Mieke - your question is a little confusing, If you want to use Strauss and Corbin's analysis - they have a coding analytical framework - not a paradigm. Grounded theory, overall, is the paradigm.

Dean Whitehead Thank you for your reply. In literature I came across the term coding paradigm model probably meaning exactly what you describe - a coding framework for axial coding to link the codes. According to Strauss & Corbin (1990) it covers causes, context, phenomenon, intervening conditions, strategies and consequences. So now I am wondering how to adapt this framework to my goal of indentifying attitudes and opinions of the respondents.

Hi Meike - you would have to contextualise a coding paradigm model to me. It's not a term I am familiar with. What you describe to me is a 'design' - not a paradigm.

Dean Whitehead I will try to clarify what I mean. Within axial coding you try to investigate relationships between the concepts and categories developed during open coding. To detect these relations Strauss & Corbin (1990) suggest an orientation towards their coding paradigm: looking for causes, context, consequences etc. (It is described, inter alia, in "Rieger (2018). Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nursing Inquiry 26(1)").

But regardless of what term should be used for this, I am really interested in how to adapt this paradigm/design/framework (causes, context etc.) to my own research goal.

Yes, Strauss and Corbin (1990) did call their approach the coding paradigm for GT (regardless of whether that was a wise choice of terminology, given the competing uses of the word paradigm that Dean Whitehead refers to).

I am not sure how good an idea it, its to pursue this approach, however. The main reason is that it disappeared from the later editions of the Strauss and Corbin's (now Corbin and Strauss) textbook.Further, my own relatively informal searches of the literature strong suggest that this approach was seldom adopted by GT researchers.

One likely reason is the strong criticism that it received from Glaser, who referred to it as "forcing" the data into an overly narrow, preconceived framework.

David L Morgan You are absolutely right about being careful with using these paradigms in analysis. From what I read so far, it can be helpful to use it as a kind of orientation for finding connections in the data like Cathy Urquhart (2013) describes it:

"Of course, you can - and, I think, should be able to - generate you own coding paradigms. Grounded theory, in my view, is, above all, about being faithful to what your analysis of the data suggests rather than shoehorning the data into some preconceived analytical framework, so it would go against the spirit of grounded theory to suggest that only Glaser's coding families should be used." (Urquhart, Cathy (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research. A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.)

Of course, staying flexible and open in GT analysis is crucial. That is why I did not want to use the original paradigm for my data but rather adapt it to my research question wondering if there might be someone who already did something similar.

You might also look at what Glaser calls "coding families," and among them check out the "six c's" -- which are close to Strauss and Corbin's original proposal.