Axial Coding

Axial coding is a procedure advocated by Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin in their guidelines for the development of grounded theory (theory derived from data) when analyzing qualitative data. Open coding, where the raw data (e.g., interviews, art, fieldnotes) are broken down so that as many ideas and concepts as possible are identified and labeled, sets the stage for axial coding, where the data are reassembled so that the researcher may identify relationships more readily. To do this, the researcher attempts to flesh out the properties of categories and determine how they vary in terms of their dimensions. Categories are pursued in greater depth on the way to the identification of core categories and ultimately to the explanation of phenomena (selective coding).

Axial coding is the phase where concepts and categories that begin to stand out are refined and relationships among them are pursued systematically. Categories represent phenomena such as events, objects, incidents, and actions. As major categories begin to emerge, the researchers are advised to ask questions of the data that concern them in a focused manner.

The questions that researchers are advised to ask of the data when exploring a given category are referred to as the paradigm (a scheme to assist in the organization of data). This features guidelines that urge paying particular attention to conditions or context (structure) (e.g., where, when, why), actions/interactions (process) (e.g., responses, strategies), and consequences (e.g., outcomes) that relate to a given category. The paradigm is a tool recommended to assist researchers in integrating structure and process and in thinking in terms of cause and impact.

Axial coding derives its name from attention during this phase of analysis to the intense coding around the “axis” of one category of interest at a time. The recommendation (especially to new researchers) is to seek answers to a series of questions about this focal category. For example, if one has recognized deviant acts as an important category when analyzing interviews concerning children of offenders, one might ask questions of the data such as how often deviant acts are committed, by whom, at what age, where, what kinds of acts are committed, whether the acts are antinormative or illegal, and what happens to those who commit the acts. As new categories are recognized from the coding prompted by the questions asked, relationships between these categories (referred to as subcategories, e.g., types of deviance, amount of deviance) and the focal category are identified. Hypotheses—statements about how the categories relate—are then developed as patterns emerge on the road to explaining phenomena.

There is some debate about the benefits of axial coding. There are those who believe (as does Barney Glaser) that addressing paradigmatic questions prematurely risks imposing schemas that impede the emergence of theory, potentially limiting what analysts ultimately recognize in the data. Even among the many followers who value the procedure of axial coding, a prevalent critique is that confusion can arise from the complicated, not always transparent guidelines and terminology associated with the practice.