Menu
Use when writing theoretical memos, code notes, operational notes during grounded theory analysis.
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 | memo-writing |
| description | Use when writing theoretical memos, code notes, operational notes during grounded theory analysis. |
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.
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.
Content: definitions, inclusion/exclusion boundaries, merge/split rationale, examples.
When: whenever a code changes meaning or competes with a neighbor code.
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.”
Content: higher-order integration—chapter-like storylines, outlines for theory write-up.
When: weekly or after major analytic milestones.
Content: the analytic rationale for next data collection targets.
When: before scheduling interviews/observations.
Classic guidance distills to disciplined habits:
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 fund refers to your accumulated memo corpus—your laboratory notebook of theorizing.
hypothesis, definition, sampling, reflexivity.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?
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.
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).
constant-comparison, open-coding, selective-codingtheoretical-sampling, decision audit trails (project workflow / transparency)glaserian-grounded-theory