القائمة
Use when building a substantive grounded theory — a theory grounded in data from a specific substantive area.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | substantive-theory |
| description | Use when building a substantive grounded theory — a theory grounded in data from a specific substantive area. |
A substantive grounded theory is a conceptual theory grounded in data about a specific substantive area (e.g., a particular occupation, illness experience, organizational setting, community practice). It explains patterns of behavior/process relevant to people in that area, using categories and hypothetical relationships earned through constant comparison.
Use this skill when moving from memo outlines to draft manuscripts, dissertations, or journal articles framed in classic GT.
| Feature | Substantive theory | Formal theory |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | A specific empirical domain | Cross-substantive, abstracted |
| Empirical anchor | Deep in one area | Built by comparing substantive theories |
| Typical reader payoff | Explains a real-world arena | Explains a generic social process |
Substantive theory is the default GT product. Formal theory is a later, more abstract step (see formal-theory).
The central conceptual pattern that integrates the theory. It should:
Commonly include (when supported by data):
Avoid treating satellites as a checklist—include only what comparison supports.
Substantive GT writes hypotheses as statements:
Under conditions {C}, people tend to deploy strategy {S}, which produces {O}, unless {B}—where {B} is a boundary condition supported by negative cases.
These are grounded hypotheses, not statistical predictions—though later work might operationalize them.
A mature theory specifies how categories vary:
This is how GT handles variation without collapsing into single-story anecdotes.
If data are strongly processual, present phases or sequences—always conditioned and variable, never rigid “stages” for everyone.
Do categories fit the incidents that generated them? Do negative cases fit refined boundary statements?
Does the theory explain variation and the central pattern? Does it integrate rather than list?
Does it address what participants actually treat as problematic or continually handle?
Could a researcher refine categories with more data without collapsing the entire structure? Modifiability rewards clear conditional statements and honest limits.
Substantive area:
Main concern:
Core category (definition):
3–5 key hypotheses (If/Then/Unless):
Major dimensions of variation:
Boundary conditions:
What data this theory does NOT explain (honest):
Claim:
Conditions:
Mechanism (process language):
Expected outcomes:
Negative case pattern (if any):
Implications for practice/research (bounded):
selective-coding, theoretical-coding, memo-writingtheoretical-saturation, theoretical-samplingformal-theory (next abstraction step)glaserian-grounded-theoryUse when writing academic prose for qualitative research — findings, methods, discussion sections with appropriate voice and conventions.
Use when conducting participatory action research (PAR) involving collaborative inquiry, cycles of action and reflection.
Use when formatting academic work in APA 7th edition style — citations, references, headings, tables, and manuscript structure.
Use when designing or conducting case study research following Yin's multiple case study methodology or Stake's approach.
Use when developing and densifying categories with properties, dimensions, conditions, and consequences.
Use when formatting academic work in Chicago/Turabian style — notes-bibliography or author-date systems.