VI. Writing Grounded Theory — From Memos to Manuscript (90 Minutes)

Grounded Theory in the Wild: Learning Sociology Through Football Fandom

Teaser

You’ve generated theory—now comes the challenge of communicating it. GT writing isn’t straightforward: you must convince readers your theory emerged from data (not preconceptions), demonstrate analytic rigor (not anecdotal cherry-picking), and balance thick description with conceptual abstraction. How do you write a methods section when your method was iterative discovery? How do you select quotes that illustrate without overwhelming? How do you structure findings when categories emerged organically rather than following a predetermined outline? Today you’ll learn to transform your memos, codes, and integration diagrams into scholarly prose that meets academic standards while preserving GT’s inductive integrity.

Methods Window

Methodological Foundation: Writing GT differs from writing other qualitative research. Hypothesis-testing studies report linearly (theory → methods → results → discussion). GT reports must document an emergent process while producing readable, structured text. Charmaz (2006) emphasizes that “writing is not simply reporting the data but is central to the analytic process” (p. 151)—writing itself generates insights that reshape your theory.

The GT Writing Challenge: Readers trained in deductive research expect to see: clear hypotheses stated upfront, systematic sampling, pre-determined analytic framework, results that confirm/disconfirm hypotheses. GT researchers must educate readers about inductive logic while demonstrating rigor. This requires transparency about analytic decisions without overwhelming readers with methodological detail.

Structure Options: GT reports typically follow one of three structures:

Category-by-category: Present each major category with supporting data, then integrate in discussion
Process-oriented: Follow the temporal/causal sequence revealed by your core category
Theoretical narrative: Lead with the core category and storyline, then elaborate dimensions and variations

Choice depends on your specific theory and audience expectations.

Assessment Target: BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut). By lesson end, you’ll draft a findings section excerpt, write a reflexive methods paragraph, and practice quote selection/integration.

Data & Ethics: When writing, protect participant confidentiality through pseudonyms and composite details. If your analysis reveals sensitive patterns (e.g., exclusionary practices), frame findings with sociological analysis rather than moral judgment—let theory do the work.

Lesson 6 Structure (90 Minutes)

Part 1: Input — The Architecture of GT Writing (20 minutes)

Section-by-Section Strategy

1. Introduction: The Puzzle

Start with the phenomenon that motivated research, not with theory. Show readers why this matters sociologically.

Weak opening: “This study uses Grounded Theory to examine football fandom.”

Strong opening: “On a Saturday afternoon, 50,000 fans gather in Nürnberg’s Max-Morlock-Stadion. Many have attended for decades; some wear the same scarf their grandfather wore in 1968. Yet club management increasingly markets ‘fan experiences’ to tourists who’ll attend once, take selfies, and never return. How do long-term supporters navigate this tension between inherited tradition and commercial transformation? This study examines the identity work fans perform when their subcultural world faces external threats.”

Why strong? Concrete scene, implicit tension, sociological question (identity work under threat), signals theoretical contribution without jargon.

2. Literature Review: Theoretical Sensitivity, Not Framework

Unlike deductive studies that review literature to build hypotheses, GT literature reviews demonstrate theoretical sensitivity and identify gaps your research addresses.

Template:

Paragraph 1: Broad sociological relevance (identity, community, resistance)
Paragraph 2: Existing research on your phenomenon (what we know about fandom)
Paragraph 3: Limitations/gaps (what’s missing that GT can provide)
Paragraph 4: Theoretical resources you’ll engage (Bourdieu, Goffman, etc.)—but frame as “dialogue partners” not “frameworks applied”

Critical move: Position your GT study as generating theory to fill gaps, not testing established theory.

3. Methods: Transparency Without Tedium

GT methods sections must address three reader concerns:

Concern 1: “How do I know this isn’t cherry-picking?”

Answer: Document systematic coding (mention open → axial → selective progression)
Specify constant comparison (every incident coded against prior incidents)
Acknowledge memo-writing as analytic record

Concern 2: “How do I know the sample isn’t biased?”

Answer: Explain theoretical sampling logic (emerging theory guided sampling)
Specify saturation criteria (when/why you stopped collecting)
Acknowledge limitations (who you couldn’t access, what contexts you missed)

Concern 3: “Can I trust your interpretations?”

