memo-writing

name	memo-writing
description	Use when writing theoretical memos, code notes, operational notes during grounded theory analysis.

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)

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