Field Notes andTheoretical Memosin Grounded Theory

Western Journal of
Nursing Research
Volume 29 Number 1
February 2007 65-79© 2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0193945906292557
http://wjn.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

P. Montgomery
P. H. Bailey
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada

In this article the authors expose some of the mystique surrounding fieldnotes and theoretical memos in a Glaserian grounded theory study.
Definitions, types, and content of field notes and theoretical memos are presented. Exemplars from a study of mothers living with serious mental illness
are provided to illustrate how these forms of documentation evolved during
the course of the study. The authors argue that, although the processes of fieldnoting and memoing may blur as a study progresses, they nevertheless retain
their independent functions. The authors contend that without understanding
the complementary function of these two types of documentation, data cannot evolve to a higher interpretive level. This article contributes specific ideas
for improving the methods used by qualitative nurse researchers.
Keywords: field notes; theoretical memos; grounded theory; women;
mental illness

A

problem facing the beginning qualitative nurse researcher is the documentation of ideas during data collection, analysis, and interpretation(Morse & Richards, 2002; Sandelowski, 1998). Contributing to this problem
is the relative invisibility of field notes and theoretical memos in and ofthemselves (Glaser, 1998; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2002). Rather than presenting raw, unedited field notes or theoretical memos, researchers typically
expose the reader to the end product of their analysis and/or interpretation (Robinson, 2003). In a review of qualitative research abstracts listed
in the CINAHL database from January 2000 to January 2005, field noting
and memoing were common recording processes of data and conceptual

Authors’ Note: Thank you to Dr. Nancy Edwards’s 5th annual Multiple Intervention Program
Summer Research Interns for their constructive feedback regarding an initial draft of this article.
65
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

66

Western Journal of Nursing Research

insights, respectively. Unfortunately, explicit pragmatics regarding such
documentation were not usually described within these articles. Partially,
this might be explained by the publication word limits, confusing information about documentation in qualitative research articles (Rogers & Cowles,
1993), and the assumption that field notes are too subjective for scientificdiscussion (Ottenberg, 1990). Field notes and memos are typically written to
and for the researcher (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and, therefore, considered
as private documents (Sanjek, 1990).
An attempt to expose some of the mystique surrounding field notes andtheoretical memos, a Glaserian grounded theory study is presented in thisarticle. By no means is this a review of memoing in grounded theory or
field noting in ethnography, as documented in a number of research texts(Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Glaser, 1992, 1998; Strauss & Corbin,1990). Rather, the purpose of this article is to describe and illustrate theapplication of the distinct and, at times, overlapping elements of these twoforms of documentation. We argue that although these elements can blur asa study progresses, they nevertheless retain their independent functions.
Without understanding the complementary functions of these recording
processes, data cannot evolve to a higher interpretive level. This article isdivided into three sections: definitions, types, and content of field notes andtheoretical memos. Concrete exemplars from a grounded theory study ofmothers with serious mental illness (SMI) will be integrated into each section. To represent the original data, the exemplars appear as they were written during the course of the current study. They are small segments of raw,
decontextualized data and analysis excerpts. The readers will recognize theresearcher’s individual style of documentation and may identify alternativeinterpretations. This article contributes specific ideas for improving themethods used by qualitative nurse researchers.

The Study of Mothers With SMI
A grounded theory study was undertaken to understand the experienceof mothering from the perspective of women with SMI (Montgomery,
Tompkins, Forchuk, & French, 2006). Grounded theory method allows forthe discovery of the underlying social process; that is, the research aims to
uncover “what is actually going on” (Glaser, 1998, p. 21) with regard to a particular issue and how it is handled. Following ethical approval, a sample of
20 mothers psychiatrically identified as having a SMI agreed to participate in
the current study. SMI was defined according to Bachrach’s (1985) trilogy ofdiagnosis, disability, and duration. For the current study, mothers with a SMI
of at least 2-year duration with a resulting disability were included.
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