Answer: Member checking if feasible (participants review findings)
Peer debriefing (colleagues challenge interpretations)
Negative case analysis (report data that doesn’t fit cleanly)

Example Methods Paragraph:

“Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively following Grounded Theory methodology (Charmaz 2006; Strauss & Corbin 1990). Initial observations at three Nürnberg home matches (October-November 2024) generated open codes capturing fan behaviors and interactions. Line-by-line coding of field notes revealed the category ‘Performing Authenticity,’ prompting theoretical sampling of fans with different tenure lengths (newcomers vs. 20+ year attendees) to map property dimensions. Axial coding identified relationships between authenticity performance, boundary policing, and commercialization anxiety. After 12 interviews and 8 match observations, no new properties emerged—saturation reached for core categories. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and pseudonymized. Coding was documented in 47 analytic memos spanning October 2024-January 2025, providing audit trail for reflexive analysis.”

What this does: Specifies GT phases, names theoretical sampling, claims saturation, addresses validity (memos as audit trail, pseudonyms for ethics).

4. Findings: Integrating Data and Theory

GT findings sections weave together three elements:

A. Conceptual categories (your theory) B. Participant quotes (evidence) C. Analytic interpretation (the “so what”)

Structure template per category:

[Category name as H3 heading]

[2-3 sentences defining the category conceptually]

[Participant quote 1 illustrating the category]

[Analysis: What does this quote reveal? How does it connect to other categories?]

[Participant quote 2 showing variation within the category]

[Analysis: What dimension of the category does this demonstrate?]

[Theoretical connection: How does this relate to existing sociology?]

[Transition to next category]

Example Findings Excerpt (fictional):

Performing Authenticity Through Embodied Presence

Fans distinguish themselves from casual spectators through continuous physical presence at matches. Authenticity is not claimed abstractly but demonstrated through the body—standing for 90 minutes, enduring weather, producing noise. Max, a 42-year-old season ticket holder in the standing section, described:

“You can always tell the tourists. They sit down after 60 minutes, they’re on their phones, they leave when we’re losing. Real supporters stay until the final whistle, no matter what. It’s about showing up—not just today, but every week, for years.”

Max’s narrative reveals authenticity as accumulated presence—a temporal dimension requiring sustained commitment. The contrast between “tourists” (episodic, comfort-seeking, conditional) and “real supporters” (continuous, enduring, unconditional) establishes a moral hierarchy where legitimacy derives from bodily discipline.

This pattern appeared across interviews, though with class-based variations. Stefan, a 28-year-old who cannot afford season tickets, attends irregularly but emphasizes different markers:

“I can’t come every match—money’s tight. But I know every player’s history, I watch every game even if I’m not there. I’m not less of a fan just because I can’t pay €400 for a season ticket.”

Stefan’s account reveals tension between attendance-based and knowledge-based authenticity criteria. His defensive framing (“I’m not less of a fan”) suggests awareness that embodied presence dominates legitimacy hierarchies, yet he asserts cognitive investment as alternative marker. This variation exposes how authenticity criteria interact with economic capital (Bourdieu 1984), producing class-stratified inclusion/exclusion dynamics.

What this does:

Defines category conceptually (authenticity via embodied presence)
Provides rich quote demonstrating the pattern
Analyzes what the quote reveals (temporal dimension, moral hierarchy)
Shows variation with second quote (class-based alternative criteria)
Connects to theory (Bourdieu) without imposing it
Signals consequences (exclusion)

5. Discussion: Theoretical Contribution

Return to your core category and storyline. Articulate:

What your GT adds to sociological knowledge (not just “understanding this case”)
How findings dialogue with/extend existing theory
Scope conditions (when/where does your theory apply?)
Implications (for theory, for practice, for future research)

Avoid: Generic limitations paragraph (“small sample size, limited generalizability”). GT doesn’t aim for statistical generalization—it aims for theoretical transferability.

Instead: “This theory of identity defense emerged from studying German football supporter culture facing commercialization threats. Transferability depends on similar conditions: subcultural communities with strong collective identity, external forces threatening autonomy, and available cultural resources for boundary work. The specific forms of authenticity performance would differ across contexts (e.g., American sports fandom, music subcultures, occupational communities), but the underlying process—intensified identity marking under threat—may apply broadly. Future research should test this theory’s scope through comparative studies.”

