qualitative-research-pro 1.0.0

package/skills/thematic-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+name: thematic-analysis
+description: "Use when conducting Braun & Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis, identifying and analyzing patterns of meaning across qualitative data."
+---
+
+# Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke)
+
+This skill supports **reflexive thematic analysis (TA)** as articulated by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke—an approach for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns of meaning (themes) across a qualitative dataset. TA is widely used across disciplines and is methodologically flexible when executed with explicit reflexivity and transparent reporting.
+
+## Braun & Clarke’s six-phase process
+
+Braun and Clarke describe TA as iterative rather than strictly linear. Phases overlap and researchers revisit earlier work as understanding deepens.
+
+1. **Familiarization** — Read and re-read the data (transcripts, field notes, documents). Note early impressions. Audio playback, margin notes, and preliminary memos support deep engagement.
+2. **Generating initial codes** — Produce descriptive labels that capture semantic and latent features of the data. Coding can be inductive (data-driven) or deductive (theory-informed), depending on the analytic stance.
+3. **Searching for themes** — Sort codes into candidate themes: broader patterns that unite multiple codes. Consider how themes relate and whether subthemes are needed.
+4. **Reviewing themes** — Collapse, split, or merge themes against the full dataset. Check internal homogeneity (coherence within a theme) and external heterogeneity (clear distinctions between themes). Revisit coded extracts.
+5. **Defining and naming themes** — Write analytic narratives for each theme: what it captures, what it excludes, how it fits the overall story. Names should be concise yet theoretically meaningful.
+6. **Producing the report** — Select vivid, representative extracts. Integrate analysis with research questions. Position the analysis theoretically and acknowledge researcher subjectivity.
+
+## Reflexive TA vs codebook TA vs coding reliability approaches
+
+- **Reflexive thematic analysis** treats themes as interpretive stories the researcher actively constructs from data. It rejects the idea that themes “emerge” independently of the analyst. Reflexivity—ongoing reflection on how identity, assumptions, and context shape interpretation—is central.
+- **Codebook TA** (sometimes associated with structured coding for team consistency) emphasizes predefined or iteratively refined code definitions and documented application rules. It can support collaboration but risks mechanistic application if reflexivity is weak.
+- **Coding reliability approaches** (e.g., inter-coder agreement metrics) assume a stable “correct” coding of text. Braun & Clarke critique this as misaligned with interpretive TA, where multiple valid readings may exist. Use reliability metrics only when the epistemological stance explicitly warrants them.
+
+## Thematic analysis vs grounded theory
+
+- **Themes vs concepts** — TA organizes data around **themes** (patterns of shared meaning). Grounded theory builds **concepts** and **categories** integrated into an explanatory **substantive theory** with relationships (e.g., core category, coding families).
+- **Theoretical ambition** — Classic GT aims for theory that explains a process or behavior. TA often addresses research questions about patterns of meaning without necessarily producing formal theory.
+- **Literature** — Reflexive TA does not prescribe Glaser’s “delay literature” rule; positioning relative to literature is explicit and reflexive.
+- **Sampling** — GT uses theoretical sampling directed by emerging analysis. TA more often uses sampling aligned with the study design (e.g., purposive, convenience), though iterative designs exist.
+
+## When to use thematic analysis vs grounded theory
+
+Choose **TA** when the goal is to synthesize patterns of meaning across cases, retain accessibility for multidisciplinary audiences, or align with a constructionist/essentialist question that does not require full GT theory-building.
+
+Choose **GT** when the primary aim is to generate an explanatory model of a social process, with categories earned through constant comparison and integration (especially in Glaser’s classic tradition).
+
+## Coding practices that support reflexive TA
+
+- **Stay close to language first** — Begin with participant vocabulary before abstracting; note when you import analytic language and why.
+- **Code for latent and semantic content** — Semantic coding stays near explicit meaning; latent coding addresses underlying assumptions, ideologies, or social meanings. Reflexive TA welcomes both when justified.
+- **Maintain a decision log** — Record why codes were merged, split, or abandoned. This log becomes the backbone of the audit trail.
