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 to a .
관련 스킬
many codes
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:
Coverage test: If I remove this category, does the theory fall apart?
Connection test: Does it link multiple other categories (not just sit beside them)?
Process test (when relevant): Does it read as a basic social process (BSP) or central social-psychological process?
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
State the core category in a memo in one sentence (provisional).
List major related categories already suggested by comparison (conditions, context features, strategies, outcomes).
For each new data segment, ask:
“How does this develop the core story?”
“Does it add properties, dimensions, conditions, or consequences?”
Compare new incidents to theoretical statements you are beginning to trust—then revise statements if mismatch appears.
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):
Substantive coding matures (open → selective).
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
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
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.