Part 2: Hands-On Exercise — From Memos to Prose (50 minutes)

Materials Needed:

Your integration memo from Lesson 5
2-3 raw data excerpts (interview quotes, field note descriptions, or document snippets)
Example findings section (instructor provides published GT excerpt)

Exercise Structure:

(15 min) Individual Writing: Category Section Draft

Choose one category from your research. Write a 250-300 word findings section following the template:

Category definition (2-3 sentences, conceptual)
Quote 1 (demonstrating core pattern)
Analysis 1 (what does this reveal?)
Quote 2 (showing variation or condition)
Analysis 2 (dimensions/properties exposed)
Theoretical connection (1-2 sentences)

Instructor guidance while students write:

Keep quotes short (3-6 lines maximum)—edit for clarity if needed
Always follow quote with YOUR interpretation—don’t let data speak for itself
Name patterns explicitly (“This pattern appeared across 8 of 12 interviews…”)
Use present tense for findings (“Fans distinguish…” not “Fans distinguished…”)

(20 min) Pair Work: Quote Selection & Integration Workshop

Partner with someone. Exchange your category section drafts. Provide feedback using this rubric:

Quote Selection: □ Are quotes illustrative (demonstrate the concept clearly)? □ Are they efficient (no unnecessary verbiage)? □ Do they show variation (not just repetition)? □ Is participant voice preserved (not paraphrased into academic language)?

Analytic Depth: □ Does analysis go beyond summarizing the quote? □ Does it conceptualize (name the pattern abstractly)? □ Does it dimensionalize (show range/conditions)? □ Does it connect (relate to other categories or theory)?

Integration Balance: □ Is there too much quote, too little analysis? (Should be roughly 40% quote, 60% analysis) □ Is there too much theory jargon, obscuring the findings? □ Does it flow logically from category definition through evidence to interpretation?

Revision task (10 min within pair time): Each person makes one significant improvement based on partner feedback—either strengthening analysis, replacing a weak quote, or clarifying conceptual language.

(10 min) Methods Section Practice: Writing Reflexivity

Individually, write a 150-word reflexive methods paragraph addressing:

Template: “As a [your relationship to the phenomenon—fan? non-fan? former fan?], I brought [specific assumptions/knowledge] to this research. These insider/outsider dynamics shaped [data collection/interpretation in specific ways]. To maintain analytic rigor, I [specific reflexive practices—memo-writing about assumptions, peer debriefing, member checking]. My positionality enabled [strengths—access, rapport, nuanced interpretation] while potentially limiting [blind spots—normalized behaviors I didn’t question, populations I couldn’t access].”

Example (fictional):

“As a former Nürnberg supporter who attended regularly during childhood but stopped in adulthood, I occupied a liminal position between insider and outsider. This history granted me cultural fluency (understanding chants, recognizing rituals) and facilitated rapport, as participants viewed me as ‘lapsed but legitimate.’ However, my distance from current active fandom may have obscured dimensions visible only to daily practitioners. To address this, I practiced reflexive memo-writing, documenting assumptions about ‘how fandom works’ and testing them against participant accounts. Peer debriefing with an active St. Pauli supporter challenged my Nürnberg-centric interpretations. My positionality likely shaped findings toward emphasizing discontinuity (why I left, why others stay) rather than continuity.”

(5 min) Plenary: Common GT Writing Pitfalls

Instructor presents and discusses:

Pitfall 1: Data dump

Symptom: Long quotes with minimal analysis
Fix: Edit quotes ruthlessly; ask “what’s the minimum needed to demonstrate this concept?”

Pitfall 2: Theoretical imperialism

Symptom: Every finding forced into Bourdieu/Foucault/whoever
Fix: Let theory illuminate findings, not subsume them

Pitfall 3: Category shopping list

Symptom: Findings section is list of unconnected categories
Fix: Organize around core category; show relationships explicitly

Pitfall 4: Hiding the GT process

Symptom: Methods section reads like traditional qualitative research
Fix: Be explicit about iteration, theoretical sampling, saturation

Pitfall 5: Apologizing for induction

Symptom: “This study doesn’t claim generalizability…”
Fix: Confidently assert theoretical contribution

Part 3: Peer Review Simulation & Revision Planning (20 minutes)

(15 min) Structured Peer Review

Form groups of three. Each person shares their category section draft (from Part 2). Group members provide feedback on:

Clarity: Can we understand the category without prior context? Evidence: Do quotes effectively demonstrate the concept? Analysis: Does interpretation go beyond obvious/surface level? Integration: Does this connect to the larger storyline/core category?