+- **Use software deliberately** — CAQDAS tools aid retrieval but can encourage premature quantification of code frequency. Treat counts as **heuristic**, not evidence of importance.
+- **Hold tension between themes** — Contradictions and ambivalence are findings, not problems to erase. Reflexive TA can report **patterned heterogeneity** across and within cases.
+
+## Positionality and epistemological clarity
+
+State whether the analysis leans **essentialist** (themes as context-independent patterns) or **constructionist** (themes as situated constructions). Braun & Clarke’s reflexive TA is often allied with **constructionism** but can be articulated differently if justified. Align **ontology** (what you believe about reality), **epistemology** (how you know), and **method** (what you do) in the methods section to forestall reviewer confusion.
+
+## Team-based reflexive TA
+
+When multiple analysts code:
+
+- Co-develop **shared definitions** while preserving space for **interpretive difference**.
+- Use **reflexive dialogue** sessions rather than reliability as the primary quality metric.
+- Assign a **reflexivity lead** to track how group dynamics and seniority may shape consensus.
+
+## Common pitfalls
+
+- **Theme sprawl** — Too many thin themes; fix by merging, elevating to subthemes, or returning to phase 4.
+- **Paraphrase masquerading as analysis** — Results sections that only restate quotes need analytic narrative explaining **so what**.
+- **Overclaiming frequency** — “Most participants said X” requires systematic support, not impressionistic recall.
+- **Ignoring outliers** — Negative cases and dissenting accounts strengthen reflexive TA when integrated theoretically.
+
+## Recommended output format
+
+1. **Audit trail** — Brief log of coding and theme revision decisions.
+2. **Codebook or code list** — Definitions and illustrative extracts (even in reflexive TA, transparency helps).
+3. **Theme tables** — Theme name, definition, boundaries, relation to research question, example quotes.
+4. **Narrative results** — Each theme as a subsection with argument, evidence, and reflexive commentary on interpretive choices.
+5. **Method section** — Epistemological stance (reflexive TA), phase description, and alignment with Braun & Clarke’s reporting checklist (see their published guidance for journal-specific expectations).
+
+## Key references
+
+- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006, 2019, 2021). Foundational and updated statements on TA; see also *Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide* (2022).
+- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers?
+
+Use this skill whenever the user asks for Braun & Clarke–style analysis, theme development, or comparison between TA and grounded theory.

package/skills/theoretical-coding/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: theoretical-coding
+description: "Use when integrating substantive codes into theoretical models using Glaser's 18 coding families."
+---
+
+# Theoretical Coding and Glaser’s Coding Families
+
+**Substantive coding** names **what** is going on (categories and their properties). **Theoretical coding** specifies **how categories relate** to one another in a multivariate model—integrating the substantive story into **hypothetical relationships** (e.g., under certain conditions, certain strategies emerge, leading to certain consequences).
+
+In classic grounded theory, theoretical codes are **not** a prefabricated cage. They are **delicate** devices applied as your substantive structure **matures**—often more prominently during **selective coding** and **sorting/writing**.
+
+---
+
+## When to use theoretical coding
+
+Use theoretical coding when you can already articulate:
+
+- A plausible **core category**  
+- Several **related major categories** with comparative support  
+- A need to **integrate** relationships into a coherent **theoretical outline**
+
+Avoid premature integration: if substantive categories still **shift wildly** week-to-week, focus on **comparison and memoing** first.
+
+---
+
+## Glaser’s eighteen coding families (definitions + examples)
+
+Below is the widely used family set attributed to Glaser’s elaboration of **theoretical codes** as integrative patterns. Names may vary slightly across secondary sources; keep definitions **analytic**, not decorative.
+
+### 1. Causes
+
+**Definition**: Explanatory links—why something happens or becomes likely.
+
+**Example**: “Burnout escalates **because** accountability visibility increases without control affordances.”
+
+### 2. Contexts
+
+**Definition**: Situational backdrops that embed actions (settings, arenas, fields).
+
+**Example**: “Tactics differ in **startup** vs **bureaucratic** contexts.”
+
+### 3. Contingencies
+
+**Definition**: Relational dependencies; if/then patterns; “it depends” structures.
