memo-writing

# Memo Writing in Grounded Theory In classic grounded theory, **memos are the core intellectual product** of analysis. Coding fractures data and labels incidents; **memoing** captures **ideas about what codes mean**, how categories relate, what conditions might matter, and what must be sampled next. If you cannot point to a **memo trail**, you likely cannot defend **how** your theory emerged. Use this skill throughout **open**, **selective**, and **theoretical** coding—and during **sampling** decisions. --- ## Types of memos (practical taxonomy) ### Theoretical memos **Content**: hypotheses about relationships among categories; “if/then” thinking; models-in-words. **When**: after comparisons spark insight; when integrating two codes; when revising a core claim. ### Code notes **Content**: definitions, inclusion/exclusion boundaries, merge/split rationale, examples. **When**: whenever a code changes meaning or competes with a neighbor code. ### Operational / methodological memos **Content**: data access issues, interview dynamics, reflexivity notes, ethics dilemmas, tool choices. **When**: these factors **shape** what data mean or what you can know—GT treats many such notes as legitimate “data about the study.” ### Sorting memos / outline memos **Content**: higher-order integration—chapter-like storylines, outlines for theory write-up. **When**: weekly or after major analytic milestones. ### Sampling memos **Content**: the analytic rationale for **next** data collection targets. **When**: before scheduling interviews/observations. --- ## Glaser’s memo-writing rules (interpreted for practice) Classic guidance distills to disciplined habits: 1. **Stop and memo** when a conceptual idea crystallizes—do not trust memory. 2. **Write to think**: memos are drafts, not polished prose. 3. **Stay conceptual**: move beyond summary to **claims** and **conditions**. 4. **Link to evidence**: cite **source IDs** and locations for traceability. 5. **Date and title** memos so sorting remains possible months later. 6. **Allow revision**: later memos can contradict earlier ones—mark **supersedes** notes. --- ## Memo structure (reusable template) ```text Title: Date: Linked sources (IDs/locations): Main idea (1–3 sentences): Supporting comparisons (incident IDs + why they matter): Hypotheses / claims: H1: H2: Boundary conditions / negative cases: Implications for coding (rename/split/merge): Implications for next sampling: Open puzzles: ``` Short memos are fine. **Density** beats length. --- ## Memo sorting and the “memo fund” **Memo fund** refers to your accumulated memo corpus—your **laboratory notebook** of theorizing. ### Sorting routines - **Weekly sort**: move memos under emerging **outline headings** tied to the core category. - **Tag** memos by function: `hypothesis`, `definition`, `sampling`, `reflexivity`. - **Highlight** stable claims vs speculative guesses. ### From memos to theory outline 1. Collect memos that repeatedly assert the **same relationship**. 2. Merge redundant memos into a **single stronger statement**. 3. Identify **gaps**—relationships with weak evidence become **sampling priorities**. --- ## Worked examples (abbreviated fictions) ### Example A — early open-coding memo (code note + hunch) **Title**: *delaying disclosure* vs *hiding incompetence* **Idea**: Early incidents tagged “delaying disclosure” include two different logics: (1) **viability probing** and (2) **impression shielding**. These may be separate categories. **Next step**: compare across cases for **trigger conditions**—do “shielding” incidents correlate with **evaluation anxiety** language? ### Example B — mid-study theoretical memo **Title**: Core candidate — *staging legitimacy* **Claim**: Participants convert uncertain projects into “acceptable” organizational objects by **incremental evidence** + **soft risk frames**. **Evidence**: interviews 04, 09, 12; field notes meeting B. **Negative case**: interview 07 shows **immediate disclosure** when manager already co-owned risk—condition may be **shared accountability**. ### Example C — selective-coding integration memo **Title**: Outline v0.4 — core + satellites **Core**: *staging legitimacy* **Satellites**: *viability thresholds*, *soft framing*, *manager co-ownership*, *peer vetting* **Hypothesis sketch**: Soft framing works **unless** performance metrics are **publicly ranked** (boundary). --- ## Output format recommendations (for teams) - **Single memo repository** (folder or software) with consistent titles. - **Cross-links** from codes to memo IDs. - **Change log** when core category shifts (audit transparency). --- ## Common mistakes - Treating memos as **personal journaling** without conceptual claims. - Writing memos **only** at the end (reconstructive rationalization). - **Orphan memos** with no data pointers—non-auditable. - Over-polishing memos instead of **comparing** further. - Letting software **replace** thinking (auto-summaries ≠ comparative analysis). --- ## Key references - Glaser, B. G. (1978). *Theoretical sensitivity*. Sociology Press. - Glaser, B. G. (1992). *Basics of grounded theory analysis*. Sociology Press. - Glaser, B. G. (1998). *Doing grounded theory*. Sociology Press. --- ## Companion skills - `constant-comparison`, `open-coding`, `selective-coding` - `theoretical-sampling`, decision audit trails (project workflow / transparency) - `glaserian-grounded-theory`