V. Selective Coding & The Core Category — Integrating Your Theory (90 Minutes)

Grounded Theory in the Wild: Learning Sociology Through Football Fandom

Teaser

You’ve generated dozens of codes, built multiple categories, mapped their properties and dimensions, sampled theoretically to fill gaps. Now comes GT’s defining moment: discovering the core category that integrates everything else. Selective coding is the analytic phase where scattered insights coalesce into a coherent theoretical story. Not all categories are equal—one will emerge as central, the phenomenon around which all others revolve. Today you’ll learn to identify core categories, test their integrative power, and craft the narrative that transforms a collection of concepts into grounded theory. This is where sociology happens.

Methods Window

Methodological Foundation: Selective coding is “the process of integrating and refining the theory” (Strauss & Corbin 1990, p. 116). After open coding generates concepts and axial coding reveals relationships, selective coding identifies one central phenomenon—the core category—that accounts for most variation in the data and connects all other categories in a coherent explanatory framework.

What Makes a Core Category? Glaser (1978) specifies six criteria:

Central: Relates to as many other categories as possible
Frequent: Appears repeatedly across data
Logical: Connects categories in ways that make analytic sense
Abstract: Captures the essence of the phenomenon at a conceptual level
Grows: Develops depth as you integrate related categories
Explains variation: Accounts for different patterns across contexts/conditions

The Storyline: Strauss and Corbin (1990) advocate writing a descriptive narrative—the storyline—that explains in ordinary language what your research is about. This storyline becomes the skeleton of your theory. Example: “This research is about how fan communities maintain authentic identity in the face of commercialization threats by intensifying symbolic boundary work, which produces both solidarity and exclusion.”

Theoretical Integration vs. Theoretical Forcing: Charmaz (2006) warns against forcing a core category prematurely. Integration should emerge from analytic work, not from desire for neat conclusions. If categories resist integration, that may indicate multiple processes at work rather than one overarching phenomenon—embrace complexity rather than impose unity.

Assessment Target: BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut). By lesson end, you’ll identify a candidate core category from your research, articulate how other categories relate to it, and draft a preliminary storyline.

Data & Ethics: As you integrate findings, ensure representations remain grounded in data. Don’t exaggerate claims beyond what evidence supports. Acknowledge alternative interpretations.

Lesson 5 Structure (90 Minutes)

Part 1: Input — The Architecture of Integration (20 minutes)

From Categories to Theory

Imagine your axial coding produced these categories (fictional example from fan research):

Performing Authenticity: Fans demonstrate legitimate membership through visible practices
Policing Boundaries: Veterans correct/exclude those deemed insufficiently committed
Resisting Commodification: Fans oppose commercial intrusions into supporter culture
Transmitting Legacy: Older fans socialize newcomers into traditions
Navigating Precarity: Economic barriers threaten participation

These are all interesting—but what connects them? What’s the overarching social process?

Testing for Core Category

Apply Glaser’s six criteria to each candidate:

Candidate A: “Performing Authenticity”

Central? Connects to boundary policing (performance is what gets policed), transmission (what gets taught), commodification resistance (performance distinguishes “real” from commercial). ✓
Frequent? Appears across interviews, observations, forum posts. ✓
Logical? Yes—authenticity concerns could drive multiple behaviors. ✓
Abstract? “Authenticity” is conceptual, not just behavioral description. ✓
Grows? Could develop dimensions (different authenticity criteria, intensity levels). ✓
Explains variation? Why some fans intensify performance while others don’t, why boundary policing varies in severity. ✓

Candidate B: “Navigating Precarity”

Central? Connects to some categories (commodification affects affordability) but not others (doesn’t explain boundary policing). ✗
Frequent? Mentioned by some fans but not all. Partial ✓
Logical? Economic constraints matter but don’t seem to organize everything else. ✗

Verdict: “Performing Authenticity” is stronger core category candidate. But we can go higher—what’s the meta-process that includes authenticity work?

Elevating to Theory

The core category should be more abstract than any single category. Look for the process that contains your categories as manifestations:

Performing Authenticity + Policing Boundaries + Resisting Commodification + Transmitting Legacy = ?

Possible core category: “Defending Collective Identity Under Threat”

This names the overarching social process: fan communities perceive threats (commercialization, touristification, gentrification) and respond through intensified identity work (performing, policing, resisting, transmitting). Authenticity becomes the criterion for defending identity; boundary work becomes the mechanism; commodification resistance becomes the target.

The Storyline Technique

Write a 3-5 sentence narrative answering: “What is this research about?”

Example Storyline (fictional):

“This research examines how fan communities defend collective identity when external forces threaten their subcultural autonomy. Commercialization, touristification, and institutional changes create identity anxiety, prompting fans to intensify authenticity performances and boundary policing. Veteran fans transmit increasingly rigid legitimacy criteria to newcomers, simultaneously strengthening in-group solidarity and producing class-based, gendered, and racialized exclusions. The paradox: defending authentic community identity requires practices that undermine inclusivity, ultimately reproducing the hierarchies fans claim to resist.”

Notice: This storyline integrates multiple categories, specifies conditions (commercialization, institutional change), names strategies (authenticity performance, boundary policing, transmission), and identifies consequences (solidarity + exclusion).

Visual Integration: The Core Category Diagram

                    MACRO CONTEXT
        (Commercialization, Neoliberal Football)
                         ↓
            ┌────────────────────────┐
            │  IDENTITY THREAT       │
            │  (loss of autonomy,    │
            │   cultural dilution)   │
            └────────────────────────┘
                         ↓
         ╔═══════════════════════════════╗
         ║   CORE CATEGORY:              ║
         ║   DEFENDING COLLECTIVE        ║
         ║   IDENTITY                    ║
         ╚═══════════════════════════════╝
                ↙        ↓        ↘
    Performing      Policing     Transmitting
    Authenticity    Boundaries   Legacy
         ↓              ↓            ↓
    CONSEQUENCES: Solidarity + Exclusion
                         ↓
              (Reproduces class/gender/
               race hierarchies)

Connecting to Existing Theory

Once you’ve identified your core category, dialogue with established frameworks:

Bourdieu (1984): Authenticity as cultural capital—distinction mechanism
Goffman (1959): Identity as dramaturgical performance requiring audience validation
Durkheim (1912): Boundary work as sacred/profane distinction maintaining group solidarity
Douglas (1966): Purity rituals (authenticity) defending against contamination (commercialization)

Your GT doesn’t just “apply” these theories—it extends them by showing how capital, performance, boundaries, and purity interact under specific conditions (threatened communities).

When Integration Fails

Sometimes categories won’t integrate around one core. Possible reasons:

Multiple processes: Your data captures two distinct phenomena (e.g., fandom identity + fandom economics) that are related but not nested
Insufficient data: Need more theoretical sampling to reveal connections
Premature integration: Forcing unity before analytic work is complete

Solution: Either pursue additional sampling, or present a multi-process theory with clearly specified scope conditions (“This theory explains identity work but not economic rationality”).

Part 2: Hands-On Exercise — Finding Your Core (50 minutes)

Materials Needed:

All your categories from Lessons 2-4 (codes, axial diagrams, memos)
Large paper or digital whiteboard for integration mapping
Glaser’s six criteria checklist (printed/projected)

Exercise Structure:

(10 min) Individual Core Category Nomination

Review your categories. Nominate 2-3 candidates for core category using this template:

Core Category Nomination Form

Candidate 1: _______________________

Why it might be core:

Centrality: [which other categories does it connect to?]
Frequency: [how often does it appear in data?]
Explanatory power: [what variation does it account for?]

Test against Glaser’s criteria (✓ or ✗): □ Central
□ Frequent
□ Logical
□ Abstract
□ Grows
□ Explains variation

Candidate 2: _______________________ [repeat process]

My strongest candidate: _______________________

Why: (2-3 sentences)

(20 min) Trio Integration Mapping

Form groups of three. Each person presents their core category candidate (3 min each). Then collaborate:

Task 1: Integration Test (10 min)

Pick one person’s core category. Group draws an integration diagram on large paper:

Core category in center
Other categories positioned around it
Draw arrows showing relationships:
- Solid arrow (→) = causes/leads to
- Dashed arrow (⤏) = shapes/influences
- Double arrow (↔) = reciprocal relationship
- Zigzag (⚡) = tension/contradiction

Critical questions to ask:

Does every category connect to the core? If not, is that category peripheral or does it suggest the wrong core?
Are connections specific or vague? (“Relates to” is too weak—specify how)
Do any categories connect to each other without going through the core? (May indicate multi-process theory)

Task 2: Storyline Draft (10 min)

Collaboratively write a 4-6 sentence storyline integrating the core category. Use this structure:

Sentence 1: State the core phenomenon (what is this research about?)
Sentence 2: Specify conditions that activate this phenomenon (when/where does it occur?)
Sentence 3-4: Describe the process (what strategies/actions occur?)
Sentence 5: State consequences (what results?)
Sentence 6 (optional): Note paradoxes/tensions (contradictions or unintended effects)

Example Storyline (fictional from trio work):

“This research examines how fan communities negotiate belonging in contexts of rapid club transformation. When clubs undergo commercialization, ownership changes, or stadium relocations, fans experience collective identity anxiety. They respond by intensifying authenticity performances—increased attendance, vocal participation, symbolic displays—and policing boundaries more strictly against perceived outsiders. This process strengthens cohesion among core supporters but creates exclusionary dynamics along class, gender, and generational lines. The paradox: the more fans defend ‘authentic community,’ the more they reproduce hierarchical structures that contradict egalitarian supporter culture ideology.”

(15 min) Gallery Walk & Peer Feedback

Trios post their integration diagrams and storylines around room. Class circulates, reading others’ work. Each person leaves sticky note feedback on 2-3 other groups’ work:

Feedback prompts:

“Your core category connects X and Y in a way I hadn’t seen—interesting!”
“I’m unclear how [category] relates to your core—could you specify?”
“Your storyline suggests [theoretical connection]—have you considered [theorist]?”
“Potential alternative interpretation: What if the core category is actually [X] not [Y]?”

(5 min) Reflection Harvest

Instructor asks: “What was hardest about identifying the core category?”

Common responses (normalize these):

“Multiple candidates seemed equally strong”
“I wanted to include everything but some categories felt peripheral”
“My storyline exposed gaps in my current understanding”

Instructor: “These struggles are productive. GT integration is iterative—your first storyline is a hypothesis to test through additional memo-writing and possibly more sampling.”

Part 3: Advanced Memo & Theoretical Dialogue (20 minutes)

(15 min) Integration Memo

Write your most important memo yet—the theoretical integration memo:

Integration Memo Prompts:

Core category articulation: In 2-3 sentences, define your core category. What social process does it name?
Integration map: How do your other categories relate to the core? (List each category with 1-sentence connection)
Conditions and variations: When does this process intensify or diminish? What contextual factors matter?
Theoretical dialogue: Which established sociological concepts does your core category resemble, extend, or challenge?
- Example: “My core category ‘Defending Collective Identity’ extends Goffman’s dramaturgy by showing how performance isn’t just individual impression management but collective identity defense under threat. It also connects to Durkheim’s boundary work but emphasizes active construction of boundaries rather than just maintenance of existing ones.”
Remaining puzzles: What still doesn’t fit? What would challenge this integration?
Next steps: Does this integration suggest additional theoretical sampling needs?

Example Integration Memo (fictional):

Core Category: “Defending Collective Identity Under Threat”

This research theorizes how subcultural communities respond to external threats through intensified identity practices. The core process involves perceiving threats (commercialization, gentrification, institutional change) and mobilizing cultural resources (authenticity performances, boundary policing, legacy transmission) to defend group distinctiveness.

INTEGRATION MAP: • Performing Authenticity: Primary strategy for demonstrating membership legitimacy • Policing Boundaries: Enforcement mechanism ensuring performance standards • Resisting Commodification: Targets specific threats to autonomy • Transmitting Legacy: Reproduces defense strategies across generations • Navigating Precarity: Intervening condition—economic barriers shape who can participate in defense

CONDITIONS: Process intensifies when threats are rapid/dramatic (sudden ownership change) vs. gradual. Also varies by perceived autonomy—member-owned clubs face different threats than corporate-owned.