Montgomery, Bailey / Field Notes and Theoretical Memos67

The unfolding of illness varied among the participants. Three mothers
identified their diagnosis as schizophrenia, four had bipolar, nine had major
depression, and four did not specify their diagnosis. Several of the mothers
talked of receiving a variety of psychiatric diagnoses over time. To ensureextensive data covering a range of behaviors in grounded theory, diversity indiagnoses and illness experiences is essential (Hutchinson & Wilson, 2001).
The length of time this group of mothers lived with illness varied from 3 tomore than 20 years. Many of the participants believed that they had been ill
for several years before seeking psychiatric services. The complexity of theirsituated experiences shaped how mothers told their stories. Even though themothers were willing to share their stories, their communicated thoughts andimpressions were often colored by the presence of illness. At times, the mothers’ experiences were not immediately comprehensible to the researcher.
Indeed, being a “good listener” was difficult to balance with being a “goodgrounded theorist researcher.” In such circumstances, interpreting what was
pertinent to the topic of mothering and illness was a challenge.
Within this context, the collection of data using written field notes in
addition to audiotaping interviews was essential to yield a richer account of
the mothers’ subjective view of how they managed mothering and illness.
The audio recordings provided a complete, concrete, and detailed record.
The written field notes included data about variables such as the setting, themother’s presentation, direct quotations, the researcher’s reactions, and theunfolding of these complex encounters (Patton, 1990). Although permanent
audio recordings are considered by some to be a form of field notes(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Sanjek, 1990), in this article, the focus is thewritten reconstruction of the data.

Definitions of Field Notes and Theoretical Memos
Field Notes
Field notes are commonly defined as written records of observational
data produced by fieldwork (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2002; Jackson,1990). As a data-gathering strategy often used by ethnographers, field notes
consist of descriptions of social interactions and the context in which theyoccurred (Roper & Shapira, 2000). They represent “the process of transformation of observed interaction to written public communication” (Jackson,
1990, pp. 6-7). In a survey of ethnographers regarding field notes, Jacksonfound no standard definition of precisely what constitutes a field note.
Rather, ethnographers expressed strong feelings associated with field notes.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

68

Western Journal of Nursing Research

They shared a diversity of opinions regarding issues such as training in fieldnoting, kinds of field notes, publicizing field notes, and length of fieldnotes. Jackson concluded that field notes capture “the attachment, the identification, the uncertainty, the mystique, and perhaps above all, the ambivalence” (p. 33) of being in the field.
Being in the field is evident in the following exemplar. This excerpt,from an initial field note, was written after an interview with a motherpreparing to return home after a psychiatric inpatient admission. In the current study, all field notes were introduced by a date and the mother’s pseudonym. The mother’s words are presented in quotation marks to distinguishthem from those of the researcher:
January, Brooke
In response to my clarification regarding her efforts to “protect” her children,
Brooke interrupts with an assertive response, “Definitely.” Then, she
becomes tearful and looks away. In a lower tone, she adds that her children
are “normal” with a qualifier “to the extent that normal can be right now.”
Illness “creates chaos.” There is a pause. I sense discomfort for both of us.
Brooke then shifts the flow of the conversation using terms such as “funloving,” “very nurturing,” and “well-balanced” to describe her children.

In retrospect, one could question the inclusion of particular observations
related to a mother’s emotional reaction (“she becomes tearful and looks
away”) or that of the researcher’s (“discomfort”), and whether the observational details were comprehensive.

Theoretical Memos
Memos, on the other hand, are records of the researcher’s developing
ideas about codes and their interconnections (Glaser, 1998). Memos are adocumentation of the researcher’s thinking processes rather than a description of a social context. By theorizing from the data, memos transform
field-note descriptions into theoretical accounts. In 1978, Glaser identified
four goals and 12 rules outlining the pragmatics of memoing. Subsequently,
he critiqued the formality of this structure stating that its rigidity impeded
conceptualization (Glaser, 1998).
According to Schreiber (2001), there are three levels of coding ingrounded theory. They involve moving from: first-level coding, the use ofparticipants’ words resulting from line-by-line analysis; to second-level
coding, categorizing of first-level codes; to third-level coding, the selection

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

Montgomery, Bailey / Field Notes and Theoretical Memos69

of theoretical labels to represent the links between categories. The following theoretical memo demonstrates beginning conceptual thinking about
Brooke’s field note grounded in the interview data. Each theoretical memo
begins with a date, a levelling, and a code label:
February, First-Level, Protect
A mother [Brooke] seems to become guarded when she fears that her illness
may have inadvertently harmed her children [January field note, Transcript
lines (TL): 140–143]. This may demonstrate protection of self-as-mother[TL: 254–258]. A mother’s efforts to “protect” her children unravel in illness[TL: 15-17]. For Brooke and the other initial participants, their illness must
not hurt their children. Mothers express emotions of sadness and guilt as they
are unable to protect their children from illness. They are searching for guidance re: how to protect their children when their illness is overwhelming.
They know of few positive role models in illness.