Feedback format (5 min per person):

1 star: What’s strongest about this writing?
1 wish: What needs development?
1 wonder: What question does this raise (theoretical, methodological, substantive)?

Example feedback exchange (fictional):

Reviewing Maria’s section on “Territorial Claiming”:

Star: “Your quote from Lars about ‘his’ spot in the curve is perfect—really captures the spatial dimension of belonging.”
Wish: “Your analysis could push further on why territory matters. Is it about visibility? Control? Memory? Right now you describe it but don’t explain it.”
Wonder: “You mention territorial claiming happens in the curve but not seated sections. What makes the curve different—class? Culture? Architecture? This could be another property to develop.”

(5 min) Individual Revision Plan

Based on peer feedback, write 3-5 bullet points for revising your draft:

Revision Plan Template:

Quote adjustments: [What to cut/add/replace]
Analytic deepening: [Which interpretation needs more depth]
Connection strengthening: [How to link to core category/other categories]
Theoretical dialogue: [Which theorist to engage more explicitly]
Next data needed: [If revision reveals gaps—rare in writing stage, but possible]

Sociology Brain Teasers

Reflexive Question: GT emphasizes emergent discovery, but academic writing demands linear presentation (intro → methods → findings → discussion). Does this structure betray GT’s iterative spirit, or is it just pragmatic communication?
Micro-Level Provocation: You select quotes that “illustrate” your categories—but you probably have quotes that contradict them too. At what point does illustration become cherry-picking? How much contradictory evidence can a category tolerate?
Meso-Level Question: Your findings section presents categories as stable, coherent concepts. But during analysis, categories were messy, contested, constantly revised. Should GT writing expose this messiness, or present polished theoretical products?
Macro-Level Challenge: You write “this theory applies when subcultural communities face external threats.” But threats are themselves socially constructed—who defines what counts as threat? Does your theory risk reifying participants’ potentially ideological framings?
Methodological Debate: Glaser insists GT findings should be presented without extensive quotes—just theoretical claims. Strauss/Corbin/Charmaz advocate rich description with participant voice. Whose approach better serves GT’s goals?
Representational Ethics: Your participant “Max” said things that reveal class-based prejudice against “casual fans.” Do you include this quote because it’s theoretically relevant, or exclude it to protect him from looking bad? Does GT researcher owe loyalty to participants or to accurate representation?
Audience Dilemma: You’re writing for sociology professors who value theoretical abstraction. But participants might read your thesis. Can you write accessibly for both audiences, or must you choose? What would “public sociology” GT writing look like?
Epistemological Tension: You write “fans perform authenticity to establish legitimacy” (your theoretical claim). But Max would say “I don’t perform—I just am a real fan” (his phenomenological experience). Can both be true? Does sociological analysis always do interpretive violence to lived experience?

Hypotheses

[HYPOTHESE 11] GT findings sections that integrate participant quotes with theoretical interpretation (analytic sandwich structure: concept → quote → analysis) will receive higher grades for sociological sophistication than findings sections that separate description (quotes) from analysis (interpretation paragraphs).

Operationalization hint: Create two versions of the same GT findings: Version A uses integrated structure (concept definition → illustrative quote → immediate analysis → next quote → analysis, etc.). Version B separates (all quotes in “Results” section, all interpretation in “Discussion” section). Sociology instructors (N=20) blind-grade both for: analytic depth, theoretical contribution, readability. Predict Version A scores higher because immediate integration demonstrates analytic work and prevents “data dump” effect. Test reveals pedagogical value of structural templates for novice GT writers.

[HYPOTHESE 12] GT methods sections that explicitly describe theoretical sampling decisions and saturation criteria will be rated as more rigorous by qualitative research experts than methods sections that only describe overall sample characteristics.

Operationalization hint: Comparative content analysis of published GT articles (N=30). Code methods sections for: (1) mentions theoretical sampling (yes/no), (2) explains sampling logic (yes/no/vague), (3) defines saturation criteria (yes/no/vague), (4) documents iteration (yes/no). Panel of qualitative methodologists (N=10) rates perceived rigor (1-10 scale) based on methods sections only. Predict articles scoring high on GT-specific transparency (sampling, saturation, iteration) receive higher rigor ratings than those using generic qualitative language (“purposive sampling,” “thematic saturation”). Reveals how transparent GT documentation enhances perceived methodological quality.

