qual-examine-assumptions git:20261106.bb3d139A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/4afa787f35bff8c7.

---
name: qual-examine-assumptions
description: Surface epistemic foundations through Socratic questioning and coherence checking
---

# /qual-examine-assumptions - Surface Your Epistemic Foundations

## Purpose
Use reflexive Socratic questioning to examine the ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying your analytical work. This is philosophical archaeology - excavating the invisible foundations of your thinking.

---

## When to Use This

### Perfect For:
- **Beginning a project** - clarify your philosophical stance before coding
- **Feeling philosophical confusion** - sense something's off but can't articulate what
- **After major analytical decisions** - check if choice aligns with your declared stance
- **Before manuscript writing** - ensure claims match your epistemology
- **When mixing methodologies** - validate philosophical compatibility
- **Regular philosophical hygiene** - monthly assumption check

### Signals You Need This:
- Using words like "discover" when your stance is constructivist
- Claiming objectivity when your method is interpretive
- Mixing Glaserian and Charmaz language unconsciously
- Reviewers questioning your philosophical coherence
- YOU questioning your philosophical coherence
- Feeling incoherent without knowing why

---

## What This Command Does

**Uses:** Reflexive Socratic questioning - philosophical self-examination

**Provides Access To:**
- 5 GT perspectives (Glaserian, Straussian, Constructivist, Gioia, Situational)
- Each with distinct ontology, epistemology, methodology
- Comparative lens to see YOUR assumptions
- Questions each tradition would ask of your data

**Process:**
1. You describe analytical decision or question
2. Claude surfaces the philosophical assumptions embedded in it through questioning
3. Compares your move against your declared stance
4. Flags incoherencies if present
5. Helps you align practice with philosophy

**Why This Matters:**
Philosophy isn't abstract - it shapes EVERYTHING you code, interpret, claim.
Unconscious assumptions undermine rigor.
Examined assumptions enable coherence.

---

## How to Use

### Check Coherence with Your Declared Stance

```
/qual-examine-assumptions I declared Gioia/Constructivist stance
but I keep using language like "I discovered patterns." Is this okay?
```

**Claude will respond:**
```
Let's examine the assumption embedded in "discovered patterns":

DISCOVERY language assumes:
• Ontology: Patterns exist objectively in data
• Epistemology: Researcher finds pre-existing truth
• Methodology: Minimizing bias to see what's there
• Aligned with: Glaserian objectivist tradition

Your DECLARED stance (Gioia/Constructivist) assumes:
• Ontology: Multiple constructed realities
• Epistemology: Researcher builds interpretive categories
• Methodology: Systematic interpretation with reflexivity
• Language should be: "constructed," "interpreted," "characterized"

INCOHERENCE DETECTED: Language contradicts stance.

This matters because:
- Readers will question your philosophical foundation
- Your claims won't align with your methods
- Undermines the rigor you've built

Recommendation: Shift language to match stance, or reconsider stance.

Questions:
- Do you actually see patterns as discoveries (stance might be more Glaserian)?
- Or is it habit (language doesn't match actual belief)?
- What feels true to YOUR experience of analysis?
```

### Explore Different GT Traditions

```
/qual-examine-assumptions What would Charmaz ask about my coding approach
that Gioia wouldn't? I want to understand different philosophical lenses.
```

**Claude will respond:**
```
Charmaz (Constructivist) would ask:
• "How is your position shaping what you're seeing?"
• "What multiple realities might exist here?"
• "How are you co-constructing meaning with participants?"
• Focus: Reflexivity, multiple interpretations, process coding (gerunds)

Gioia would ask:
• "How do informant terms connect to theoretical concepts?"
• "What's the hierarchical structure (1st→2nd→aggregate)?"
• "How does this build systematic theoretical framework?"
• Focus: Rigor, structure, theoretical contribution

BOTH are interpretivist, but different emphases:
• Charmaz: Depth of reflexivity and co-construction
• Gioia: Rigor of systematic analytical progression

Your choice depends on:
- What your research question requires
- What your audience expects
- What feels authentic to YOUR practice

Want to explore implications of choosing one vs the other?
```

### Validate Analytical Decision

```
/qual-examine-assumptions I'm consolidating overlapping concepts.
What assumptions does this move make?
```

**Claude will respond:**
```
Consolidating overlapping concepts assumes:

PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS:
• Parsimony is theoretically valuable (fewer concepts = clearer theory)
• Overlap indicates conceptual redundancy (not productive tension)
• Categories should have clear boundaries (construct definition matters)
• Researcher authority to make conceptual decisions (interpretivist)

DIFFERENT TRADITIONS WOULD:
• Glaserian: Good! Theoretical parsimony and core category focus
• Constructivist: Check - are you consolidating prematurely? Multiple
  interpretations might validly exist
• Gioia: Fine if maintaining 3-level hierarchy and empirical grounding

Your stance (Gioia/Constructivist): Consolidation is okay IF:
- Grounded in empirical evidence
- Maintains theoretical distinction that matters
- You've reflected on whether overlap is problem or richness

Questions:
- Does consolidation clarify or reduce complexity inappropriately?
- Are you serving theoretical elegance or empirical fidelity?
- What would participants say about this consolidation?
```

---

## The Five GT Perspectives

**For reflexive comparison, not method shopping!**

### 1. Glaserian (Objectivist Discovery)
**Assumes:** Patterns exist objectively, researcher discovers through emergence
**Questions:** What's the basic social psychological process? What's happening here?
**Use for:** Seeing what objectivist lens would reveal (even if not your stance)