+
+**Example**: “Disclosure timing **depends on** perceived psychological safety.”
+
+### 4. Covariances
+
+**Definition**: Co-movement—two categories vary together without asserting mechanism.
+
+**Example**: “As autonomy rises, ritual checking **tends to** increase—**covaries** (mechanism TBD).”
+
+### 5. Consequences
+
+**Definition**: Outcomes, aftermaths, ripple effects—intended and unintended.
+
+**Example**: “Framing-as-experiment **reduces** immediate conflict but **delays** resource commitment.”
+
+### 6. Dimensions
+
+**Definition**: Properties on a range (e.g., low–high; public–private).
+
+**Example**: “Risk framing varies along **directness** and **reversibility** dimensions.”
+
+### 7. Strategies (means)
+
+**Definition**: Deliberate lines of action; tactics; problem-solving moves.
+
+**Example**: “Participants **stage** legitimacy through incremental proofs.”
+
+### 8. Interaction
+
+**Definition**: Mutual influence among actors/groups; reciprocity; role-taking.
+
+**Example**: “Managers and reports **co-produce** plausible deniability.”
+
+### 9. Consensus
+
+**Definition**: Agreement/disagreement processes; alignment; negotiation of shared meanings.
+
+**Example**: “Teams **surface** consensus only after **testing** dissent privately.”
+
+### 10. Contractual (implicit/explicit)
+
+**Definition**: Obligations, expectations, reciprocity norms, “deals.”
+
+**Example**: “Side projects hinge on **unspoken** loyalty exchanges.”
+
+### 11. Cultural
+
+**Definition**: Shared symbols, norms, values; moral expectations; taboos.
+
+**Example**: “‘Professionalism’ acts as a **moral shield** discouraging complaint.”
+
+### 12. Utilitarian / efficiency
+
+**Definition**: Cost/benefit, optimization, economizing effort, “good enough.”
+
+**Example**: “Participants **routinize** documentation to minimize cognitive load.”
+
+### 13. Power
+
+**Definition**: Control, dependency, resistance, gatekeeping, surveillance.
+
+**Example**: “Visibility tools **shift** power—peer monitoring substitutes managerial oversight.”
+
+### 14. Identity
+
+**Definition**: Self-conception, role identity, biographical alignment.
+
+**Example**: “Becoming a ‘founder’ **reframes** acceptable risk-taking.”
+
+### 15. Cutting points
+
+**Definition**: Thresholds where processes change state; tipping points.
+
+**Example**: “After the first public demo, accountability **step-changes**.”
+
+### 16. Ordering
+
+**Definition**: Sequences, phases, priority hierarchies; temporal/chronological structure.
+
+**Example**: “Stabilize workflow **before** seeking sponsorship.”
+
+### 17. Units
+
+**Definition**: Social units of analysis (individual, dyad, team, organization).
+
+**Example**: “The same tactic **means differently** at team vs org unit levels.”
+
+### 18. Locations (spatial/temporal slices)
+
+**Definition**: Where/when in space-time incidents cluster; situational “sites.”
+
+**Example**: “Cooling-off periods occur **off-channel** and **after hours**.”
+
+---
+
+## How to select an appropriate family
+
+Ask:
+
+1. **What kind of claim am I making?**  
+   - Mechanism → causes/contingencies  
+   - Outcomes → consequences  
+   - Tactics → strategies  
+   - Shared norms → cultural/consensus  
+2. **What is the weakest part of my outline?**  
+   - If you have lots of strategies but thin conditions → add **contingencies/contexts**.  
+3. **Can I state the relationship as a hypothesis?**  
+   If not, you may still be describing—push toward **explicit relational language**.
+
+**Multi-family integration** is normal: a robust model uses several families without reducing the theory to one metaphor.
+
+---
+
+## Procedure (recommended workflow)
+
+1. **List major categories** (6–12 max for modeling; merge synonyms).  
+2. Draft **relational sentences** between core and each major category.  
+3. Tag each sentence with a **family label** (causal, conditional, etc.).  
+4. **Stress-test** with negative cases: do contingencies need refinement?  
+5. Build a **theoretical outline** (memo sort) that reads as **integrated hypotheses**.