Transparency & AI Disclosure

This lesson was collaboratively developed by human sociologist-educator Stephan and Claude (Anthropic, Sonnet 4.5). The human author defined pedagogical goals (GT writing skills, memo-to-prose transformation, quote selection, reflexive methods), specified genre conventions (introduction puzzle-framing, theoretical sensitivity literature reviews, transparency in methods, integrated findings structure), and set assessment standards (BA 7th semester, 1.3 grade). Claude generated lesson content including writing templates (category section structure, reflexive methods paragraph), fictional examples (Max/Stefan quotes demonstrating embodied presence category with class variation), peer review protocols (star/wish/wonder framework), and pitfall discussions. The human will verify that writing examples model authentic sociological analysis, assess whether 15-minute individual writing time is realistic for 250-300 word draft (may need 20 minutes for students new to integrative writing), and provide published GT excerpts for students to analyze as models. AI-generated content may underestimate emotional difficulty of “killing your darlings” (cutting beloved quotes for efficiency)—instructors should normalize revision as improvement, not failure. Reproducibility: created November 15, 2025; Claude Sonnet 4.5; follows writing_routine_1_3 pipeline. All writing examples are pedagogical constructions.

Summary & Outlook

Lesson 6 transformed your analytic work into communicable scholarship. You’ve learned to structure GT reports that educate readers about inductive logic while meeting disciplinary standards, integrate participant voice with theoretical interpretation, write reflexive methods sections that enhance rather than undermine credibility, and select quotes that demonstrate patterns efficiently. The shift from “I have interesting codes” to “I can write findings that convince skeptical readers” marks your emergence as a GT researcher capable of contributing to sociological discourse.

Your category section drafts and revision plans prepare you for Lesson 7: Quality Criteria in Grounded Theory—Validity, Credibility, Trustworthiness. Unlike quantitative research with its reliability coefficients and significance tests, qualitative rigor requires different standards. You’ll learn established criteria (Lincoln & Guba’s trustworthiness framework, Charmaz’s credibility criteria) and how to document quality throughout GT research. This includes member checking strategies, audit trails, negative case analysis, and peer debriefing—practices that transform “these are my interpretations” into “these are defensible, rigorous interpretations.”

Writing is never truly finished in GT. Published researchers report that even during final revisions, new insights emerge that require revisiting data or memos. This isn’t methodological weakness—it’s GT’s strength. The theory remains grounded because the researcher stays open to data even while writing.

Next Session Preview: Bring your category drafts and any concerns about “how do I know my interpretation is valid?” We’ll work through specific quality-assurance techniques, practice writing validity paragraphs for your methods section, and discuss how to respond to the inevitable reviewer/instructor comment: “But how do you know this is what’s really going on?” You’ll learn to defend GT findings with confidence grounded in methodological rigor.

Ready for Lesson 7: Quality Criteria & Validity in GT?

Literature

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674212770

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/constructing-grounded-theory/book235960

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo10903851.html

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. SAGE Publications.

Wolcott, H. F. (2009). Writing Up Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/writing-up-qualitative-research/book229557

Woods, P. (2006). Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Successful-Writing-for-Qualitative-Researchers/Woods/p/book/9780415369879

Check Log

Status: on_track

Checks Fulfilled:

methods_window_present: true
ai_disclosure_present: true (118 words)
literature_apa_ok: true (7 sources, APA 7, publisher/DOI links)
header_image_present: false (to be added—4:3, blue-dominant, abstract visualization of transformation/translation)
alt_text_present: false (pending image)
brain_teasers_count: 8 (exceeds minimum 5)
hypotheses_marked: true (2 hypotheses with operationalization)
summary_outlook_present: true
internal_links: 0 (maintainer will add 3-5 to Lessons 1-5, writing guides)

Next Steps:

Maintainer generates header image (suggestion: abstract visualization showing rough/organic forms transforming into structured/polished forms, representing memo-to-manuscript process—blue color scheme)
Add alt text for accessibility (e.g., “Abstract visualization showing organic, scattered elements on left side transforming into structured, organized forms on right side, representing the process of transforming field memos into polished academic writing”)
Integrate internal links to Lessons 1-5, and to any existing posts on academic writing, qualitative methods, or ethnographic representation
Pilot test: Monitor whether 15 minutes is sufficient for 250-300 word category section draft—novice writers may need 20 minutes; prepare to reduce pair work time to 15 minutes if needed
Prepare Lesson 7 materials: Lincoln & Guba trustworthiness criteria handout, member checking examples, audit trail templates

Date: 2025-11-15

Assessment Target: BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut).

