A good formal theory should be at least the equivalent of a ton of ethnographies and maybe half as many substantive theories (Strauss 1987, p.248). A substantive theory is a tailor-made theory while a formal theory is a ready-made theory (Kearney 1998). Substantive theory may limit its application to other contexts if a consistent comparative method for modifying a theory is overlooked. However, it could have important general implications and relevance for other sectors. It is because of this imperative that emergent, substantively grounded theory generated from data is transformed into a formal theory. Formal theory allows for greater generalizability and transferability of research findings, which can be adapted to other different scenarios. Although it is possible to generate a formal theory directly from data (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss 1987), it is best to start with a substantive theory grounded theory of which a formal theory can be developed (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Both substantive and formal theory can inform each other on the development of a formal theory. In transferring substantive grounded 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, findings from other substantive areas are constantly compared in a generation of formal grounded theory. A substantive grounded theory is a single-area theory developed for a substantive/empirical area while a formal grounded theory is a “multi-area” theory developed for a formal/conceptual area (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss 1987). A formal theory cannot fit or work well if written from only one area (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Therefore, an argument between a substantively grounded theory and a formal theory incorporates other substantive areas to make a formal theory adequate. The best building materials for a formal grounded theory are the results of other substantive theories (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Furthermore, it will be possible to avoid the prevailing modality of formal theory, as Strauss (1987) noted:[…]The prevalent modality of formulating formal theory is to pass directly from the substantive theory to the formal one, without basing the latter on additional data. The theorist, for example, suggests that his substantive findings and perhaps theory about the doctor-patient relationship have implications for the general theory of the professional-client relationship, but does not do the further work of studying the latter relationship comparatively […] ( Strauss 1987, p. 243) A central phenomenon in a substantive study has clear implications for a formally grounded theory (Strauss 1987).