+
+---
+
+## Output format: theoretical model draft
+
+### Outline template
+
+```text
+Core category:
+Main concern (provisional):
+
+Hypothesis 1 (conditional):
+Hypothesis 2 (strategy under conditions):
+Hypothesis 3 (consequences + boundary):
+Hypothesis 4 (covariance / unresolved mechanism):
+
+Boundary conditions (where theory likely fails):
+Negative cases accounted for:
+```
+
+### Diagram sketch (optional)
+
+Use a **simple** diagram: core in center, satellites for conditions/strategies/consequences, labeled arrows with **family tags** (C=contingency, S=strategy, K=consequence, etc.). Keep diagrams **servant** to the memo outline, not a substitute for it.
+
+---
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+- **Forcing** a favorite family (everything becomes “power”) without comparative evidence.  
+- **Confusing covariance with causation**—mark mechanisms as provisional.  
+- **Theoretical coding before** substantive maturity—produces slick but hollow models.  
+- **Jargon stacking**—families should clarify relationships, not impress readers.  
+- **Ignoring levels**—mixing individual psychology and org process without **unit** clarity.
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G. (2005). *The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity*. Sociology Press.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `selective-coding`, `constant-comparison`, `memo-writing`  
+- `substantive-theory`, `formal-theory`  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory`

package/skills/theoretical-sampling/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+name: theoretical-sampling
+description: "Use when making decisions about where to collect data next based on emerging theoretical categories."
+---
+
+# Theoretical Sampling
+
+Theoretical sampling is **data collection guided by the emerging theory**. You collect your next slice of data because analysis has revealed **gaps in conceptual development**—unknown properties, unclear conditions, unstable relationships—not because a sampling frame demands representativeness for its own sake.
+
+Use this skill whenever you must decide **whom to interview next**, **what settings to observe**, **which documents to request**, or **what follow-up probes** to add.
+
+---
+
+## What theoretical sampling is
+
+**Definition (classic GT)**: Sampling on the basis of **concepts** developed during analysis, aimed at **discovering variation** and **clarifying relationships** relevant to the emerging **core category**.
+
+**Primary question**: “What data do I need **next** to **develop** this category / test this hypothesis / clarify this boundary?”
+
+---
+
+## How it differs from other sampling logics
+
+| Sampling logic | Typical aim | GT contrast |
+|----------------|------------|-------------|
+| Probability sampling | Statistical generalization to population | Not GT’s primary goal |
+| Convenience sampling | Access/ease | Risky if never corrected by analysis |
+| Maximum variation (descriptive) | Showcase diversity | Helpful, but still can be **atheoretical** if not tied to categories |
+| Theoretical sampling | Develop categories & hypotheses | **Driven by analysis memos** |
+
+**Note**: early GT projects often begin with **purposive** access (who will talk). Theoretical sampling **takes over** as categories mature.
+
+---
+
+## Preconditions (before you sample “theoretically”)
+
+You should be able to articulate at least one of:
+
+- A **category** that needs **densification** (properties/dimensions unclear).  
+- A **hypothesis** that needs **confronting** with new incidents.  
+- A **negative case** gap (deviance underrepresented).  
+- A **boundary condition** you cannot specify.
+
+If you cannot name the **analytic reason**, your “theoretical” sampling may be **convenience** in disguise—document that honestly.
+
+---
+
+## Sampling for variation vs confirmation
+
+### Variation-seeking sampling
+
+Use when a category is **thin** or **monotonic** in your data.
+
+**Targets**:
+
+- Different roles, ranks, sites, histories, or stakes  
+- Cases predicted to be **high** vs **low** on an emerging dimension  
+- Settings where the phenomenon should **plausibly fail**
+
+**Analytic goal**: discover **dimensions** and **contingencies**.
+
+### Confirmation-seeking sampling (disciplined)
+
+Use when a hypothesis is **plausible** but **fragile**—supported by only a few incidents.
+
+**Targets**:
+
+- Cases predicted to **repeat** the pattern under stated conditions  
+- Cases predicted to **break** the pattern (falsification-friendly)
+
+**Analytic goal**: stabilize **conditional statements** without cherry-picking.