Based on preliminary analysis of Brooke’s transcript and the emerging
theoretical memos, including the above exemplar, the researcher questioned
the nature of mothers’ child protection efforts in the chaos of escalating
symptoms. The current study’s theoretical memo is intentionally not polished. In fact, like field noting, memoing is initially awkward. The potential significance of any memo remains unknown and is dependent on further
conceptual elaboration.
As Glaser (1978) suggested, to “get ideas out” is not a straightforward
process as there are loose boundaries around emerging ideas. As memoing
progresses throughout a grounded theory study, the boundaries become
defined by the evolving categories. As Schreiber and Noerager Stern (2001)
caution, “[i]t is far better to get the idea down on paper than to lose it becauseof concerns about writing style, or worse, to talk about it with others and haveno record of it” (p. 72). In the current study, the first-level code protect evolved
into a theme within the subcategory of mothers’ sense of responsibility for
their children in illness. The theme protect further evolved into maintaining
their valued position as mother and minimizing children’s exposure to illness.

Types of Field Notes and Theoretical Memos
Field Notes
A number of field-note typologies have been presented in the literature(Clifford, 1990; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Lofland & Lofland, 1999;

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

70

Western Journal of Nursing Research

Table 1
Guidelines for Field Note Taking
Guideline

In Practical Terms

Mechanics

Keep interviews to 1 hour to assist with recollection
Jot a word in presence of participant if not intrusive
Reserve time for fuller accounts after each interview
Put aside equal amount of time for fieldnotes as interviewing
Hand write impressions versus verbal recording or word-processing tostimulate recollection about encounter with participant
Use quotes to indicate participant’s words
Demarcate data from interpretation of the data using [ ] and quotation marks
Freely write observations and impressions
Attend to participant’s use of language
Be aware that the focus of the notes may narrow over time
Recognize that the length of notes varyFree write to maintain flow of ideas
Leave wide margin for coding

Content
Style

Source: Modified from LeCompte and Preissle (1993) and Lofland and Lofland (1999).

Sanjek, 1990). These authors agree that documentation is “hierarchicallyorganized” and not merely a record of what the researcher sees and hears;
that is, the type of field note influences the what, how, and when of fieldnoting (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2002; LeCompte & Preissle). Although
the above authors used different labels to designate the form and content offield notes, most descriptions share similar qualities. For example, Clifford(1990) defined inscription notes whereas Sanjek (1990) described scratch
notes, and Lofland and Lofland (1999) referred to jotted notes, as
mnemonic aids, a written source of data for subsequent elaboration.
In the above study, the field notes were structured in accordance with anadaptation of LeCompte and Preissle (1993) and Lofland and Lofland’s(1999) guidelines for field noting (Table 1). The resultant field notes weresimilar to Sanjek’s (1990) definition of field notes proper and Clifford’s(1990) description notes. The field notes were a freely written chronicle of
the researcher’s observations of events and interactions during data collection. Initial notes were hand written immediately following the interview.
Within 12 hours, these notes were reviewed for their comprehensiveness andadditional details were added. As data collection progressed, the field notes
contained preliminary insights and emerging analytic ideas. In the current
study, field notes were a detailed account of descriptive, methodological,
and analytic “facts.” The field notes helped the researcher to make sense of

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

Montgomery, Bailey / Field Notes and Theoretical Memos71

the mothers’ perspectives and the process of grounded theory research. The
resultant study field notes portrayed a mixture of individualistic, distinct perceptions derived from being present with a mother in a moment of time.
LeCompte and Preissle (1993) suggested that instead of being overly
concerned about the type of field note, pioneering a mixture of note taking
that best preserves the researcher’s observations and impressions may be
more useful. Similarly, Hammersley and Atkinson (2002) stated:
Like most aspects of intellectual craft, some care and attention to detail are
prerequisites: satisfactory note-taking needs to be worked at. It is a skill
demanding repeated assessment of purposes and priorities, and of the costs
and benefits of different strategies. (pp. 175-176)