### 2. Straussian (Systematic Procedures)
**Assumes:** Coding paradigm model, systematic methodology crucial
**Questions:** What are conditions, actions, consequences? What's the axial coding?
**Use for:** Understanding procedural rigor emphasis

### 3. Constructivist/Charmaz (Reflexive Co-Construction)
**Assumes:** Multiple realities, researcher co-constructs meaning
**Questions:** How is your position shaping this? What multiple meanings exist?
**Use for:** Deepening reflexivity, honoring complexity

### 4. Gioia & Corley (Systematic Interpretivist)
**Assumes:** Researcher constructs theory systematically from data
**Questions:** What's 1st→2nd→aggregate structure? How does this build theory?
**Use for:** Your default! Rigor + interpretation balanced

### 5. Situational Analysis (Mapping Complexity)
**Assumes:** Social worlds, arenas, discourses to be mapped
**Questions:** What positions exist? What discourses operate?
**Use for:** When data involves multiple stakeholder perspectives

**IMPORTANT:** These are lenses for REFLECTION, not options to pick from!
Using them helps you understand YOUR stance more deeply.

---

## Regular Practice

```
Monthly Philosophical Hygiene:

/qual-examine-assumptions Review my last month's coding decisions.
Are they coherent with my Gioia/Constructivist stance?

[Claude analyzes recent work, flags any incoherencies]
```

---

## Example Dialogue

```
User: /qual-examine-assumptions I just realized I'm treating my data
      structure as if it's THE correct framework, but I claim to be
      constructivist. Isn't that contradictory?

Claude:

  Excellent reflexive observation! Let's examine this tension...

  CLAIMING: Constructivist stance (multiple valid interpretations)
  ACTING: Treating framework as singular truth

  This tension reveals:

  Possibility 1: You're more Gioia than Charmaz
  • Gioia IS constructivist but emphasizes systematic rigor
  • Having ONE well-grounded framework ≠ claiming it's THE truth
  • You construct A valid framework, not THE only framework

  Possibility 2: You're slipping into objectivist habits
  • Easy to do when focused on rigor and structure
  • Language drift: "correct framework" vs "my framework"
  • Fixable: Return to constructivist framing

  Possibility 3: Productive tension to sit with
  • Maybe you're negotiating rigor (singular framework) with
    humility (acknowledging other valid interpretations exist)
  • This is sophisticated epistemology!

  Questions for you:
  - Do you believe other researchers could construct different but
    equally valid frameworks from your data?
  - Or do you believe your framework captures something objectively there?
  - How does your answer affect your writing?

User: I think other frameworks could be valid, but mine is grounded
      and rigorous. I'm building A framework, not THE framework.

Claude:

  Perfect! That's epistemically coherent Gioia/Constructivist stance:
  • Systematic rigor (singular well-built framework)
  • Interpretive humility (acknowledge other valid readings)
  • Constructivist (you built this, it's not discovered truth)

  Language adjustment needed:
  ✗ "THE correct framework"
  ✓ "A systematic framework grounded in evidence"
  ✓ "MY interpretive framework"
  ✓ "This constructed understanding"

  You're philosophically sound. Just watch your language habits!

  Shall I add this to your reflexivity journal as epistemic clarification?
```

---

## Integration with Project

**Logs to conversation-log.jsonl:**
```json
{
  "timestamp": "{ISO_TIMESTAMP}",
  "from": "human_researcher",
  "to": "reflexive_examination",
  "message": "Examined assumptions about {ANALYTICAL_DECISION}",
  "stage": "{CURRENT_STAGE}",
  "activity_type": "philosophical_examination",
  "metadata": {
    "assumption_examined": "{WHAT_WAS_QUESTIONED}",
    "coherence_status": "coherent|incoherent|productive_tension",
    "adjustment_needed": true|false,
    "insight": "{WHAT_WAS_LEARNED}"
  },
  "epistemic_value": "Surfaced implicit assumptions, maintained philosophical coherence"
}
```

**Saves to reflexivity-journal.md:**
Philosophical insights and assumption challenges documented automatically.

---

## Regular Use Pattern

**Recommended frequency:**
- Beginning of project (before coding)
- Monthly during active analysis
- After major analytical decisions
- Before writing manuscript
- Whenever you feel philosophical wobble

**Not for:**
- Every coding decision (too disruptive)
- When you're philosophically clear
- Routine work

**Balance:** Enough to maintain coherence, not so much it interrupts flow.

---

## Philosophical Note

**This isn't philosophical policing:**
We're not enforcing "right" philosophy. We're helping you be COHERENT with YOUR chosen philosophy.

**If you want to shift traditions:**
That's legitimate! Change your config.json stance, and reflexive questioning helps you understand implications.

**If you want to be hybrid:**
That's okay IF internally coherent. Socratic questioning helps you navigate that complexity.

**The goal:** Self-awareness, not conformity.

---

## Context-Agnostic Examples

**Healthcare Research:**
```
/qual-examine-assumptions I'm coding patient narratives as if their
experiences reflect objective illness progression. But I claimed
interpretivist stance. Help me see this.
```

**Educational Research:**
```
/qual-examine-assumptions What assumptions underlie my decision to
treat "effective learning strategies" as discoverable patterns?
```

**Organizational Research:**
```
/qual-examine-assumptions I keep referring to "organizational culture"
as if it's a thing that exists. What ontology does this assume?
```

**Philosophical excavation works across all domains.**

---

*Inspects this seam carefully - these are the invisible threads that hold everything together*

The assumption examiner - for when you need to see what you're standing on.

**Next: The framework scaffold...**