+
+**Caution**: “Confirmation” in GT is **not** seeking only supportive data; it means **testing** the emerging model comparatively.
+
+---
+
+## Writing sampling directives (memo template)
+
+```text
+Category / hypothesis in focus:
+What is unknown (specific gap):
+Comparison needed (variation / boundary / mechanism):
+Sampling target (who/where/when):
+Eligibility criteria (inclusion/exclusion):
+Probes/questions to elicit relevant incidents:
+Ethical considerations / access constraints:
+What would count as “enough” for this gap (saturation note):
+```
+
+### Example directive (illustrative)
+
+> “We have *softening risk framing* as a strategy, but unclear **when it backfires**. Next sample: participants who **failed** to secure manager support after soft framing; compare to **successful** cases. Ask for **moment-by-moment** account of manager response.”
+
+---
+
+## Interview / observation probes aligned with theoretical sampling
+
+Instead of only “tell me about X,” use **incident elicitation**:
+
+- “Walk me through the **last time** this became risky.”  
+- “What happened **right before** and **right after**?”  
+- “Who else was involved—what did they **do**?”  
+- “Has it ever **gone differently**? What made it different?”
+
+These questions produce **compare-able** chunks.
+
+---
+
+## Relationship to saturation
+
+Theoretical sampling continues until relevant categories reach **theoretical saturation** (no new properties/relationships that matter). Sampling decisions should **update** as saturation signals appear.
+
+Signals you may be “done” with a category:
+
+- New data **repeat** known properties without refinement.  
+- Negative cases **fit** refined boundary statements.  
+- Additional interviews **do not** change memo outlines meaningfully.
+
+See `theoretical-saturation` for deeper assessment guidance.
+
+---
+
+## Documentation and ethics
+
+- Log **why** each participant/site was chosen **analytically** (audit trail).  
+- Avoid **harmful targeting** justified as “theoretical”—ethics still governs inclusion.  
+- Manage **power dynamics** when sampling deviant or vulnerable perspectives; prioritize **safety** and consent.
+
+---
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+- Confusing theoretical sampling with **snowballing** without analytic rationale.  
+- Chasing **interesting stories** unrelated to core development.  
+- Over-sampling **easy** voices because access is simple.  
+- Stopping after a set *n* regardless of category development.  
+- Writing proposals that pretend full theoretical sampling plan upfront—classic GT **cannot** finalize this before 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., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). *The discovery of grounded theory*. Aldine.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `constant-comparison`, `memo-writing`, `open-coding`, `selective-coding`  
+- `theoretical-saturation`, `glaserian-grounded-theory`

package/skills/theoretical-saturation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+---
+name: theoretical-saturation
+description: "Use when assessing whether categories are theoretically saturated and no new properties emerge from additional data."
+---
+
+# Theoretical Saturation
+
+**Theoretical saturation** is the stopping rule for **category development** in grounded theory: you keep sampling and comparing until additional data **do not** change your understanding of a category’s **properties**, **dimensions**, or its **relationships** to other categories **in ways that matter** to the emerging theory.
+
+Saturation is **not** “I interviewed enough people.” It is **theoretical**.
+
+Use this skill when planning sample closure, responding to deadlines, or evaluating whether a category needs **more** comparative work.
+
+---
+
+## What saturation means (classic GT)
+
+**Saturated category**: further comparison yields **no new properties** and **no new hypotheses** about relationships relevant to the **core story**—only more examples of the same variation pattern.
+
+**Important nuance**: you may always collect **more stories**. Saturation asks whether those stories **refine** the conceptual structure.
+
+---
+
+## What saturation does not mean
+
+- **Verbatim repetition** of participant language.  
+- **Exhaustion** of all possible human experiences in a domain.  
+- **Statistical** representativeness.  
+- **Comfort** or **fatigue** of the researcher.  
+- A fixed **minimum n** (sample size cannot substitute for comparative logic).
+
+---
+
+## How to assess saturation (procedure)
+
+### Step 1 — Specify the unit of saturation
+
+Saturation applies to **categories** (and key relationships), not to “the dataset” as a blob.
