Thanks for the clarity, Kathy!

Like AJ - I appreciate the clear writing style Kathy Charmaz implements in this reading, and the use of examples. The charted examples of her own coding in particular; this really helped me to get an understanding of how she went about doing this "coding", and what it looked like on paper. 

She points out that what the researcher observes the participants to be doing, may not be the same as what the participants claim to be doing. Which brought me to a cascading series of thoughts on this [possible] contradiction.  It also lead me to this "Whaaaaaaat, shit's gonna be complicated!" feeling, which I guess I knew from the beginning. It's similar in the ways of theorizing within psychology, because even when observing an event first hand, that event is still different for each and every person within it. Including their interpretation of what occurred in that event. 

With that said - I have to say the coding strategy described by Charmaz is one I look forward to using in my own writing. It is so important to breaking down the commonalities in observed behavior. 

I really like how she described focused coding when she stated, "Focused coding helps the researcher to outline a framework that preserves the complexities of everyday life." BOOOM! Awesome, I like it. 

The tools provided and described in great detail here for this type of writing & researching are clear and important. I am really glad to have read this article and look forward to implementing these tools in my own writing.