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

APPENDIX 6 279

Table A6.1 (Continued)

Commonality	To the extent that one
corollary	person employs a
	construction of experience
	which is similar to that
	employed by another, his
	processes are psycho-
	logically similar to those
	of the other person.
Sociality	To the extent that one
corollary	person construes the
	construction process of
	another, he may play a
	role in a social process
	involving the other
	person.

People are similar to the extent that they construe (see the meaning in) events similarly (and not because they encounter similar events, nor because they behave in the same way).

We enter into effective role relationships with other people (for example, boss–subordinate; parent–child; husband–wife) to the extent that we are aware of, and can understand, some of the other person’s constructs (and not because the two sets of constructs are the same, nor because society has defined roles for us).

APPENDIX 7

´

AIDE-MEMOIRE/SUMMARY OF GRID PROCEDURES

This appendix presents the various procedures outlined throughout the chapters in one place for easy reference while you’re learning them. With practice, you’ll be able to depart from them, and know the good reasons why you’re departing from them. Initially, though, each procedure is available in outline form for reference. You’ll need to check back to the full presentation occasionally, since some of the outlines are very sparse.

Basic Repertory Grid Elicitation

Section 3.1.2

(1)Agree a topic.

(2)Agree a set of elements.

(3)Explain that you wish to find out how your respondent thinks about the elements.

(4)Taking three elements, ask your respondent, ‘Which two of these are the same in some way, and different from the third?’

(5)Ask your respondent why: ‘What do the two have in common, as opposed to the third?’

(6)Check that you understand what contrast is being expressed.

(7)Present the construct as a rating scale.

(8)Ask your respondent to rate each of the three elements on this scale, writing the ratings into the grid as s/he states them.

(9)Now ask the respondent to rate each of the remaining elements on this construct.

(10)Your task is to elicit as many different constructs as the person might hold about the topic. So, repeat steps 4 to 8, asking for a fresh construct each time, until your respondent can’t offer any new ones.

APPENDIX 7 281

Laddering Down

Section 4.4.1

Laddering down is used at stage 6 of the basic grid elicitation procedure.

6b Put a ‘how’ question to the interviewee about the emergent pole of the original construct.

. Write the answer down below the emergent pole.

. Put a ‘how’ question to the interviewee about the implicit pole.

. Write down the answer below the implicit pole.

.Stop at that point, or repeat the ‘how’ question in more detail still, about the construct you’ve just written down.

.Apply the remaining steps of the basic grid procedure to the final construct you arrive at.

Pyramiding

Section 4.4.2

Pyramiding is used as an alternative to laddering down at stage 6 of the basic grid elicitation procedure.

6b Put a ‘how’ question to the interviewee.

. Write the answer down below the emergent pole of the original construct.

.Ask what is the opposite or contrasting pole of the construct you wrote down above, and write it down.

.Go back to the implicit pole of the original construct and ask a ‘how’ question to the interviewee about it.

. Write the answer down below the implicit pole of the original construct.

.Ask what is the opposite or contrasting pole of the construct you wrote down above, and write it down.

.Stop at that point, or repeat the ‘how’ question in more detail still, about the constructs you’ve just written down, noting the emergent poles, and asking in each case what their opposite is.

.Apply the remaining steps of the basic grid procedure to all of the constructs you arrive at.

282 THE EASY GUIDE TO REPERTORY GRIDS

Eyeball Analysis

Section 5.3.2

Eyeball analysis is used as a preliminary to any other analysis technique.

. What is the interviewee thinking about?

. How has the interviewee represented the topic?

. How does s/he think: what are the constructs?

. What does s/he think: how have the elements been rated on the constructs?

. Examine the supplied elements and constructs and their ratings.

. Draw conclusions.

Characterising Constructs

Section 5.3.3

The following four numbered steps apply in adopting a systematic approach to analysing the following kinds of constructs: core versus peripheral; propositional versus constellatory; constructs used pre-emptively; affective, behavioural, evaluative, and attributional.

(1)Identify constructs which appear to have that characteristic.

(2)Assess the proportion with that characteristic among the others in the whole grid.

(3)Ascribe significance to this proportion, in context.

(4)Examine relationships: how do these particular constructs relate to other constructs?

The particular way in which relationships are assessed varies depending on which sort of construct is being dealt with: see Section 5.3.3.

Simple Relationships Between Elements

Section 6.1.1

This is a suggested approach to the use of element difference sums and % similarity scores.

(1)Calculate differences in ratings of the first pair of elements on the first construct.

APPENDIX 7 283

(2)Sum down the page over the remaining constructs and note the total.

(3)Repeat for all pairs of elements.

(4)Compare the sums of differences, especially the smallest and largest.

(5)Discuss these relationships with the interviewee.

(6)Examine relationships with supplied elements, if any.

(7)Ensure comparability with other grids by turning the difference scores into % similarity scores.

Use the formula:

element % similarity ¼ 100 ðfSD=½ðLR 1Þ C&g 100Þ

where SD is the sum of differences, LR is the largest rating possible on the scale, and C is the number of constructs in the grid; or refer to the table in Appendix 3.

Simple Relationships Between Constructs

Section 6.1.2

This is the analogous procedure for constructs.

(1)Calculate the differences in the ratings of the first element on the first pair of constructs.

(2)Sum across the page for the remaining elements.

(3a) Repeat for all pairs of constructs.

(3b) Repeat step 3a for all pairs of constructs with one set of ratings reversed.

(4)Find the smallest sum of differences among all the comparisons you’ve made, unreversed and reversed.

(5)Discuss these relationships with the interviewee.

(6)Examine relationships with supplied constructs, if any.

(7)Ensure comparability with other grids by turning the difference scores into % similarity scores.

Use the following formula:

construct % similarity ¼ 100 ðfSD=½ðLR 1Þ E&g 200Þ

284 THE EASY GUIDE TO REPERTORY GRIDS

where SD is the sum of differences, LR is the largest rating possible on the scale, and E is the number of elements in the grid; or refer to the table in Appendix 4.

Cluster Analysis: Elements

Section 6.2.2

Follow the example shown in Table 6.11 and Figure 6.2.

This is one possible approach for making sense of the output from a clusteranalysis package.

(1)Examine the elements, and notice which elements have been reordered.

(2)Examine the shape of the element dendrogram.

(3)Identify construct similarities and differences.

(4)What does this mean in terms of the way in which your interviewee is thinking?

(5)Find the highest % similarity score.

(6)Examine the remaining scores.

Cluster Analysis: Constructs

Section 6.2.2

See also the example shown in Table 6.12 and Figure 6.2.

This is the corresponding procedure for constructs.

(1)Examine the constructs: notice how they have been reordered.

(2)Look at the shape of the construct dendrogram.

(3)Identify element similarities and differences.

(4)What does this mean? Discuss the implications with your interviewee.

(5)Find the highest % similarity score.

(6)Examine the remaining scores.

APPENDIX 7 285

Principal Components Analysis

Section 6.3.2

Here’s just one procedure for making sense of the output of a principal components analysis package. There are many others, depending on what you’re looking for, but it’s one I find convenient.

(1)Determine how many components you’ll need to work with: how many do you need to account for 80% of the variance?

(2)Examine the shape of the lines representing the constructs: how tightly are they spread?

(3)Identify any similarities in the meaning of the constructs which make up each ‘sheaf’:

. by inspection

. by examining their relationship to any supplied construct.

(4)Note the position of any meaningful groupings with respect to the two principal components: the vertical axis and the horizontal axis.

(5)Check your interpretations with the interviewee. Resist the temptation to pronounce about them.

Content Analysis: Bootstrapping – Core-Categorisation

Procedure

Section 7.2.1

This is the core procedure which is used as steps 1 and 2 of the contentanalysis procedures which follow. Each item being categorised is compared with each of the others.

(1)If an item is in some way like the first item, the two are placed together under a single category.

(2)If an item is different to the first item, they’re put into separate categories.

(3)Remaining items are compared with each of the categories and allocated to the appropriate one if an appropriate category exists.

(4)A new category is created if required; when a new category is created, the possibility that existing categories need to be redefined (combined,

or broken up, with their items reallocated accordingly) is considered.