+
+Ask: “Which **category** am I evaluating?” (e.g., *soft framing*).
+
+### Step 2 — Track properties and dimensions
+
+For the focal category, list:
+
+- **Properties** (what kind of thing it is)  
+- **Dimensions** (along what axes it varies)
+
+Update this list as comparison proceeds.
+
+### Step 3 — Run targeted comparisons
+
+Bring in new incidents **explicitly chosen** to test weak spots (theoretical sampling).
+
+### Step 4 — Look for stabilization signals
+
+**Saturation signals**:
+
+- New incidents **instantiate** known properties without refinement.  
+- Negative cases **fit** refined boundary statements rather than exploding them.  
+- Memo outline **stops shifting** for that category’s role in the core story.
+
+**Non-saturation signals**:
+
+- You still cannot state **when** the category appears vs not (boundary thin).  
+- You have **unexplained** deviance stockpiled “for later.”  
+- Each new interview changes **definitions** materially.
+
+---
+
+## Premature vs genuine saturation
+
+### Premature saturation (common)
+
+**Causes**:
+
+- Homogeneous sample (same role, same site, same ideology).  
+- Shallow interviews (no incident detail).  
+- Avoidance of **negative cases**.  
+- Confusing **story repetition** with **conceptual redundancy**.
+
+**Symptoms**:
+
+- Thin boundaries (“always/never” claims).  
+- Codes that **collapse** distinct processes.  
+- Surprises late in fieldwork that **rewrite** the core.
+
+**Corrective actions**:
+
+- Theoretically sample for **deviance** and **contrasting contexts**.  
+- Use **incident-based** probes to deepen properties.
+
+### Genuine saturation (ideal)
+
+**Markers**:
+
+- Variation is **mapped** as dimensions, not as chaos.  
+- Deviance is **accounted for** by conditions/strategies.  
+- Additional data **feel** redundant **conceptually** (even if narratively fresh).
+
+---
+
+## Indicators at different levels
+
+| Level | What to check | Saturation hint |
+|------|----------------|-----------------|
+| Code | Definition stable; splits resolved | Merges hold across new data |
+| Category | Properties/dimensions stable | New incidents align to matrix |
+| Relationship | Hypothesis stable under tests | Contradictions explained by boundaries |
+| Core story | Integrated outline stable | Selective coding yields marginal gains |
+
+---
+
+## Dey’s “theoretical sufficiency” (useful complement)
+
+Some authors (including Dey) argue “saturation” language can overclaim. **Theoretical sufficiency** reframes the question:
+
+> “Have we developed categories **adequately** to support a defensible argument for this study’s aims?”
+
+**Practical use**:
+
+- In bounded dissertations, sufficiency acknowledges **scope limits** while preserving rigor.  
+- Pair with transparent **negative case** accounting and **audit trails**.
+
+This does **not** mean lowering standards; it means **honest** alignment between claims and evidence.
+
+---
+
+## Checklist for assessing saturation
+
+```text
+Category / relationship under review:
+Properties listed (complete?):
+Dimensions listed (complete?):
+Boundary statement written in one paragraph:
+Negative cases on hand (count + sources):
+Unexplained deviance remaining (list):
+Last time this category changed meaning (date + why):
+Planned next comparisons (if any):
+Decision: continue sampling / close category / reopen category
+```
+
+---
+
+## Writing saturation claims in manuscripts
+
+A strong saturation claim typically includes:
+
+- **What** categories/relationships saturated  
+- **How** sampling targeted variation and deviance  
+- **What** would have changed the theory if new properties appeared
+
+Avoid vague “saturation was reached” without **category-level** specificity.
+
+---
+
+## Relationship to theoretical sampling
+
+Sampling and saturation are **paired**:
+
+- Sampling finds the **next** comparative test.  
+- Saturation tells you when **additional tests** stop paying conceptual rent.
+
+---
+
+## 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.  
+- Dey, I. (1999). *Grounding grounded theory*. Academic Press. (discussion of sufficiency vs saturation framing)
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `theoretical-sampling`, `constant-comparison`, `memo-writing`  
+- `selective-coding`, `substantive-theory` (fit, work, relevance, modifiability)  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory`