Situational Analysis

1. Situational map (messy and ordered)

Messy situational map — Brainstorm all elements in the situation: human actors, nonhuman actants, institutions, discourses, technologies, spatial/temporal elements, key controversies, and silences.

Ordered situational map — Organize messy elements into categories (e.g., individual actors, collectives, discursive constructions, implicated/silent actors, political/economic elements, related discourses). The ordered map prompts relational questions: Who and what matters? What is missing?

2. Social worlds / arenas maps

Drawn from Strauss’s work:

• Social worlds — Groups with shared commitments to action in a domain (e.g., clinicians, advocates, regulators).
• Arenas — Sites of debate and negotiation where worlds intersect around issues (e.g., policy arenas, clinical settings).

Map which worlds participate, how they align or conflict, and what arenas structure contention. Useful for multi-agency, interprofessional, or contested fields.

3. Positional maps

Capture positions taken and not taken on key axes of controversy and concern in the situation.

• Axes — Construct dimensions that organize discourses (e.g., autonomy vs safety, market vs public good).
• Plots — Place discursive positions (not only individuals) relative to axes.
• Silences — Explicitly note unspoken or marginalized positions.

Positional maps surface normative tensions and absences that interviews alone may underrepresent.

How to construct each map (workflow)

1. Initial coding — Use GT-style coding to anchor yourself in data (interviews, documents, media, field notes).
2. Messy map — Freelist elements; chase what else belongs; include nonhumans and institutions.
3. Ordered map — Sort, label gaps, and rewrite categories as needed.
4. Relational analyses — Ask how elements implicate one another; memo relations.
5. Social worlds/arenas — Identify commitments and sites of negotiation; revise after new data.
6. Positional maps — Select salient controversies; define axes; plot discourses; mark silences.
7. Integration — Return to writing; let maps discipline claims and discussion.

Relationship to Strauss’s social worlds theory

SA inherits the social worlds/arenas lens and extends it with:

• Stronger emphasis on discursive constructions and power/knowledge (Foucauldian inflection).
• Explicit mapping of nonhuman and institutional elements.
• Positional mapping of discursive fields.

When situational analysis adds value beyond traditional GT

Use SA when:

• No single core category should dominate because multiplicity is substantive.
• Boundary objects, technologies, policy discourses, and nonhuman actors are as important as individuals.
• Controversies and conflicting logics structure the field.
• You want visual-analytic discipline for complex cases (science & technology studies, health policy, organizational ecologies).

Traditional Glaserian GT may be preferable when the aim is a parsimonious substantive theory of a core social process with theoretical sampling tightly focused on that process.

Differences from Glaserian GT (concise)

SA can complement GT: use coding to enter data, use maps to hold complexity accountable in findings.

Reporting

Present maps as figures with legends; explain how maps changed over time. Connect maps to narrative analysis—maps should advance argument, not decorate.

Key references

• Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn.
• Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. (Eds.). (2018). The Situational Analysis Toolkit.

Use this skill for messy multi-actor projects, STS-inflected qualitative work, or explicit mapping alongside grounded coding.