Memo Writing

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