Jankowitcz D. - Easy Guide to Repertory Grids (2004)(en)

APPENDIX 7 289

Recognising a Personal Value

Section 8.1.2

In deciding when to end the laddering procedure, note that a personal value is characterised by several of the following attributes:

. abstraction

. universality

. intimacy

. self-reference

. self-evidence

. explicit information (that is, ask the interviewee!).

Prioritising Personal Values: The Resistance-to-Change

Technique

Section 8.2

(1)Take the first two personal values identified by the laddering technique (Section 8.1.1), calling them A–Contrast A and B–Contrast B.

(2)Present the interviewee with a choice of A at the cost of Contrast B, or B at the cost of Contrast A.

(3)Record the personal value which is preferred.

(4)Compare value A with the next value, C, following the above two steps.

(5)Repeat step 4, comparing value A with each of the remaining values.

(6)Now compare value B with the next value, C.

(7)Repeat step 6, comparing value B with each of the remaining values.

(8)Repeat step 7, comparing each of the remaining values with each other.

(9)Count the number of times that each personal value was preferred over another.

(10)Record the outcome as a hierarchy of personal values.

Identifying Personal Change: The Simple Change Grid

Section 9.1.1

Where elements and constructs are identical in two grids from the same person,

290 THE EASY GUIDE TO REPERTORY GRIDS

(1)Elicit two grids in succession from the same interviewee, with the same elements and constructs.

(2)Ensure that elements and constructs are written in the same position in both grids.

(3)Cell by cell, record the difference between the ratings in corresponding positions in the two grids, using either the absolute value (ignoring minus signs) or the arithmetic value of the difference.

(4)At the bottom of each column of the change grid, sum the differences in that column.

(5)Consider a process analysis (Section 5.3.1), do an eyeball analysis (Section 5.3.2), and characterise constructs (Section 5.3.3) in the change grid.

(6)Consider any of the analysis procedures described in Chapter 6, though

(a)simple relationships between elements

(b)simple relationships between constructs

(c)cluster analysis

are likely to be more useful than principal components analysis.

(7) Discuss all these changes with the interviewee.

Identifying Personal Change: The Messy Change Grid

Section 9.1.2

Where elements and constructs differ in two grids from the same person,

(1)Elicit two grids in succession from the same interviewee.

(2)Before analysis, make sure that any elements and constructs which both grids have in common are in the same position in both grids.

(3)If there are sufficient common elements and constructs to make it worthwhile, treat that portion of both grids as a change grid (see above, and Section 9.1.1).

(4)Examine the function of the new constructs (and elements, if any) with the interviewee.

(5)Explore the process by which some of the constructs have been dropped; focus, first and foremost, on the constructs and their meaning: what’s being said, and what has changed?

APPENDIX 7 291

(6)Drawing on the C-P-C cycle, the Experience Cycle, and the Creativity Cycle, change models, identify the kind of change which is taking place in your interviewee’s construing of the topic, and act accordingly.

Facilitating Mutual Exploration: Simple Partnering

Section 9.2.1

This is suitable for work in a group.

(1)Negotiate a confidentiality contract.

(2)Agree a set of elements sensible to all.

(3)Agree appropriate anonymity arrangements for elements.

(4)Elicit the repertory grids.

(5)Put the interviewees into pairs, and ask each pair to swap grids, discussing similarities and differences in their pairs. Eyeball analysis (Section 5.3.2) and laddering down (Section 4.4.1), or pyramiding (Section 4.4.2) is likely to be useful here.

(6)Process the outcomes in a plenary session.

(7)Agree an appropriate action plan.

Entering Another Person’s World: The Exchange Grid

Section 9.2.2

(1)Negotiate a confidentiality contract.

(2)Agree a set of elements sensible to all.

(3)Agree appropriate anonymity arrangements for elements.

(4)Elicit the repertory grids.

(5)Photocopy each grid, and Tipp-Ex out the ratings on the photocopy.

(6)Put the interviewees into pairs, calling one person in each pair ‘A’, and the other ‘B’. Get A and B to exchange the photocopies of their own grids.

(7)Either ask each interviewee to fill out the other’s grid as s/he thinks the other filled it out, or ask each interviewee to fill out the other’s grid as themselves.

(8)Ask each interviewee A to compare B’s attempt at being A with A’s original grid, discussing the attempt. Then swap round, with each interviewee B comparing A’s attempt at being B with B’s original grid. Use the simple change grid subtraction procedure (Section 9.1.1).