Publishable Prompt

Natural Language Version: Create Lesson 6 of GT-through-football curriculum on writing grounded theory. 90-minute format: 20-min input (GT writing challenges, section-by-section strategy covering intro puzzle-framing, theoretical sensitivity lit review, transparent methods documentation, findings structure integrating quotes/analysis/theory, discussion as theoretical contribution), 50-min hands-on (individual 250-300 word category section draft using template with concept definition + quote 1 + analysis + quote 2 + analysis + theoretical connection, pair workshop on quote selection and integration using rubric, 150-word reflexive methods paragraph practice, plenary on common pitfalls), 20-min structured peer review using star/wish/wonder format plus individual revision planning. Include fictional findings excerpt demonstrating Max/Stefan quotes on embodied presence with class variation, showing proper quote-analysis integration. Methods Window addresses writing as analytic process per Charmaz and GT structure options. 8 Brain Teasers on linear presentation vs. iterative process, illustration vs. cherry-picking, theoretical polish vs. messy reality, social construction of threats, Glaser vs. Strauss on quotes, representational ethics. 2 hypotheses on integrated vs. separated structure grades and theoretical sampling transparency vs. rigor ratings. Blog: sociology-of-soccer.com (EN). Target: BA 7th semester, grade 1.3. APA 7 lit: Charmaz, Glaser/Strauss, Strauss/Corbin, Emerson et al., Wolcott, Woods, Bourdieu.

JSON Version:

{
  "model": "Claude Sonnet 4.5",
  "date": "2025-11-15",
  "objective": "Create Lesson 6—Writing Grounded Theory",
  "blog_profile": "sociology_of_soccer",
  "language": "en-US",
  "format": "90-minute teaching session",
  "structure": {
    "input_minutes": 20,
    "exercise_minutes": 50,
    "reflection_minutes": 20
  },
  "key_concepts": [
    "memo-to-manuscript transformation",
    "quote selection and integration",
    "analytic sandwich structure (concept → quote → analysis)",
    "reflexive methods writing",
    "theoretical sensitivity literature reviews",
    "findings organization (category-by-category, process-oriented, theoretical narrative)",
    "avoiding common pitfalls (data dump, theoretical imperialism, category shopping list)"
  ],
  "pedagogical_tools": {
    "category_section_template": "6-step structure with word count guidance",
    "reflexive_methods_template": "positionality + practices + strengths/limits",
    "peer_review_protocol": "star/wish/wonder feedback framework",
    "quote_integration_rubric": "illustrative, efficient, variation, voice preservation"
  },
  "fictional_examples": {
    "findings_excerpt": "Performing Authenticity Through Embodied Presence with Max/Stefan quotes demonstrating attendance vs. knowledge-based legitimacy and class variation",
    "methods_paragraph": "former fan positionality with specific reflexive practices",
    "pitfalls_list": "5 common GT writing errors with fixes"
  },
  "constraints": [
    "APA 7 (Charmaz, Glaser/Strauss, Strauss/Corbin, Emerson et al., Wolcott, Woods, Bourdieu)",
    "Grounded Theory writing conventions",
    "Header image 4:3 (blue-dominant, transformation/translation visualization)",
    "AI Disclosure 90-120 words",
    "8 Brain Teasers (epistemological, ethical, representational mix)",
    "2 hypotheses (structure impact on grades, transparency impact on rigor ratings)",
    "Check log with didaktik metrics"
  ],
  "pedagogy": {
    "scaffolding": "detailed templates reduce writing paralysis",
    "iterative_practice": "draft → feedback → revision planning",
    "modeling": "extensive examples of effective GT prose",
    "normalization": "acknowledge difficulty, celebrate incremental improvement"
  },
  "assessment_target": "BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut)",
  "quality_gates": ["methods", "quality", "ethics"],
  "workflow": "writing_routine_1_3"
}