A good formal theory should be at least the equivalent of a ton of ethnographies and maybe half of substantive theories (Strauss 1987, p. 248). A substantive, grounded theory is a tailor-made theory, while a formal, grounded theory is a ready-made theory (Kearney 1998). Substantive theory may limit its application to other contexts if a consistent comparative method of modifying a theory is neglected. Nevertheless, it may have important general implications and relevance to other fields. It is for this imperative that emergent substantive theory generated from data is moved toward formal theory. Formal theory allows for greater generalization and transferability of research results, which can be adapted to other different scenarios. Although it is possible to generate formal theory directly from data (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss 1987), it is best to start with a formal theory. grounded theory on which a formal theory can be developed (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Substantive theory and formal theory can inform each other in the development of formal theory. When it comes to moving from substantive theory to formal theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest using someone else's formal theory as an important starting strategy. Through the discussion of substantive theory with formal theory, results from other substantive areas are constantly compared in a generation of a grounded formal theory. A substantively grounded theory is a single-domain theory developed for a substantive/empirical domain, while a formal grounded theory is a “multi-domain” theory developed for a formal/conceptual domain (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss 1987). A formal theory cannot fit or function well when written from a single domain (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Therefore, a discussion between a substantive theory and a formal theory integrates other substantive areas to make a formal theory adequate. The best building materials for a formal grounded theory are the findings of other substantive theories (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Moreover, it will be possible to avoid the dominant mode of formal theory, as Strauss (1987) notes: […]The dominant mode of formulating a formal theory consists of moving directly from substantial theory to formal theory, without basing the latter on additional data. The theorist, for example, suggests that his substantial findings and perhaps his theory on the doctor-patient relationship have implications for the general theory of the professional-client relationship, but does not pursue a comparative study of the latter relationship [ …] (Strauss 1987, p. 243) A central phenomenon in a substantive study has clear implications for a formally grounded theory (Strauss 1987).