Theoretical Memos
Glaser (1992, 1998) did not support types of memos. He suggested that the
adoption of a typology of memos such as developed by Strauss and Corbin(1990; code notes, theoretical notes, operational notes, diagrams, logical diagrams, and integrative diagrams) limits the abstraction of data beyond thedescriptive level (Glaser, 1992). For Glaser (1998), a theoretical memo simply
captures the “meaning and ideas for one’s growing theory at the moment theyoccur” (p. 178). Although the style of Glaserian theoretical documentation
may vary from a few words to a “ten page conceptual paper” (Glaser, 1998),
memos essentially reflect the researcher’s conceptual speculations.
The following three theoretical memos are included to illustrate theresearcher’s thoughts about the first-level code hide. Although this was arecurring term used by some participants, it was initially overlooked by the
researcher. Attending to Glaser’s (1992, 1998) emphasis on the process,rather than the form of memos, increased the researcher’s sensitivity to themeaning “behind the words” as concurrent data collection and analysis
occurred. The following three memos show progressively more depth tounderstanding the code hide. For example, in the February memo, Brookhides illness away from others:
February, First-Level, Hide
In Brook’s story, she hides illness away from her family even though she isexpected to be present as parent [TL: 170-184]. Brooke portrays a mothering
image of strength - “ . . . I am strong, being strong, being independent.” This
image mirrors the ideal at the cost of her sense of self. The image or the“mask” serves to mutually protect mother and child. To protect self as

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

72

Western Journal of Nursing Researchmother, Brooke lets “no one see” behind her mask. Brooke wants her
children to witness ideals that she hopes “they will follow.” She fears that if
she lives in illness, life for her children will be framed by illness.

In an April memo an additional abstraction of the dimension of hide is
identified in Gloria’s data. Not only does Gloria hide illness from others,
she “hides from [illness],” illustrating the evolving depth of the code hide.
The April memo reflects more refined theoretical thinking as the data
within this first-level code hide expands:
April, First-Level, Hide
Gloria truncates illness from her identify [TL: 69-77]. Her illness was in thepast. Now her “partner is still” with her, her “children are in the home,” she has“time” to pursue some of her interests, and there is “money coming in.” Therefore, she has no concerns as a mother [April field note, TL: 22-24, 27, 31-40].
Gloria no longer perceives self as ill and her serious recent life-threatening
suicidal attempt is put aside, removed from her image of self/self-as-mother.
Does she hide from illness? Acute illness, involuntary psychiatric hospital
admission, family stress and the threat of child removal are in the past and so,leave them there. Gloria re-balances self in relation to her children by returning to mothering and taking her medication [TL: 100-108, 112-116].

The third theoretical memo reflects an increasingly refined understanding of the code hide and is subsumed under a higher code invisibility. Thismemo includes an accumulation of hunches based on several ideas not limited to an individual or single first-level code.
June, Second-Level, Invisibility
There seems to be value associated with being able to simultaneously hide
self and being seen. Efforts to hide the ill self—“masking,” “camouflaging,”“pretending,” “removing self,” “using substances,” “being admitted to hospital”—seem to be for the sake of keeping connected to their children.
Mothers’ believe this is “what is best” for their children. The self as motherbecomes broken in illness. The mother attempts to hide her ill self in order toprotect children from the “monster,” (illness). As severity of symptoms
increase, hiding to remain hidden becomes problematic. When hidden, amother becomes increasingly isolated and alone in illness. Further, understanding by others, including their children, becomes all that more difficult
as the children must “seek” for the authentic mother among the pretences.

An invisibility strategy was meant to cloak the undesirable implications ofbeing recognized as a mother with mental illness. Thereby, mothers were

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

Montgomery, Bailey / Field Notes and Theoretical Memos73

able to sustain closeness, but only to a point as illness often disabled theirmothering abilities.
To further develop a conceptual understanding of what was happening
for this group of mothers, the ideation of the June memo about invisibility
was considered in view of other first-level codes, hitting bottom and falling.
Integrating conceptual ideas yielded the following memo tentatively
labelled as visibility as a result of reconstructing the theoretical story:
July, Second-Level, Visibility?
“Falling,” “spiraling,” “up-and-down,” and “spinning” (examples of motion
within the category “illness”) result in mothers “hitting bottom.” Isolationfrom children and uncertainty about what is reality and how best to respondto the children seem to characterize bottom for them. The movement awayfrom their children towards the bottom via strategies of invisibility are
painful for these mothers. For many mothers, bottom is a place (space?) of
profound suffering. At bottom, mothers realize that their tactics of invisibility did not “truly” sustain closeness to their children. In fact, mothers perceive that such actions may have contributed to their descent to bottom. Is thevisible “hitting bottom” potentially beneficial because it allows mothers to“see” their fractured self and identify their need for support or alternative
ways of coping as a mother in illness?