286 THE EASY GUIDE TO REPERTORY GRIDS

(5)This process continues until all the items have been classified.

(6)However, any unclassifiable items are placed in a small category marked ‘miscellaneous’.

(7)No more than 5% of the total is regarded as such.

Content Analysis: Bootstrapping – Generic Content-Analysis

Procedure

Section 7.2.1

Here’s the full process. It should incorporate the reliability procedures shown below.

(1)Identify the categories.

(2)Allocate the constructs to the categories, following the core-categorisation procedure, steps 1 to 7 above.

(3)Tabulate the result.

(4)Establish the reliability of the category system (using the procedure shown below).

(5)Summarise the table; first, the meaning of the category headings.

(6)Summarise the table: next, find examples of each category heading.

(7)Summarise the table; finally, the frequency under the category headings.

(8)Complete any differential analysis which your investigation requires.

(9)Complete any statistical tests on this differential analysis as required.

Content Analysis: Bootstrapping – Reliability

Section 7.2.1

This is for inclusion at stage 4 of the above procedure. These steps improve the reliability of the content analysis, and measure the degree of reliability achieved, for reporting purposes. The former is essential and the latter advisable.

(4)Establish the reliability of the category system.

(4.1) Involve a colleague: ask a colleague to repeat steps 1 to 3 independently.

APPENDIX 7 287

(4.2) Identify the categories you both agree on, and those you disagree on. (4.3) Record your joint allocation of constructs.

(4.4) Measure the extent of agreement between you.

.Index A: the number of constructs lying along the diagonal for the categories you have both agreed on as a percentage of all the constructs in the whole table.

.Index B: the number of constructs lying along the diagonal for the categories you have both agreed on as a percentage of the constructs allocated to the categories you have both agreed on.

(4.5) Negotiate over the meaning of the categories.

(4.6) Finalise a revised category system with acceptably high reliability. (4.7) Report the final reliability figure:

.agreement on all the category definitions, and 90% successful allocation (or, if you’re using a reliability coefficient, 0.80 or above).

Content Analysis: Honey’s Procedure

Section 7.3.2

(1)Obtain ratings on a supplied ‘overall’ construct.

(2)Compute sums of differences for each construct against the ‘overall’ construct, using the procedure shown earlier, ‘simple relationships between constructs’ (see Section 6.1.2).

(3)Ensure comparability with other grids, turning sums of differences into % similarity index.

(4)Take the individual’s personal metric into account: annotate each construct with the H-I-L index.

(5)Label each construct with these two indices.

(6)Identify the categories.

(7)Allocate constructs to categories, following the core-categorisation procedure (see above).

(8)Tabulate the result.

288THE EASY GUIDE TO REPERTORY GRIDS

(9)Establish the reliability of the category system (Section 7.2.1, steps 4.1–4.7).

(10)Summarise the table: first, the meaning of the category headings.

(11)Summarise the table: find examples of each category heading.

(11.1) Within each category, order the constructs from top to bottom with respect to their % similarity scores.

(11.2) Looking at all the constructs within a category, identify personally salient constructs (referring to the H-I-L indices) on which there is consensus in the group.

(11.3) If there are subthemes within a category, group them according to the meaning being expressed.

(12)Summarise the table: state the frequency under the category headings.

(13)Complete any differential analysis which your investigation requires.

(14)Complete any statistical tests on this differential analysis, as before.

Laddering Up to Arrive at Values

Section 8.1.1

(1)Take the first construct in the grid.

(2)Ask the interviewee which pole s/he prefers.

(3)Ask the interviewee to describe the basis for this preference.

(4)Note the answer immediately above the preferred pole of the original construct, as a new construct.

(5)Identify the contrasting pole of that new construct.

(6)Note it, above the implicit (non-preferred) pole of the original construct.

(7)Repeat steps 2 to 6 for this new superordinate construct.

(8)Repeat step 7 until the interviewee can’t go any further.

(9)	Take the next construct in the original grid; repeat steps 2	to 8 for
	it.
(10)	Do step 9 for each of the remaining constructs in the	original
	grid.