In social sciences, in the context of the interpretation of actions, there are basically two methodological approaches. The first is based on the attribution of subjective intentions and the construction of motives and is developed by Alfred Schütz, founder of Social Phenomenology, in connection with Max Weber’s Interpretative Sociology. In this case, it is a reconstruction (second-degree construction), an interpretation and weathering made in the same way as in the cotidal, in common sense, that is to say, the construction of moths and types (first-degree construction). Unlike the reconstruction of this construction of common sense types, the second route, that of the construction of praxiological types, goes beyond the erection and interpretation of common sense and search by the structures of the actors’ praxis in the search field, by their modus operandi, habitus or guidance structures. The focus of interpretation is the embedded practices and the aural or implicit knowledge that guides the actions. Here we establish a link with Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge and its documentary method, as well as with Pierre Bourdieu’s housing theory. Based on the documentary method, we have developed a practical methodology for searching for interpretation and construction of types. Let us learn from the single case interpretation in this way, emphasising the work on the basis of comparative analysis and removing the guidance system (meaning typification). We look for under which conditions or spaces of experience (in specific ways according to the milieu, generation, gênero, etc.), tipified guidelines or habitus are formed (social-genetics typification). Finally, it is a matter of identifying the overlap of different areas of experience, and thus the multidimensionality of the (genesis of) guidelines and habitus (multidimensional typing). Social-genetic typing contributes to solving the problem of generalisation in qualitative social research.In the Social Sciences, under the interpretation of actions, there are basically two methodologies. The first is based on the attribution of subjective intentions and motives, entrusted by Alfred Schütz, Founder of Social Phenomenology, in connection with the Interpretative sociology by Max Weber. It is, in this case, a re-construction (construction of second degree), an interpretation and teaching that are done in the same way we perform in everyday life, in the common sense, that, in short, is the construction of types and motives (construction of first degree). Unlike a re-construction of this praxeological typification of common sense, the second path, that of the praxeological construction of types, transcends theory and interpretation of common sense and approaches for the praxis structures of the actors, for their modus operandi, habitus or structures of orientation. The focus of interpretation is the incorporated practices and the atheoretical or implicit knowledge that guides the actions. Here we established a connection with Karl Mannhey’s sociology of Knowledge, documentary method and Pierre Bourdiet’s theory of the habitus. Based on the documentary method, we implemented a methodology of research and interpretation of the construction of types. We avoid, in this way, the interpretation of a single case, emphasising the work based on comparative analysis and extracting the orientation system (‘synngenetische’ typification) and then investigate how, or under what conditions or spaces of experience (in ways to specific milieu, generation, gender, etc.), typified guidelines or habitus are formed (socio-genetic typification). This paper also includes the identification of overviews between the different spaces of experience and thus the multidimensional nature of (the genesis of) guidelines and habitus (multidimensional typification). The socio-genetic typing Helps to address the problem of generalisation in qualitative social research.