GLOSSARY

Cluster Analysis: a statistical technique for highlighting the pattern of relationships in a repertory grid by grouping elements (and then constructs) on the basis of the similarity of individual ratings. Produces outputs which are, arguably, more client-friendly than those provided by a principal components analysis, q.v. p. 118.

Construct: one of the four components of a repertory grid; an attribute which an individual uses to make sense of his or her experience. Expressed as two contrasted poles; constitutes a choice about that experience or a preference with respect to that experience, p. 10.

Content Analysis: the only feasible way of aggregating the information present in a large set of repertory grids, by collecting and categorising the different meanings of constructs present in the set. Honey’s technique makes use of some of the information available in the ratings as well, pp. 146, 169.

Constructivism: the epistemological position which asserts that the significance and usefulness (not ‘truth’) of a proposition is established by an agreement between individuals about the meaning of the observations they make. The main concern is therefore for the extent of shared assumptions and the reliability of observations made in order to understand what is going on, p. 44. Contrast with Positivism, q.v.

Core Construct: a construct which is central to the individual, around which s/he builds his or her personal identity and its place in the wider scheme of existence. All core constructs have a relationship to an individual’s values, though not all personal values are core constructs, p. 83.

Corollary: a proposition which supplements a fundamental statement. In Kelly’s personal construct theory (see Appendix 6) there are 11 of them, all amplifying his fundamental postulate about human psychological functioning, p. 59.

GLOSSARY 293

C-P-C Cycle: one of three models for describing change in construing, and particularly those which relate to decision making. People change their minds by engaging in Circumspection, Pre-emption, and Control, in that order, pp. 219–220.

Creativity Cycle: another of the three models for describing change in construing; views the creative process as one in which implicational connections between constructs are successively loosened and tightened, p. 219.

Dendrogram: a diagram, which looks like a tree, whose branches represent the relationships between adjacent elements (or adjacent constructs) as produced in a cluster analysis, pp. 121, 122.

Elaborative Choice: a decision among alternative ways of construing a situation which results in permanent changes in a person’s construct system, p. 231.

Element: one of the four components of a repertory grid; an example of, sampling of, instance of, or occurrence within, a given Topic, p. 13.

Emergent Pole: that part of a construct to which the individual explicitly refers; for example, the meaning of ‘tense’ when the individual is using the construct ‘tense versus relaxed’ and talks about being tense. In triadic grid elicitation it is normally identified as the characteristic which two of the triad of elements have in common, and is written down on the left of the grid-sheet, p. 48. Contrast with Implicit Pole, q.v.

Experience Cycle: one of three models for describing change in construing; consists of stages of Anticipation, Investment, Encounter, Assessment and Constructive Revisions. Managers and business students will recognise the similarity to Kolb’s Cycle, p. 219.

Implicit Pole: that part of a construct which is left tacit by the individual; for example, the meaning of ‘relaxed’ when the individual is using the construct ‘tense versus relaxed’ and talks about being tense. In triadic elicitation it is normally identified as the contrast – the characteristic pertaining to the odd one out of the elements, and is written down on the right of the grid sheet, p. 48. Contrast with Emergent Pole, q.v.

Negotiation of Meaning: the process underlying construct elicitation by which you arrive at a precise understanding of the individual’s personal meaning, p. 11.

294 THE EASY GUIDE TO REPERTORY GRIDS

Ontological Choices: decisions made by individuals, in line with their personal values, through which their priorities in life and existence are expressed. What’s your bottom line? Are justice and the rule of law important, or should human frailty be allowed for? Are business organisations run for their employees, their shareholders or their customers? Is education fundamentally about preparing people to make a contribution to society, or is it basically about personal growth and development? Each of these alternatives represents an ontological choice, p. 191.

Personal Repertoire: the totality of constructs which a particular individual uses, p. 12.

Positivism: the epistemological position which asserts that the truth of a proposition can be established by facts which exist independently of the observer, waiting to be discovered and to be put into use. The main concern is therefore for the validity and reliability of observations made in order to explain what is going on, p. 44. Contrast with Constructivism, q.v.

Principal Components Analysis: a statistical technique for highlighting the pattern or relationships in a repertory grid, by identifying hypothetical underlying components on the basis of patterns of variability in the ratings. Outputs are, arguably, less client-friendly than those produced by a cluster analysis, q.v., but more useful in identifying ‘what needs to change’ in a counselling or guidance application, pp. 127–130.

Range of Convenience: the set of various realms of discourse within which a particular construct can be usefully applied. Constructs like ‘Comfortable– Painful’ have a wide range of convenience (you can use them in a wide variety of contexts), while those like ‘Incandescent–Luminescent’ have a very narrow range of convenience (you can’t use them to talk about much, other than light sources), p. 12.

Ratings: one of the four components of a repertory grid; a number on a scale applied to each element on each construct, by which an individual expresses a meaning, pp. 13–14.

Realm of Discourse: the general field of personal knowledge within which the Topic of a grid is situated, p. 12.

Resistance-to-Change Technique: a way of helping a person to decide on their value priorities: those which represent ontological bedrock, and those over which s/he’s prepared to compromise a little bit, p. 197.

GLOSSARY 295

Social Desirability Effect: the tendency for people to express their attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and values in a socially acceptable manner. When working with personal values, Resistance-to-Change Technique, q.v., can control the effect to some extent, p. 197.

Topic: one of the four components of a repertory grid; the subject-matter of a particular repertory grid, pp. 12–13.

REFERENCES

Adams-Webber, J. (1989) ‘Some reflections on the ‘‘meaning’’ of repertory grid responses’. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology 2, 77–92.

Bales, K.F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1976) The Social Nature of Reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Boose, J.H. (1985) ‘A knowledge acquisition program for expert systems based on personal construct psychology’. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 23, 495– 525.

Brown, L.D. & Kaplan, R.E. (1981) ‘Participative research in a factory’ in P. Reason & J. Rowan (eds), Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (pp. 303–314). Chichester: Wiley.

Burleson, B.R., Kunkel, A.W. & Szolwinski, J.B. (1997) ‘Similarity in cognitive complexity and attraction to friends and lovers: experimental and correlational studies’. Journal of Contructivist Psychology 10, 221–248.

Burr, V. & Butt, T. (1992) An Invitation to Personal Construct Psychology. London: Whurr. Caputi, P. & Reddi, P. (1999) ‘A comparison of triadic and dyadic methods of personal

construct elicitation’. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 12, 253–263.

Cohen, J. (1968) ‘Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit’. Psychological Bulletin 70, 213–220.

Collett, P. (1979) ‘The repertory grid in psychological research’ in G.P. Ginsburg (ed.),

Emerging Strategies in Social Psychological Research. Chichester: Wiley. Cook, M. (1998) Personnel Selection. London: Wiley.

Cromwell, R. & Caldwell, D.F. (1962) ‘A comparison of ratings based on personal constructs of self and others’. Journal of Clinical Psychology 18, 43–46.

Cronbach, L.J. (1964) Essentials of Psychological Testing, London: Harper & Row. Davis, H., Stroud, A. & Green, L. (1989) ‘Child characterization sketch’. International

Journal of Personal Construct Psychology 2, 323–337.

Duck, S. (1973) Personal Relationships and Personal Constructs: A Study of Friendship Formation. London: Wiley.

Eden, C., Jones, S. & Sims, D. (1983) Messing About in Problems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Edmonds, T. (1979) ‘Applying personal construct theory in occupational guidance’.

British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 7, 225–233.

Epting, F.R., Probert, J.S. & Pittman, S.D. (1993) ‘Alternative strategies for construct elicitation: experimenting with experience’. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology 6, 79–98.

REFERENCES 297

Feixas, G., Geldschla˜ger, H. & Neimeyer, R.A. (2002) ‘Content analysis of personal constructs’. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 15, 1–19.

Flanagan, J.C. (1954) ‘The critical incident technique’. Psychological Bulletin 51, 237–258. Fonda, N. (1982) ‘Using repertory grids in counselling’ in V. Stewart & A. Stewart (eds),

Business Applications of Repertory Grid (pp. 116–141). London: McGraw-Hill. Fransella, F., Bell, R. & Bannister, D. (2004) A Manual of Repertory Grid Technique. 2nd

edn. London: Routledge.

Gaines, B. & Shaw, M. (1993) ‘Knowledge acquisition tools based on personal construct psychology’. Knowledge Engineering Review 8, 49–85.

Greenaway, R. (2002) ‘Experiential learning cycles’. www http://reviewing.co.uk/research/ learning.cycles.htm, accessed 30 December 2002.

Harre´, R. (1981) ‘The positivist-empiricist approach and its alternative’ in P. Reason & J. Rowan (eds), Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (pp. 3–17). Chichester: Wiley.

Harter, S.L., Erbes, C.R. & Hart, C.C. (2001) ‘Use of the role construct repertory grid to assess the personal constructions of sexual abuse survivors’. Paper given at the Ninth Biennial Conference, North American Personal Construct Network, State University of New York at New Paltz.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W. Jr. & Woodman, R.W. (1995) Organizational Behavior. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing.

