Open Coding vs. Axial Coding: What's the Difference?
Open coding breaks your data apart into discrete labeled fragments. Axial coding puts those fragments back together by identifying relationships between them. They're two sequential steps in grounded theory's coding process, not competing methods: you do open coding first, then axial coding on its output.
Side by side
| Open coding | Axial coding | |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | Labels discrete pieces of data, staying close to what's said | Relates codes to each other around a phenomenon, its conditions, actions, and consequences |
| Direction | Breaks data apart | Puts codes back together into structure |
| Output | A list of codes | Categories and subcategories with defined relationships |
| When you do it | First pass through the data | After an initial open-coding pass produces enough codes to relate |
| Where it comes from | Grounded theory tradition broadly (Glaser & Strauss) | Formalized specifically by Strauss & Corbin's "coding paradigm" |
Where they sit in the full sequence
Grounded theory's classic coding sequence has three stages: open coding → axial coding → selective coding. Open coding generates the raw material. Axial coding organizes it into categories and relationships. Selective coding integrates those categories around a core category to build the final analytic structure.
A quick example
Coding an interview about remote work, open coding might produce fragments like "miss the commute as a mental boundary," "harder to say no to messages after 6pm," "no one notices when I actually finish early." Axial coding asks what connects these: you might arrive at a category like boundary erosion, with conditions (always-on messaging tools, no physical office transition), consequences (extended work hours, harder disengagement), and the strategies people use to manage it.
Do you always need both?
Open coding is close to universal in grounded theory work. Axial coding is more contested: some methodologists, notably Kathy Charmaz, treat it as optional rather than mandatory, arguing it's a highly structured step that not every study needs. For a deeper look at that debate, see What Is Axial Coding? A Practical Guide.
Qualibr runs both passes for you as a starting point: it open-codes your dataset first, then groups those codes into axial-style categories, and you review, rename, or reject before anything counts as final.
FAQ
Can I do axial coding without doing open coding first? Not meaningfully. Axial coding works by relating codes to each other, so you need a set of codes to relate. Skipping straight to axial coding usually means you're actually doing a looser, less systematic version of both steps at once.
Is this the same distinction as "descriptive coding vs. pattern coding"? Related in spirit but not the same terminology or tradition. Open and axial coding specifically refer to grounded theory's coding sequence (Strauss & Corbin). Descriptive/pattern coding comes from a different coding-methods literature (Saldaña) and isn't tied to grounded theory specifically.
Does thematic analysis use open and axial coding? No. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis follows its own six-phase process and isn't built around the open/axial/selective coding paradigm. See Braun & Clarke Thematic Analysis: The 6-Phase Framework Explained.
Sources
- Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990, 1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
- Axial Coding – The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (reference entry on Strauss & Corbin's coding paradigm)
- Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory.