Use when integrating substantive codes into theoretical models using Glaser's 18 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.
Use theoretical coding when you can already articulate:
Avoid premature integration: if substantive categories still shift wildly week-to-week, focus on comparison and memoing first.
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.
Definition: Explanatory links—why something happens or becomes likely.
Example: “Burnout escalates because accountability visibility increases without control affordances.”
Definition: Situational backdrops that embed actions (settings, arenas, fields).
Example: “Tactics differ in startup vs bureaucratic contexts.”
Definition: Relational dependencies; if/then patterns; “it depends” structures.
Example: “Disclosure timing depends on perceived psychological safety.”
Definition: Co-movement—two categories vary together without asserting mechanism.
Example: “As autonomy rises, ritual checking tends to increase—covaries (mechanism TBD).”
Definition: Outcomes, aftermaths, ripple effects—intended and unintended.
Example: “Framing-as-experiment reduces immediate conflict but delays resource commitment.”
Definition: Properties on a range (e.g., low–high; public–private).
Example: “Risk framing varies along directness and reversibility dimensions.”
Definition: Deliberate lines of action; tactics; problem-solving moves.
Example: “Participants stage legitimacy through incremental proofs.”
Definition: Mutual influence among actors/groups; reciprocity; role-taking.
Example: “Managers and reports co-produce plausible deniability.”
Definition: Agreement/disagreement processes; alignment; negotiation of shared meanings.
Example: “Teams surface consensus only after testing dissent privately.”
Definition: Obligations, expectations, reciprocity norms, “deals.”
Example: “Side projects hinge on unspoken loyalty exchanges.”
Definition: Shared symbols, norms, values; moral expectations; taboos.
Example: “‘Professionalism’ acts as a moral shield discouraging complaint.”
Definition: Cost/benefit, optimization, economizing effort, “good enough.”
Example: “Participants routinize documentation to minimize cognitive load.”
Definition: Control, dependency, resistance, gatekeeping, surveillance.
Example: “Visibility tools shift power—peer monitoring substitutes managerial oversight.”
Definition: Self-conception, role identity, biographical alignment.
Example: “Becoming a ‘founder’ reframes acceptable risk-taking.”
Definition: Thresholds where processes change state; tipping points.
Example: “After the first public demo, accountability step-changes.”
Definition: Sequences, phases, priority hierarchies; temporal/chronological structure.
Example: “Stabilize workflow before seeking sponsorship.”
Definition: Social units of analysis (individual, dyad, team, organization).
Example: “The same tactic means differently at team vs org unit levels.”
Definition: Where/when in space-time incidents cluster; situational “sites.”
Example: “Cooling-off periods occur off-channel and after hours.”
Ask:
Multi-family integration is normal: a robust model uses several families without reducing the theory to one metaphor.
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:
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.
selective-coding, constant-comparison, memo-writingsubstantive-theory, formal-theoryglaserian-grounded-theory