Hill, R.A. (1995) ‘Content analysis for creating and depicting aggregated personal construct derived cognitive maps’ in R.A. Neimeyer & G.J. Neimeyer (eds), Advances in Personal Construct Psychology (pp. 101–132). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Hinkle, D.N. (1965) ‘The Change in Personal Constructs from the Viewpoint of a Theory of Implications’, PhD thesis, Ohio University.

Hisrich, R.D. & Jankowicz, A.D. (1990) ‘Intuition in venture capital decisions: an exploratory study using a new technique’. Journal of Business Venturing 5, 49–62.

Holsti, O.R. (1968) ‘Content analysis’ in G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2. Research Methods. London: Addison-Wesley.

Honey, P. (1979) ‘The repertory grid in action’. Industrial and Commercial Training 11, 452–459.

Horley, J. (1991) ‘Values and beliefs as personal constructs’. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology 4, 1–14.

Horley, J. (2000) ‘Value assessment and everyday activities’. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 13, 67–73.

Humphreys, P. & McFadden, W. (1980) ‘Experiences with MAUD: Aiding decision structuring versus bootstrapping the decision maker’. Acta Psychologica 45, 51–69.

Hunt, D.E. (1987) Beginning with Ourselves: In Practice, Theory, and Human Affairs. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Jankowicz, A.D. (1987a) ‘Whatever became of George Kelly? Applications and implications’. American Psychologist 42, 481–487.

Jankowicz, A.D. (1987b) ‘Intuition in small business lending decisions’. Journal of Small Business Management 25, 45–52.

Jankowicz, A.D. (1990) ‘Applications of personal construct psychology in business practice’ in G.J. Neimeyer & R.A. Neimeyer (eds), Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 257–287). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

298 THE EASY GUIDE TO REPERTORY GRIDS

Jankowicz, A.D. (1996a) ‘On ‘‘resistance to change’’: in the post-command economies, and elsewhere’ in M. Lee, H. Letiche, R. Crawshaw & M. Thomas (eds), Management Education in the New Europe: Boundaries and Complexity (pp. 139–162). London: International Thomson Business Press.

Jankowicz, A.D. (1996b) ‘Personal values among public sector employees: a methodological study’. Paper given at the 3rd Conference of the European Personal Construct Association, Reading, UK, April.

Jankowicz, A.D. (2000a) Business Research Projects. 3rd edn. London: Thomson. Jankowicz, A.D. (2000b) ‘Self-reference in the identification of personal values: is there a

functional limit constraining a hierarchy of constructs?’ in J.M. Fisher & N. Cornelius (eds), Challenging the Boundaries: PCP Perspectives for the New Millennium, Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the European Personal Construct Association (pp. 109–119). Malta, April.

Jankowicz, A.D. (2001) ‘Why does subjectivity make us nervous? Making the tacit explicit’. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2, 61–73.

Jankowicz, A.D. & Cooper, K. (1982) ‘The use of focused repertory grids in counselling’.

British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 10, 136–150.

Jankowicz, A.D. & Thomas, L.F. (1982/1983) ‘The FOCUS cluster-analysis algorithm in human resource development’. Personnel Review 11, 15–22; erratum: 1983, 12, 22.

Jones, H. (1998) ‘Bringing two worlds together: personal and management development in the NHS’. Human Resource Development International 1, 341–356.

Kaczmarek, P. & Jankowicz, A.D. (1991) ‘American students’ perceptions of counselor approachability: professional implications’. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling 14, 313–324.

Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

Kelly, G.A. (1963) A Theory of Personality: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, London: Norton.

Kelly, G.A. (1970) ‘A brief introduction to personal construct theory’ in D. Bannister (ed.), Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (pp. 1–30). London: Academic Press.

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Landfield, A.W. (1968) ‘The extremity rating revisited within the context of personal construct theory’. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 7, 135–139.

Landfield, A.W. (1971) Personal Construct Systems in Psychotherapy. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Landfield, A.W. & Cannell, J.E. (1988) ‘Ways of assessing functionally independent construction, meaningfulness, and construction in hierarchy’ in J.C.S. Mancuso & M.L.G. Shaw (eds), Cognition and Personal Structure: Computer Access and Analysis

(pp. 67–89). New York: Praeger.

Leitner, L.M. & Pfenninger, D.T. (1994) ‘Sociality and optimal functioning’. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 7, 119–135.

MacMillan, I., Zemann, C.L. & SubbaNarashimha, P.M. (1987) ‘Criteria distinguishing successful from unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process’. Journal of Business Venturing 2, 123–137.

Mair, M. (1989) ‘Kelly, Bannister, and a story-telling psychology’. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology 2, 1–14.