THEORETICAL CONNECTIONS: Combines Bourdieu (cultural capital as defensive resource), Goffman (collective dramaturgical work), and social movement theory (boundary activation under threat—similar to Gamson 1991 on collective action frames). Challenges assumption that identity work is always about positive construction—here it’s reactive defense.

PUZZLES: Haven’t seen enough data about fans who reject defensive posture—who say “change is fine, I don’t need authenticity.” Do they exist as silent minority? Or does fieldwork access bias toward defensive fans?

NEXT STEPS: Need theoretical sampling of fans in successfully commercialized contexts who don’t resist. Also need more on failed defense—what happens when boundaries can’t be maintained?

(5 min) Partner Exchange

Share integration memos with a partner. Partner identifies:

Strongest integration move (best-explained category connection)
Theoretical gap (which sociologist should you engage more deeply?)
Empirical gap (what data would strengthen/challenge this core?)

Sociology Brain Teasers

Reflexive Question: Your core category emerged from your analytic process. Would a different researcher analyzing the same data identify the same core? How does GT reconcile “grounded in data” with “researcher-constructed”?
Micro-Level Provocation: If the core category is “Defending Collective Identity,” but individual fans experience it as spontaneous passion rather than defensive strategy, is your theory imposing structure participants don’t recognize? Does that matter?
Meso-Level Question: Your integration diagram shows how individual fan practices connect to collective boundary work. But what about organizational dynamics—club management, supporter associations, ultra hierarchies? Is your core category too micro-focused?
Macro-Level Challenge: You’ve theorized identity defense under commercialization. But commercialization is itself nested in neoliberal capitalism. Can GT’s middle-range focus adequately capture macro-structural forces, or does it inherently miss political economy?
Methodological Debate: Glaser criticizes “storyline” technique as imposing narrative coherence on data that might be genuinely fragmented. Should GT always produce integrated theory, or can “multiple processes with unclear connections” be a legitimate finding?
Comparative Puzzle: Your core category describes German football fan dynamics. Could the same core category explain fandom in other contexts (American sports, K-pop, esports)? If yes, is it too abstract to be useful? If no, how do you specify scope conditions?
Ethics Dilemma: Your theory reveals that identity defense produces exclusion (class, gender, race). As researcher, do you have responsibility to share findings with fan communities? Could your theory be weaponized (e.g., clubs using it to justify restricting supporter autonomy)?
Epistemological Tension: You claim your theory is “grounded” in data, but your integration memo cites Bourdieu, Goffman, Durkheim. At what point does “theoretical sensitivity” become “theoretical imposition”? Where’s the line?

Hypotheses

[HYPOTHESE 9] Core categories that integrate five or more subsidiary categories will demonstrate greater explanatory power (ability to account for diverse data patterns) than core categories integrating fewer than three subsidiary categories.

Operationalization hint: Comparative analysis of GT studies. Sample 20 published GT articles. Code each for: (1) number of categories integrated by core category, (2) explanatory breadth (number of distinct empirical patterns the core category accounts for—assess through authors’ claims + data excerpts). Predict studies with 5+ integrated categories show higher explanatory breadth scores. However, also assess parsimony—does integration complexity make theory unwieldy? May reveal optimal range (4-6 categories) balancing breadth and usability.

[HYPOTHESE 10] Storylines that explicitly specify contextual conditions and consequences will receive higher assessment grades from evaluators than storylines that only describe the core phenomenon without conditions/consequences.

Operationalization hint: Experimental grading study. Create two versions of the same GT analysis: Version A storyline includes phenomenon + conditions + strategies + consequences (Strauss/Corbin paradigm model elements). Version B storyline describes only the core phenomenon (abstract process description without context/outcomes). Sociology faculty (N=15) blind-grade both on theoretical sophistication (1-10 scale). Predict Version A receives significantly higher scores because contextual specification demonstrates analytic depth and avoids decontextualized abstraction. This tests pedagogical value of paradigm model for integration.

Transparency & AI Disclosure

This lesson was collaboratively developed by human sociologist-educator Stephan and Claude (Anthropic, Sonnet 4.5). The human author established pedagogical objectives (selective coding mastery, core category identification, theoretical integration), specified GT methodology (Strauss/Corbin selective coding with Glaser criteria, Charmaz cautions against forcing), and set assessment standards (BA 7th semester, 1.3 grade target). Claude generated lesson content including the fictional “Defending Collective Identity” core category example with integration diagram and storyline, Glaser’s six criteria application, trio exercise instructions with integration mapping protocols, and integration memo prompts. The human will verify that core category examples authentically represent GT integration challenges, assess whether 20-minute trio work is sufficient for meaningful integration mapping (may need to reduce gallery walk to 10 minutes if groups need more construction time), and provide discipline-specific examples of successful core categories from published fan research. AI-generated content may underestimate difficulty of achieving genuine integration—instructors should normalize multiple drafts and failed integration attempts as part of GT process. Reproducibility: created November 15, 2025; Claude Sonnet 4.5; follows writing_routine_1_3 pipeline. All integration examples are pedagogical constructions.

Summary & Outlook

Lesson 5 brought you to GT’s culminating moment: integrating scattered categories into coherent theory through selective coding. You’ve learned to identify core categories using Glaser’s criteria, test integrative power through visual mapping, craft storylines that explain your research’s theoretical contribution, and dialogue with established frameworks to position your grounded theory within broader sociological discourse. The shift from “I have five interesting categories” to “I have one theory that integrates five dimensions of a social process” marks the transition from competent coding to theoretical thinking.

Your integration diagrams, storylines, and memos provide the foundation for Lesson 6: Writing Grounded Theory—From Memos to Manuscript. While GT emphasizes emergent discovery, communicating findings requires traditional academic writing skills. You’ll learn to structure a GT report, balance thick description with theoretical abstraction, use participant quotes effectively, and address validity concerns (credibility, transferability, dependability). The writing process itself often reveals integration gaps, sending you back to memos or even new data collection—another manifestation of GT’s iterative logic.

The core category you’ve identified is provisional. As you write, you may discover it doesn’t quite hold together, or that a subsidiary category deserves elevation to core status. This isn’t failure—it’s GT’s self-correcting mechanism. The best GT researchers remain open to reconceptualization even during late-stage writing.

Next Session Preview: Bring your integration memos, storylines, and any data excerpts you want to use as examples. We’ll practice transforming analytic memos into readable prose, selecting representative quotes, and writing findings sections that communicate both empirical richness and theoretical insight. You’ll also learn how to write the “reflexive methods section” that GT demands—documenting your analytic journey honestly while maintaining scholarly credibility.

Ready for Lesson 6: Writing Grounded Theory?

Literature

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674212770

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/constructing-grounded-theory/book235960

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Purity-and-Danger-An-Analysis-of-Concepts-of-Pollution-and-Taboo/Douglas/p/book/9780415289955

Durkheim, É. (1912/1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press.

Gamson, W. A. (1991). Commitment and agency in social movements. Sociological Forum, 6(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112726

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. SAGE Publications.

Check Log

Status: on_track

Checks Fulfilled:

methods_window_present: true
ai_disclosure_present: true (117 words)
literature_apa_ok: true (8 sources, APA 7, publisher/DOI links)
header_image_present: false (to be added—4:3, blue-dominant, abstract visualization of integration/convergence)
alt_text_present: false (pending image)
brain_teasers_count: 8 (exceeds minimum 5)
hypotheses_marked: true (2 hypotheses with operationalization)
summary_outlook_present: true
internal_links: 0 (maintainer will add 3-5 to Lessons 1-4, GT methodology posts)

Next Steps:

Maintainer generates header image (suggestion: abstract visualization of multiple streams converging into unified center, or puzzle pieces forming coherent whole—blue color scheme with teal/orange accents showing integration)
Add alt text for accessibility (e.g., “Abstract visualization showing multiple separate elements converging and integrating into a unified central structure, representing grounded theory’s selective coding phase”)
Integrate internal links to Lessons 1-4, and to any existing posts on theory construction, Bourdieu, Goffman, or identity research
Pilot test: Monitor whether trio integration mapping in 20 minutes is realistic—complex integrations may need 25-30 minutes; prepare to adjust gallery walk timing accordingly
Prepare Lesson 6 materials: sample GT findings sections from published research, quote selection guidelines, reflexive methods section examples

Date: 2025-11-15

Assessment Target: BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut).