This latter memo demonstrates that additional memos are constructed on othermemos. These theoretically “more mature” memos are not directly sparked bydata appearing in a field note. Instead, memos of “momentary ideation” areassembled into conceptual relationships toward developing a framework. As
Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested, the standardization of memo types,
and even formats, risks impeding a researcher’s ability to creatively sort individual ideas for the purpose of developing a higher theoretical explanation.

Content of Field Notes and Theoretical Memos
Field Notes
The information in Table 1 guided the field noting in the above study.
This information may appear unsophisticated. Nevertheless, at the timeof the current study, it was useful as a broad guide for note taking.
Furthermore, the guidelines are not meant to be dogmatic, as there is no one
right way to do field noting (Patton, 1990). Researchers must have a clear
field-note-taking approach that best suits their area of inquiry. For example,

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

74

Western Journal of Nursing Researchin the current grounded theory study a decision was made not to jot notesin the presence of the mother recognizing that this might disrupt the tellingof their experiences. Instead, immediately after data gathering, data recording was initiated by jotting down a list of observations such as the process,the context, and the features of the field. These observations then became asource for further descriptive elaboration.
The following field-note excerpt illustrates data from an initial entry.
Some contextual, behavioral, and process features of the researcher’s interview with Sally are described. In particular, a methodological issue relating
to the data-gathering process is identified in the third paragraph. This fieldnote contains more low- rather than high-inference descriptors (LeCompte& Preissle, 1993). It includes concrete descriptions of her behavior (“herspeech is thick”) rather than an interpretation of the observations:January, Sally
Sally was identified as a potential participant by a nurse manager in an inpatient unit. The nurse informed me that I “probably know of her” since she isoften readmitted to hospital. Sally has been an inpatient for more than three
weeks and is now being “prepared for discharge.” After introducing myself
and before I can explain the study to her, Sally begins sharing her experiences
as a mother. I made some mental notes while attempting to focus on the ethical process. Once she signs the consent, she invites me to return so that “shecan help me” understand. When I returned, she informs me that she has justrested as her medications make her “so tired.” This becomes evident toward
the end of this 50-minute interview.
I invite her to begin where she is most comfortable. She responds, “Askme.” I pose an opening question and she partially repeats it and then pauses.
Her next response of five minutes is about “a disciplined self.” Her speech is
thick, her words are slurred, and she often takes small drinks during the interview. She has the movements of a person receiving antipsychotics. Sally
requires time to verbalize her thoughts. She responds in concrete terms to mystatements. She can focus and at times becomes tearful in reference to her
oldest daughter. Her tone softens in reference to her children.
Methodologically speaking, early in this initial interview I sensed that theguiding questions did not allow for comfortable dialogue. The question andanswer format is too rigid. Our interaction seemed to change when I moveaway from a structural to a conversational style of interviewing. Using
Sally’s language, inviting her to share examples, lots of pausing, and seeking
clarification are skills that encouraged her to talk more spontaneously.

As illustrated in this field note, the scope of initial field notes addressed as
many aspects of the encounter as the researcher could recall. In retrospect,

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

Montgomery, Bailey / Field Notes and Theoretical Memos

75

initially the structure of the observations unintentionally resembled a version
of a psychiatric nursing assessment. Within a short period of time, however,this cognitive template proved to be too restrictive and not fitting for theinquiry. In addition to the above observations, as illustrated in a later section of
the same field note, there was inclusion of a preliminary interpretive element:
January, Sally
By way of initial impressions, mothering involves a “disciplined self” in orderto create a “bond” with her children that is “so strong” it is unbreakable byothers or circumstances such as illness and limited resources. The “bond” is asymbol of motherhood. In the presence of being “ill, ill, ill” this bond is “tested”
especially since her oldest has not seen her for several years. “No one knows[why the daughter doesn’t visit] and I even asked.” Much of her time outside of
hospital is directed at “creating a space” for her and her children. Despite theincreasing severity of illness, Sally tries to “stay close as much as I can.”As a general principal, the content of field notes changes as a study progresses. Field notes evolve as analytical ideas develop (Hammersley &Atkinson, 2002). The later field notes in the current study shifted from descriptive to theoretical impressions as the researcher became increasingly sensitive
to the mothers’ issues, language, and themes. In comparison to earlier fieldnotes, the next example is less concrete in its reporting of observations andincludes more high-inference descriptors or interpretations of the observations(Eastlick Kushner & Morrow, 2003; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). In Nancy’s
field note, the first paragraph addresses some observations about Nancy
whereas the second paragraph demonstrates high-inference descriptors:
July, Nancy
Nancy was identified by a primary health care worker as being “stable andreceptive” to participating in the study. The interview was conducted in a small,windowless interview room within an inpatient setting. Prior to beginning theinterview, Nancy reports she was resting. Within the first five minutes of theinterview, she becomes tearful and anxious. I suggest we rearrange for anothertime, but she refuses. Within the initial twenty minutes, she spontaneously
shares: the “pain” of illness and treatment, her desire to be with her children,
her inability to be with her children because of illness, a fear and uncertaintyof the “unknown,” and the “blue haze.” The interview ends shortly thereafter.
The “haze” suggests the “unreal”, “unpredictable” and “unbearable” suffering of mothering in illness. To hide her symptoms, Nancy, like other mothers in the study, withdraws her presence by using substances, considering
suicide, making excuses to spend less time in the home, pretending, and keep-

