qualitative-research-pro 1.0.0

package/skills/theoretical-sensitivity/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+---
+name: theoretical-sensitivity
+description: "Use when developing the researcher's ability to see conceptual possibilities in data, to recognize what is important, and to give meaning to data."
+---
+
+# Theoretical Sensitivity
+
+**Theoretical sensitivity** is the researcher’s ability to **see meaning in data**, to discern **what matters conceptually**, and to imagine **plausible relationships** among categories—without **forcing** preconceived ideas onto participants’ experiences.
+
+Glaser treats sensitivity as a **craft**: developed through analytic practice, disciplined comparison, and curated reading—not through importing a ready-made framework for the substantive area too early.
+
+Use this skill when you feel “stuck” in description, when codes multiply without insight, or when you need to **calibrate openness** versus **conceptual discipline**.
+
+---
+
+## Glaser’s concept (1978): what sensitivity is not
+
+**Sensitivity is not**:
+
+- Cleverness at inventing jargon.  
+- A license to impose pet theories.  
+- The same as “being smart about the topic” before data collection.
+
+**Sensitivity is**:
+
+- Recognizing **indicator-rich** incidents.  
+- Hearing **process** and **variation** rather than only content.  
+- Knowing **when** to code, **when** to memo, and **when** to sample next.
+
+---
+
+## Sources of theoretical sensitivity (classic GT)
+
+### 1) Personal experience (used carefully)
+
+Your biography can sensitize you to emotional tones, organizational rhythms, or interactional subtleties.
+
+**Risk**: autobiographical projection.  
+**Mitigation**: treat personal resonance as a **cue to memo**, then **compare** across cases; seek **negative cases**.
+
+### 2) Professional experience
+
+Prior practice in a domain (e.g., nursing, engineering, teaching) can help you notice **routine expertise** and **tacit norms**.
+
+**Risk**: expert blinders (“that’s just how it is”).  
+**Mitigation**: convert expertise into **questions**, not answers; privilege **participants’** problem-solving.
+
+### 3) Analytic experience within the study
+
+As codes mature, you become sensitized to **patterns**, **absences**, and **deviance**. This is the **strongest** engine of sensitivity in GT.
+
+**Practice**: regular **memo sorting** and **hypothesis revision**.
+
+### 4) Literature **outside** the substantive area
+
+Glaser encourages reading broadly in sociology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy of science, etc., to build a **repertoire of concepts** and **metaphors** that can **suggest** comparisons.
+
+**Key move**: use external literature to **stimulate imagination**, not to **name** the phenomenon prematurely.
+
+### 5) Literature in the substantive area (timed)
+
+Substantive-area literature becomes more appropriate **later**, often as **additional data** for comparison **after** emergence stabilizes—never as a substitute for participants’ lived problem-solving.
+
+---
+
+## How to cultivate sensitivity (concrete practices)
+
+### A) Comparison drills
+
+Each session, run **three comparisons**:
+
+1. two incidents within the same code  
+2. one incident against an emerging **hypothesis**  
+3. one incident against a **negative case** candidate
+
+### B) “What is this a study of?” prompts
+
+Ask repeatedly at different grains:
+
+- Of this **line**?  
+- Of this **incident**?  
+- Of this **interview**?  
+- Of the **project** today?
+
+### C) Gerund reframing
+
+Rewrite nouns into **process language** to reveal action/interaction.
+
+### D) Memo-first discipline
+
+When a strong interpretation appears, **memo** before expanding coding—capture **scope**, **conditions**, and **counterexamples** you already know.
+
+### E) Codebook hygiene
+
+Rewrite definitions when they become **too vague** (“stress”) or **too literal** (topic labels). Good definitions sharpen sensitivity for the **next** pass.
+
+---
+
+## Threats to sensitivity (and fixes)
+
+### Preconception
+
+**Symptom**: every incident “supports” your favorite theory.  
+**Fix**: actively seek **disconfirming** incidents; split codes when variance appears; invite **outsider** debriefing.
+
+### Forcing (template thinking)
+
+**Symptom**: codes map 1:1 onto a model you imported.  
+**Fix**: remove the template from sight during early passes; rename codes using **data-grounded** language.
+
+### Sentimentality / moralizing
+
+**Symptom**: analytic language becomes judgmental (“bad management”).  
+**Fix**: translate judgments into **processual** categories (*managing accountability*, *externalizing blame*)—still critical, but **conceptual**.
+
+### Premature closure
+
+**Symptom**: “we already know the story.”  
+**Fix**: theoretical sampling aimed at **boundaries**; revisit **early** transcripts with new eyes.
+
+### Tool obsession
+
+**Symptom**: perfect software tags, thin thinking.  
+**Fix**: short, messy **memos** beat pristine code taxonomies.
+
+---
+
+## Exercises for building sensitivity
+
+### Exercise 1 — One paragraph, ten codes
+
+Take one dense paragraph. Generate **10 distinct substantive codes** (some will be wrong). Then **merge** aggressively after comparison. Goal: **fluency** and **differentiation**.
+
+### Exercise 2 — In vivo extraction
+
+Highlight participant phrases that could be **in vivo** codes. For each, write a **one-sentence** translation into more general concepts.
+
+### Exercise 3 — Hypothesis ping-pong
+
+Write **three** competing hypotheses for the same incident. Use next data to **eliminate** or **revise**.
+
+### Exercise 4 — Literature spark (outside area)
+
+Read a short unrelated theory piece. Write **two memos**:  
+(a) “What concepts might illuminate my data?”  
+(b) “How could this **mislead** me if forced?”
+
+### Exercise 5 — Negative case journal
+
+Maintain a running list: **anomalies**, **silences**, **refusals**, **surprises**. Revisit weekly.
+
+---
+
+## Outputs that demonstrate growing sensitivity
+
+- Memos that specify **conditions** and **consequences**, not only themes.  
+- Codes with **properties/dimensions** discovered through comparison.  
+- Sampling memos that target **gaps** rather than convenience.  
+- A core category that **survives** deviant-case scrutiny.
+
+---
+
+## Key references
+
+- Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press.  
+- Glaser, B. G. (1998). *Doing grounded theory*. Sociology Press.
+
+---
+
+## Companion skills
+
+- `memo-writing`, `constant-comparison`, `open-coding`  
+- `theoretical-sampling`, `selective-coding`  
+- `glaserian-grounded-theory`

package/skills/theory-integration/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+---
+name: theory-integration
+description: Use when integrating categories into a coherent grounded theory — connecting core category to related categories through theoretical coding.
+---
+
+# Theory Integration in Grounded Theory
+
+Integration means your categories **hang together** as an explanatory whole: readers can see **what is going on**, **how it is handled**, **under what conditions**, and **with what results**. Integration is earned through memoing, sorting, and theoretical coding—not through imposing a prefabricated model.
+
+## What integration means in GT
+
+You move from a list of themes to a **substantive theory** with plausible relationships among categories. The **core category** should organize the story without flattening complexity.
+
+## Using theoretical codes to connect categories
+
+Glaser’s **coding families** (e.g., causes, contexts, strategies, consequences, stages) help you ask relationship questions:
+
+- Is this category a **strategy** participants use when a **condition** holds?
+- Is it a **consequence** of another pattern?
+- Does it represent a **stage** in an evolving process?
+
+Apply families as **heuristic prompts**, not a mandatory checklist.
+
+## Writing theoretical propositions
+
+Write concise statements of relationship:
+
+- “When X intensifies under condition Y, participants shift to strategy Z, which reduces A but increases B.”
+
+Each proposition should be supportable with **multiple incidents** and resilient against known negative cases—or qualified where exceptions persist.
+
+## Developing a storyline
+
+A GT storyline typically includes:
+
+- **Main concern** (what participants continually address).
+- **Core category** (what processes that concern).
+- **Key strategies/categories** linked to conditions and outcomes.
+
+Draft the story in **plain language** first; refine concepts second.
+
+## Memo sorting as integration technique
+
+Print or list memos; sort into piles that represent **sections of the theory**. Rename piles until the outline matches the data. CAQDAS “maps” can substitute if they mirror the same discipline.
+
+## Visual models
+
+Create diagrams only after relational claims stabilize enough to be falsified by comparison. Iterate visuals alongside prose (see `visual-modeling`).
+
+## Checking for gaps
+
+Ask:
+
+- Where is the mechanism underspecified?
+- Which conditions are missing?
+- Do I only explain success, not failure?
+- What would a skeptic say is hand-wavy?
+
+Return to theoretical sampling if gaps are empirical.
+
+## Evaluating coherence
+
+Coherent integration:
+
+- Uses a stable vocabulary of categories.
+- Explains variation, not only central tendency.
+- Connects micro interactions to meso patterns where data allow.
+
+## Writing integration for publication
+
+Open with the core story; present a **model** or **proposition set**; support with excerpts; discuss limits and modifiability.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Core category justified by centrality and recurrence.
+- [ ] Theoretical coding clarifies relationships, not just labels.
+- [ ] Propositions stated and evidenced.
+- [ ] Memo sort yields a defensible outline.
+- [ ] Gaps identified; sampling/analysis plan updated if needed.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Glaser, B. G. *Theoretical Sensitivity* — coding families and integration.
+- Glaser, B. G. *Doing Grounded Theory* — delimiting and theoretical completeness.
+- Holton, J. A. *The coding process and its challenges* (in Holton & Walsh, Classic GT).

package/skills/thick-description/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: thick-description
+description: Use when writing rich, contextualized thick description to enable transferability of qualitative findings.
+---
+
+# Thick Description in Qualitative Writing
+
+Thick description, associated with Clifford Geertz’s interpretive anthropology, aims to portray action in **meaningful context** so readers can understand not only what happened but what it **signified** to participants and how setting shaped it.
+
+## Thick vs thin
+
+- **Thin description:** “The teacher reprimanded the student.”
+- **Thicker description:** Adds setting, sequence, audience, tone, local norms, and participant sense-making.
+
+Thick description is not verbosity; it is **layered relevance**—details that illuminate meaning, power, and mechanism.
+
+## Components to include (when analytically relevant)
+
+- **Context:** physical environment, institution, history, constraints.
+- **Action:** observable behaviors and talk, sequenced.
+- **Intent/meaning (carefully attributed):** use participants’ language; distinguish their account from your inference.
+- **Social relations:** roles, status, identity dynamics affecting the scene.
+
+## Techniques for writing thick description
+
+1. **Scene setting:** Anchor time/place; note sensory cues that matter locally.
+2. **Excerpt + gloss:** Present a verbatim slice, then analytically orient the reader without overcoding the excerpt.
+3. **Compare cases:** Show variation across two incidents to clarify what is typical vs contingent.
+4. **Track mechanisms:** Describe how A led to B in practice, not only that B occurred.
+
+## Role in transferability
+
+Readers judge transferability by **similarity of context and mechanism**, not by statistical generalization. Thick description supplies the material for that judgment.
+
+## Examples (illustrative)
+
+Thin: “Participants felt unsupported.”
+
+Thicker: “During the shift handoff, the nurse interrupted mid-sentence, logged the vitals, and left without acknowledging the aide’s question; the aide later described this as ‘normal’ but sighed, ‘You learn not to expect answers.’”
+
+The second version hints at **norms, interactional power, and coping**—analytically usable.
+
+## When thick description is essential
+
+Ethnography, case studies, discourse-sensitive GT write-ups, and any claim where **local meaning** matters. It is also crucial when publishing to interdisciplinary audiences unfamiliar with your setting.
+
+## Common pitfalls
+
+- **Irrelevant detail** that reads as travelogue.
+- **Over-interpretation** presented as fact—label inferences.
+- **Anonymization** that strips needed context; balance ethics with clarity.
+
+## Integration with analysis
+
+Alternate **show** (excerpts, scenes) with **tell** (analytic moves). A useful pattern: excerpt → analytic paragraph linking to category → memo-worthy hypothesis about conditions.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Scenes include context, sequence, and social relations.
+- [ ] Participant meanings distinguished from researcher inference.
+- [ ] Details serve analytic purposes, not decoration.
+- [ ] Transferability supported without over-claiming universality.
+- [ ] Ethical masking strategy preserves useful context where possible.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Geertz, C. *The interpretation of cultures* — “thick description” essay.
+- Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept “thick description.” *The Qualitative Report*.
+- Emerson et al. *Writing ethnographic fieldnotes* — translating observation into narrative evidence.

package/skills/triangulation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: triangulation
+description: Use when using multiple data sources, methods, investigators, or theories to enhance the credibility and depth of qualitative findings.
+---
+
+# Triangulation in Qualitative Research
+
+Triangulation uses **multiple vantage points** to strengthen interpretation. It can deepen understanding—but it is not a mechanical “more is always better” rule, and it does not automatically produce a single “true” reality.
+
+## Types of triangulation
+
+- **Data triangulation:** Multiple sources (interviews, observations, documents, artifacts).
+- **Investigator triangulation:** Multiple analysts code/discuss the same material.
+- **Theory triangulation:** Multiple theories/lenses inform interpretation (use carefully to avoid eclectic forcing).
+- **Methodological triangulation:** Multiple methods (e.g., interviews + ethnography; qualitative + quantitative in mixed methods).
+
+## Denzin’s framework (classic)
+
+Denzin distinguished these modes as ways to overcome partiality of single methods/sources. Contemporary writers emphasize triangulation for **completeness and depth**, not only convergence.
+
+## Purposes
+
+- **Confirmation:** Independent sources support the same inference (handle cautiously—agreement can reflect shared bias).
+- **Completeness:** Different methods capture different facets (e.g., policy text vs shop-floor practice).
+- **Complementarity:** Methods illuminate mechanisms vs prevalence, meanings vs distributions.
+
+## How to conduct each type (practically)
+
+**Data triangulation:** Build an **evidence table** linking claim → supporting excerpts across sources → disconfirming evidence searched.
+
+**Investigator triangulation:** Use structured coding comparisons, reconciliation sessions, and documented rule changes for the codebook.
+
+**Methodological triangulation:** Pre-specify **integration points** (joint displays, threading narratives with descriptive statistics) so mixing is analytic, not decorative.
+
+## Triangulation in grounded theory
+
+GT already “triangulates” through **constant comparison** across incidents. Adding sources should serve **theoretical sampling** aims: elaborate categories, conditions, and consequences. Avoid importing a fixed multi-method plan that steers analysis away from emergent core categories.
+
+## Limitations and critiques
+
+Triangulation assumes a somewhat realist stance when framed as convergence. Constructivist researchers may prefer **crystallization** metaphors: multiple facets refract light differently. Also, triangulation increases **cost, time, and IRB complexity**—justify it analytically.
+
+## Output format (example)
+
+For a finding F:
+
+| Source type | Evidence snippet ID | Supports? | Notes / tensions |
+|-------------|---------------------|-----------|------------------|
+| Interview   | P12: 00:18:22       | Yes       | Describes mechanism |
+| Document    | Policy §4.2         | Partial   | Official vs practiced gap |
+| Observation | Site visit 3        | No        | Suggests alternative routine |
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Triangulation type matches research question and paradigm.
+- [ ] Integration strategy defined (not just data pile-on).
+- [ ] Disconfirming evidence actively sought across sources.
+- [ ] GT: triangulation serves theoretical sampling, not premature closure.
+- [ ] Limitations of convergence logic acknowledged where constructivist.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Denzin, N. K. *The research act* (classic triangulation typology—read contemporary critiques too).
+- Flick, U. *An introduction to qualitative research* — triangulation in practice.
+- O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? *Journal of Mixed Methods Research*.

package/skills/visual-modeling/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+name: visual-modeling
+description: Use when creating visual representations of grounded theory — concept maps, theoretical diagrams, process models, and conditional matrices.
+---
+
+# Visual Modeling for Grounded Theory
+
+Visual models externalize relationships among categories so you can **spot gaps, contradictions, and over-clutter**. They are thinking tools first; publication figures second.
+
+## Types of visual models
+
+- **Concept maps:** nodes (concepts) and labeled links (e.g., “leads to,” “is a type of”).
+- **Process diagrams:** stages, phases, turning points—useful for temporal theories.
+- **Conditional matrices:** rows/columns represent conditions and outcomes; cells hold exemplar incidents.
+- **Network diagrams:** emphasize multiple interacting factors; good for complex ecologies of action.
+
+## When to create them
+
+After you have **repeatable categories** and tentative relationships—mid selective/theoretical coding. Early visuals risk crystallizing premature closure; late visuals may only decorate finished text without aiding thought.
+
+## Constructing from sorted memos
+
+1. List major categories on sticky notes or index cards.
+2. Move them until spatial proximity reflects **hypothesized relations**.
+3. Draw links; label each link with a **verb phrase** (“triggers,” “buffers,” “masks”).
+4. For each link, attach **2+ incident IDs** as evidence anchors.
+
+## Conventions for representing relationships
+
+- Use consistent arrow direction (cause → effect; condition → strategy).
+- Distinguish **strong** vs **tentative** links (dashed vs solid) and keep a legend.
+- Avoid decorating with colors that have no coded meaning.
+
+## Iterating on visual models
+
+Each iteration should respond to **disconfirming incidents** or **new theoretical sampling**. Version files (`model_v3.png`) and note what changed in the audit trail.
+
+## Using visuals in publications
+
+Provide a clean figure with minimal jargon; define terms in the caption; ensure the figure matches claims in text. Some journals want black-and-white friendly palettes.
+
+## Conditional matrix tips
+
+Start small (3×3). Expand only when cells remain meaningful. If a cell is empty, ask whether the absence is **empirical** or a **modeling error**.
+
+## Software options
+
+Whiteboards, Miro, Obsidian canvas, PowerPoint, OmniGraffle, Graphviz, CAQDAS maps. Pick what keeps you **fast**; avoid tool obsession.
+
+## Grounded theory alignment
+
+Models express **substantive theory**, not literature diagrams. If your figure recreates a framework from a prior study, scrutinize for **forcing**.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Model type matches the phenomenon (process vs network).
+- [ ] Links labeled; legend clarifies line styles.
+- [ ] Evidence references attached for major relationships.
+- [ ] Iterations versioned; changes explained.
+- [ ] Publication figure readable at print size.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. *Basics of Qualitative Research* — conditional matrix tradition (read critically with Glaserian integration goals).
+- Konecki, K. *Visualizing Grounded Theory*.
+- Northcutt, N., & McCoy, D. *Interactive Qualitative Analysis* — diagramming practices across approaches.

package/skills/vulnerable-populations/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: vulnerable-populations
+description: Use when conducting research with vulnerable populations — children, prisoners, people with cognitive impairments, marginalized communities.
+---
+
+# Research with Vulnerable Populations
+
+“Vulnerability” is **contextual**: it arises from diminished autonomy, heightened risk, stigma, legal status, or dependence on gatekeepers. Ethical practice adds **protections**, slows recruitment when needed, and designs consent/assent processes that match capacity and culture.
+
+## Defining vulnerability (practically)
+
+Regulated categories often include **children, prisoners, pregnant persons, cognitively impaired individuals, economically/educationally disadvantaged persons** (as defined by IRBs). Beyond regulation, consider **intersectional vulnerability**: racism, transphobia, immigration precarity, and workplace retaliation can constrain “free” consent.
+
+## Additional protections
+
+- Minimize data collected; maximize security.
+- Independent advocates or community liaisons when appropriate.
+- Proportional incentives that do not coerce.
+- Clear distress protocols and referrals.
+
+## Capacity to consent
+
+Assess understanding of study purpose, risks, benefits, and withdrawal. Use **supported decision-making** where ethical and legal frameworks allow: trusted supporter present, accessible formats, extra time, plain language, repeated opportunities to ask questions.
+
+## Assent for minors
+
+Parent/guardian permission plus **child assent** when IRB requires. Use developmentally appropriate explanations; honor **dissent** even if permission exists (per IRB policy and local norms).
+
+## Gatekeeper negotiation
+
+Gatekeepers (schools, clinics, employers) control access but must not **coerce** participation. Obtain individual consent separately; clarify that gatekeepers will not see identifiable responses when promised.
+
+## Cultural safety
+
+Partner with community members; avoid parachute extraction of stories; compensate knowledge fairly; use language-accessible materials; schedule around work/childcare constraints.
+
+## Trauma-informed approaches
+
+Predictability (agenda transparency), choice (skip questions), collaboration (participant control where feasible), empowerment (debrief resources), and cultural humility. Train interviewers in grounding techniques and when to stop.
+
+## Power considerations
+
+Institutional researchers carry symbolic power. Mitigate via tone, pacing, explicit rights to pause/stop, and avoiding interrogatory styles.
+
+## Community-based participatory approaches
+
+Shared governance of questions, interpretation, and dissemination can redistribute power. Document roles, credit, and data ownership expectations up front.
+
+## Ethical board requirements
+
+Many institutions require **full board** review for vulnerable categories. Build extra time into timelines; prepare waiver requests only when genuinely justified.
+
+## Grounded theory note
+
+Theoretical sampling must never outrun **safeguards**. If pursuing sensitive incidents, pre-plan psychological safety and legal reporting boundaries.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Vulnerability sources identified (regulatory + contextual).
+- [ ] Consent/assent/capacity pathways defined and documented.
+- [ ] Gatekeeper dynamics managed without coercion.
+- [ ] Trauma-informed protocols in place for sensitive topics.
+- [ ] Community partnership/credit plan where applicable.
+
+## References (starting points)
+
+- U.S. DHHS regulations on human subjects (45 CFR 46) — Subparts B–D contexts.
+- Elliott, D., et al. Trauma-informed interviewing principles (field-specific guidance).
+- Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). *Community-based participatory research for health*.