Menu
Use when extending a substantive grounded theory to a formal theory applicable across multiple substantive areas.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Use 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.
| name | formal-theory |
| description | Use when extending a substantive grounded theory to a formal theory applicable across multiple substantive areas. |
Formal grounded theory lifts conceptual structure beyond a single substantive area to generate a theory with cross-substantive reach—often centered on a generic social process (e.g., types of status passage, awareness contexts, reciprocity cycles) that appears in multiple domains when compared at an abstract level.
Use this skill only after you have a mature substantive theory (or multiple substantive theories) that can be compared for higher-order patterns.
Formal theory is a conceptual model abstracted across two or more substantive areas, preserving processual logic and conditional structure while stripping domain-specific detail.
Aim: explain a generic pattern that recurs across arenas—useful for sociology’s middle-range ambitions and for transferable explanations without pretending identical contexts.
Substantive theory is the empirical engine; formal theory is a second-order comparative product.
Typical sequence:
Trying to “start formal” without substantive density usually produces vague metaphors.
Each substantive theory should have:
Rename domain-specific categories into abstract labels only when:
Example move (illustrative):
Ask:
If only labels align but mechanisms differ, you may have surface formalism.
Write formal hypotheses using generic actors and generic settings, then specify scope conditions.
Return to new empirical slices (abbreviated studies, targeted comparisons, secondary analyses) to stress-test the formal model.
Classic GT scholarship offers families of formal theories—use them as models of abstraction, not as templates to force.
Explains how people move between social statuses with phases, rites, sponsorship, and identity shifts—studied across occupations, illness trajectories, and life-course transitions.
Formalizes how who knows what, when, and with what interactional rules shapes behavior—originally in dying contexts, extended metaphorically to secrecy, launches, investigations, and organizational change.
Formal models of obligation, gift/counter-gift, credit/debit social psychologies appear across many substantive arenas when comparison targets interactional accounting.
Reminder: citing these as examples is not evidence your data instantiate them—you must earn formal claims through comparison.
The formal story becomes so thin it explains everything and nothing.
Mitigation: keep scope conditions explicit; keep negative cases central.
Different substantive areas are not identical; formal theory should preserve meaningful parametric differences.
If one substantive theory is underdeveloped, formal comparison becomes projection.
Multi-site formal work can flatten power dynamics. Document whose knowledge enabled abstraction.
Formal core process (name + definition):
Cross-substantive scope claim (bounded):
Formal hypotheses (H1…Hn):
Parametric dimensions (how arenas differ without breaking the model):
Supporting substantive theories (Area A/B/C summaries):
Known failures / limits:
Next comparative slices to collect:
substantive-theory, theoretical-coding, constant-comparisonselective-coding, memo-writingglaserian-grounded-theory