy strategy {S}, which produces {O}, unless {B}—where {B} is a **boundary** condition supported by negative cases.
+
+These are **grounded hypotheses**, not statistical predictions—though later work might operationalize them.
+
+### Properties and dimensions
+
+A mature theory specifies **how** categories vary:
+
+- **Properties**: characteristics of a category  
+- **Dimensions**: ranges along which properties vary (e.g., high/low visibility)
+
+This is how GT handles **variation** without collapsing into single-story anecdotes.
+
+### Basic social process (optional but common)
+
+If data are strongly processual, present **phases** or **sequences**—always conditioned and variable, never rigid “stages” for everyone.
+
+---
+
+## Writing the theory (structure that matches classic GT)
+
+### Opening moves
+
+- **Substantive area** and **why it matters** (brief).  
+- **Main concern** (what participants continually work on/resolve), if identifiable.  
+- **Method note** (GT procedures summarized; transparency).
+
+### Middle moves (conceptual heart)
+
+- Introduce **core category** with **conceptual definition**.  
+- Develop **related categories** and **hypotheses** linking them.  
+- Show **variation** via properties/dimensions and **boundary conditions**.
+
+### Evidence moves (illustrative, not exhaustive)
+
+- Use **short excerpts** as **indicators** of categories—**not** long narrative blocks.  
+- Prefer **compare-and-contrast** illustrations (typical vs deviant).
+
+### Closing moves
+
+- **Implications** (careful claims—substantive scope).  
+- **Limitations** and **modifiability** (what would change the theory).  
+- **Next sampling** suggestions if saturation was uneven across categories.
+
+---
+
+## Evaluating substantive theory: fit, work, relevance, modifiability
+
+### Fit
+
+Do categories **fit** the incidents that generated them? Do **negative cases** fit refined boundary statements?
+
+### Work
+
+Does the theory **explain** variation and the **central pattern**? Does it **integrate** rather than list?
+
+### Relevance
+
+Does it address what participants **actually treat as problematic** or continually handle?
+
+### Modifiability
+
+Could a researcher refine categories with more data without collapsing the entire structure? Modifiability rewards **clear** conditional statements and **honest** limits.
+
+---
+
+## Common writing mistakes
+
+- **Theme dump**: headings are topics, not an integrated model.  
+- **Quote pile**: evidence without conceptual scaffolding.  
+- **Borrowed constructs** presented as discovered.  
+- **Overclaiming** to formal theory while only one site/role is studied.  
+- **Method slippage**: claiming GT while actually doing **thematic analysis** or **hypothesis testing**.
+
+---
+
+## Output formats (templates)
+
+### One-page integrative summary
+
+```text
+Substantive area:
+Main concern:
+Core category (definition):
+3–5 key hypotheses (If/Then/Unless):
+Major dimensions of variation:
+Boundary conditions:
+What data this theory does NOT explain (honest):
+```
+
+### Paragraph template for a hypothesis
+
+```text
+Claim:
+Conditions:
+Mechanism (process language):
+Expected outcomes:
+Negative case pattern (if any):
+Implications for practice/research (bounded):
+```
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). *The discovery of grounded theory*. Aldine.  
+- 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
+
+- `selective-coding`, `theoretical-coding`, `memo-writing`  
+- `theoretical-saturation`, `theoretical-sampling`  
+- `formal-theory` (next abstraction step)  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory`