Grounded Theory Guide

Use Classic GTM when:
  - You want the theory to emerge with minimal preconception
  - You are studying a process in a substantive area

Use Straussian GTM when:
  - You need a structured, systematic coding procedure
  - Your discipline values replicable analytical steps

Use Constructivist GTM when:
  - You acknowledge the researcher's role in co-creating meaning
  - You study experiences, identities, or social processes
  - You work in health, education, or social science

def grounded_theory_coding_stages() -> dict:
    """
    Describe the three stages of grounded theory coding.
    """
    return {
        "stage_1_initial_coding": {
            "also_called": "Open coding",
            "description": (
                "Examine data line by line or incident by incident. "
                "Generate codes that stay close to the data. "
                "Use gerunds (action words ending in -ing) to capture processes."
            ),
            "example": {
                "data": "I started looking for help online because the doctor "
                        "did not explain anything to me.",
                "codes": [
                    "Seeking information online",
                    "Experiencing communication gap with provider",
                    "Taking initiative in own care"
                ]
            },
            "tips": [
                "Code quickly -- do not overthink individual codes",
                "Stay open; do not force data into preexisting categories",
                "Code actions and processes, not topics",
                "Write memos about ideas that arise during coding"
            ]
        },
        "stage_2_focused_coding": {
            "also_called": "Axial coding (Strauss) or Focused coding (Charmaz)",
            "description": (
                "Select the most frequent and significant initial codes. "
                "Use them to sort and synthesize larger amounts of data. "
                "Identify relationships between categories."
            ),
            "tasks": [
                "Elevate initial codes to categories",
                "Identify properties and dimensions of each category",
                "Compare categories across cases",
                "Begin developing a conceptual framework"
            ]
        },
        "stage_3_theoretical_coding": {
            "also_called": "Selective coding",
            "description": (
                "Identify the core category that integrates all other "
                "categories into a coherent theoretical framework. "
                "Specify relationships between categories."
            ),
            "output": "A substantive theory explaining the phenomenon"
        }
    }

Traditional sampling: Decide sample before data collection
Theoretical sampling: Let the emerging theory guide who/what to sample next

Process:
  1. Collect initial data (purposive sampling)
  2. Analyze data, identify emerging categories
  3. Ask: "Where should I look next to develop these categories?"
  4. Sample deliberately to fill gaps in the emerging theory
  5. Continue until theoretical saturation

Example:
  Initial interviews: Patients with chronic illness
  Emerging category: "Navigating insurance barriers"
  Next sample: Interview insurance navigators and social workers
  Emerging category: "Stigma in seeking help"
  Next sample: Interview patients who avoided seeking help

Memo types:
  - Code memos: Define and elaborate a code or category
  - Theoretical memos: Explore relationships between categories
  - Operational memos: Record methodological decisions
  - Reflexive memos: Examine researcher influence on the analysis

Memo example:
  MEMO: "Becoming an expert patient" (2026-03-05)

  Several participants describe a transition from passive
  recipient of care to active manager of their condition.
  This process seems to involve three phases: (1) initial
  confusion and dependence, (2) information seeking and
  experimentation, (3) confident self-management. The trigger
  appears to be a critical incident (a misdiagnosis, a bad
  interaction with a provider) that motivates the person to
  take control. Compare with Corbin & Strauss's trajectory
  framework. Need to sample someone early in the trajectory
  to test whether the trigger is consistent.