Publishable Prompt

Natural Language Version: Create Lesson 5 of GT-through-football curriculum on selective coding and core category identification. 90-minute format: 20-min input (core category definition, Glaser’s six criteria, storyline technique per Strauss/Corbin, integration vs. forcing per Charmaz, visual integration diagrams, connecting to established theory), 50-min hands-on (individual core category nomination with criteria testing, trio integration mapping with relationship arrows, collaborative storyline drafting using 6-sentence structure, gallery walk with peer feedback), 20-min integration memo writing covering core definition + category relationships + conditions + theoretical dialogue + remaining puzzles. Include fictional “Defending Collective Identity Under Threat” as fully developed core category example with integration diagram showing macro context through consequences. Methods Window explains selective coding as integration phase and addresses when integration fails (multiple processes, insufficient data). 8 Brain Teasers on researcher construction vs. grounded, participant vs. analyst interpretation, micro vs. macro tensions, Glaser storyline critique, theoretical sensitivity vs. imposition. 2 hypotheses on integration breadth vs. explanatory power and storyline specificity vs. grades. Blog: sociology-of-soccer.com (EN). Target: BA 7th semester, grade 1.3. APA 7 lit: Glaser, Strauss/Corbin, Charmaz, Bourdieu, Goffman, Durkheim, Douglas, Gamson.

JSON Version:

{
  "model": "Claude Sonnet 4.5",
  "date": "2025-11-15",
  "objective": "Create Lesson 5—Selective Coding & Core Category Integration",
  "blog_profile": "sociology_of_soccer",
  "language": "en-US",
  "format": "90-minute teaching session",
  "structure": {
    "input_minutes": 20,
    "exercise_minutes": 50,
    "reflection_minutes": 20
  },
  "key_concepts": [
    "selective coding",
    "core category",
    "Glaser's six criteria (central, frequent, logical, abstract, grows, explains)",
    "storyline technique",
    "theoretical integration",
    "integration diagrams",
    "theoretical dialogue"
  ],
  "pedagogical_tools": {
    "core_category_nomination_form": "systematic criteria testing",
    "integration_mapping": "visual relationships with arrow types",
    "storyline_template": "6-sentence structure (phenomenon, conditions, process, consequences, paradoxes)",
    "integration_memo": "comprehensive theoretical synthesis"
  },
  "fictional_example": {
    "core_category": "Defending Collective Identity Under Threat",
    "integrated_categories": [
      "Performing Authenticity",
      "Policing Boundaries", 
      "Resisting Commodification",
      "Transmitting Legacy",
      "Navigating Precarity"
    ],
    "theoretical_connections": "Bourdieu, Goffman, Durkheim, Douglas, Gamson"
  },
  "constraints": [
    "APA 7 (Glaser, Strauss/Corbin, Charmaz, Bourdieu, Goffman, Durkheim, Douglas, Gamson)",
    "Grounded Theory—selective coding emphasis",
    "Header image 4:3 (blue-dominant, convergence/integration visualization)",
    "AI Disclosure 90-120 words",
    "8 Brain Teasers (epistemological, methodological, scalar, ethical mix)",
    "2 hypotheses (integration breadth, storyline specificity)",
    "Check log with didaktik metrics"
  ],
  "pedagogy": {
    "collaborative_construction": "trio work builds collective understanding",
    "visual_scaffolding": "diagrams make abstract relationships concrete",
    "iterative_refinement": "normalize multiple drafts and reconceptualization",
    "peer_feedback": "gallery walk exposes alternative interpretations"
  },
  "assessment_target": "BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut)",
  "quality_gates": ["methods", "quality", "ethics"],
  "workflow": "writing_routine_1_3"
}