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

76

Western Journal of Nursing Researching secrets. Nancy’s use of the term “battle” seems fitting in that for her defensive manoeuvres are necessary to endure—“afraid about my life.” For Nancy,
she moved [consciously or unconsciously?] deeper into the “haze” associatedwith overwhelming illness. The further Nancy travels into the “haze,” the lesstransparent [hence its shade of “blue”] it becomes. With time in illness, unfortunately, her suffering and turmoil increases. Like other mothers, Nancy perceives the need to continually balance attending to her responsibilities as amother and removing self to control illness and suffering. By removal of selfas-mother she is not able to “keep close” to her children. Again, chaos interferes with a mother’s ability to “see” and to be “watchful” of their children[from field notes about mothers who “watch”] as well as threatening others.

The descriptive language captured in field notes grounds the emerging
theory development. For example, even though the character of the fieldnotes became more interpretative, mothers’ actual words such as haze andbattle were consistently documented into the field notes. “Situated vocabularies” (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2002) provide a context for the conceptualization of mothers’ efforts to “keep close” to their children in illness. The
mothers’ unique ways of expressing themselves made it essential to attend
to their use of words. Emphasis, therefore, was placed on what and how participants spoke. The discourse itself embodied data reflective of their mainconcern. Indeed, their actual words (“blue haze”) provided descriptive information that grounded the researcher’s theoretical speculations.

Theoretical Memos
Glaser (1992, 1998) advocated for the freedom to document “anything”
in memos. He contended (1998) that the content of memos is an “ideationaland conceptual production that come[s] to mind during coding, collection,
analysing, and theoretically sampling” (p. 180). Ultimately, memos on
memos sort into a conceptual framework. Unlike field notes that form thebasis for the construction of memos, memos play a key role in the development of the theory.
As mentioned earlier, the aim of the current study was to explain the mainconcern as perceived by a group of mothers with SMI. To this end, the content of the memos represented the researcher’s dialogue with the data. Suchdialogue was prompted by asking Glaserian-type (Glaser, 1978, 1992) questions such as: “What is happening within these lines of data?” “What underpins the mothers’ action/event?” “How does this code label relate to an
earlier one?” “How does this memo compare with that memo?” In actuality,
memos reflect a spectrum of theoretical clarity about mothering and illness.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

Montgomery, Bailey / Field Notes and Theoretical Memos

77

Some memos were unsophisticated or selectively focused on mothers’ main
problem of “keeping close” to their children in SMI. Regardless of the levelof maturity, memos are a way of capturing and preserving conceptual analysis. Memoing, grounded in the data, promotes ongoing inquiry and stimulates a researcher’s theoretical creativity.
The following memo records the researcher’s thinking about how thecode invisible links to the core category keeping close. The development of
this theoretical relationship was a result of the complex process of constantcomparative analysis. The researcher had to continually compare data,codes, and memos between and among emerging categories:
July, Third-Level, Keeping Close
In the context of illness, the mothers’ struggles to keep close to their children
resulted in practices that ultimately cost them their integrity. Over time, once
perceived effective strategies of in/visibility contributed to escalating symptoms, suffering, and loss of a sense of closeness to their children. The ‘/’ inthe term in/visibility denotes the dialectic, the impossible position of being
present as the desired mother while concealing the undesired mother within
self. Keeping close, while at the same time keeping illness away, was an
impossible situation for these mothers.

At the outset of the current study, field noting and theoretical memoing
were understood as two parallel processes. As the study progressed, theinclusion of interpretative aspects of observations was at times difficult todistinguish from theoretical development within the memos. Indeed, withthe unanticipated expansion of the field notes to include interpretative anddescriptive data, the two documentation processes seemed to blur. This, inpart, may be attributed to the earlier discussion about the variety of perspectives concerning typology of field notes. For example, LeCompte andPreissle (1993) equate high-inference content of field notes to Glaser’s
memos, and what Sanjek (1990) referred to as field reports. Nevertheless, as
Glaser (1998) contended, although field notes evolve into illustrations ofparticular categories conceptualized in memos, only memos are annotates ofconceptual ideas; that is, even though portions of the content of field notes
may include an interpretative abstraction of a phenomenon, they remain as
an element of data from which memos are created. Furthermore, memos
evolve beyond the level of interpretation reflected in individual field notes.
Memos, in contrast, focus on ideas that by fit, relevance and workability,
find their way into the emerging theoretical explanation (Glaser, 1998).

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

78

Western Journal of Nursing Research

Conclusion
In summary, field noting occurs in the field and requires observational
sensitivity. Field notes have specific content that includes descriptive andinterpretive data based on the observational experience of the researcher.
Field noting is bound by the time in the field. These observations become asource of data that are not sorted or rewritten. According to Sandelowski(1998), these data represent the “facts” of the observational experience. In
contrast, memoing requires theoretical sensitivity and represents the deconstruction and reconstruction of data from a combination of sources including field notes. They embody the ongoing process of constant comparative
analysis.
Excerpts from a grounded theory study of mothers living with SMI highlight the functions, types, and content of field notes and theoretical memos.
As evident in the current study, although field notes and memos can sharedescriptive and interpretive components, they have distinct yet complementary functions. Field notes serve a fundamental role in showing thefield while memos abstract meaning from the field.

References
Bachrach, L. L. (1985). Chronic mentally ill women: Emergence and legitimisation ofprogram issues. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 36(10), 1963-1969.
Clifford, J. (1990). Notes on (field) notes. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings ofanthropology (pp. 47-70). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Eastlick Kushner, K., & Morrow, R. (2003). Grounded theory, feminist theory, critical theory:
Toward theoretical triangulation. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(1), 30-43.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of groundedtheory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2002). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.).
London: Routledge.
Hutchinson, S., & Wilson, H. S. (2001). Grounded theory: The method. In P. L. Munhall (Ed.),
Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (3rd ed., pp. 209-244). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
Jackson, J. E. (1990). “I am a fieldnote”: Fieldnotes as a symbol of professional identity. In
R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology (pp. 3-33). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015

Montgomery, Bailey / Field Notes and Theoretical Memos79

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press Limited.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1999). Data logging in observation: Fieldnotes. In A. Bryman& R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research: Vol. 3 (pp. 3-12). London: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montgomery, P., Tompkins, C., Forchuk, C., & French, S. (2006). Keeping close: Motheringwith serious mental illness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54(1), 20-28.
Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ottenberg, S. (1990). Thirty years of fieldnotes: Changing relationships to the text. In
R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology (pp. 139-160). Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Robinson, Z. (2003). Exploring the audit trail for qualitative investigators. Nurse Educator,
28(4), 175-178.
Rogers, B. L., & Cowles, K. V. (1993). The qualitative research audit trail: A complex collection of documentation. Research in Nursing and Health, 16, 219-226.
Roper, J. M., & Shapira, J. (2000). Ethnography in nursing research: Methods in nursing
research. London: Sage.
Sandelowski, M. (1998). Writing a good read: Strategies for re-presenting qualitative data.
Research in Nursing and Health, 21, 375-382.
Sanjek, R. (1990). A vocabulary for fieldnotes. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings ofanthropology (pp. 92-121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Schreiber, R. S. (2001). The “how to” of grounded theory: Avoiding the pitfalls. In
R. S. Schreiber & P. Noerager Stern (Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 55-83).
New York: Springer.
Schreiber, R. S., & Noerager Stern, P. (Eds.). (2001). Using grounded theory in nursing. New
York: Springer.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

P. Montgomery, RN, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Nursing, Laurentian
University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.
P. H. Bailey, RN, PhD, is a professor in the School of Nursing, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 26, 2015