I am curious if anyone has experience with examining how participants view
various
leadership development opportunities.

In my company we are trying to embed leadership attributes.  These can be
learned through
a number of different ways: performance management. 360 degree feedback process,
coaching, mentoring, action learning, etc.

It is assumed that participants will need to have experience or knowledge about
these
methods in order for them to contrast and compare.

Has anyone had experience with such elements?

Thank you.

Dave Troupe

Hello group members,

Those who haven't already heard about it may be interested in the 2nd
Conference on Individual Constructs in Management and Organizational
Research hosted by the Department of Marketing at the University of
Leipzig in cooperation with the TU Chemnitz and elements and
constructs GmbH.

The conference will focus on different areas of Personal Construct
Theory and Repertory Grids in Business Contexts.

Conference Dates: November 14th-15th, 2008.

Further detail is at <http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/resources.htm>
together with details of other learning resources.

Kind regards

John

http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz

Dear Dave,

As I provided a response privately before your message was posted to
the group I have been waiting to see if anyone in the group can
provide information on their experience. It seems not so I'll attempt
to provide some comment that might be helpful.

First though it is of course necessary that individuals will need to
have experience or knowledge about the methods in order for them to
contrast and compare in any useful way.

Secondly, it is very important that the purpose of the study be
clear. For instance the purpose might be to test individuals'
knowledge of the techniques to determine the effectiveness of a
training intervention. Or it could be that you need some sort of
subjective view about how it felt or how effective it was from the
point of the participant or how effective it was from the point of
view of the participant's supervisor. There are many scenarios that
could be chosen depending on the purpose. There is more on the
subject of Superordinate Purpose and the Purpose Statement at
http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/interview_purpose.htm.

Thirdly, it is very important, especially for an inexperienced grid
interviewer and if results from different interviews are to be
compared or amalgamated, that the elements are concrete with no
blurring at the boundaries. Also that they cover the whole field of
interest (the etceteras need to be spelt out). As an example the
experience of coaching or mentoring would be highly dependant on the
quality of the coaching or mentoring and therfore would be more or
less favourably compared to the other methods depending on
experience. There is more information on this at
http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/HINTS/elements.htm and again it is
important to get the purpose right in order to select a useful set of
elements.

The general idea appears to have potential. But the value of any
results will depend on the quality of the groundwork done before the
interviews start. Also it is not just the interviewer whose time is
valuable, the most useful interviewees will be very busy people and
will deserve the respect a well thought out project provides.

I hope that helps

John

John, thank you for taking YOUR precious time to care about my
concern.  Your comments are valuable!

Let me think out loud for a bit with you:  the purpose of such an
exploration of various forms of leadership development is to
understand WHY people consider one form of development as superior or
more beneficial over another.  It makes sense that many things will
come into play:  personal learning style, comfort level with various
people, affinity toward a particular format, etc.  All those things
are extremely worthy of understanding and, together, create a rich
story person-by-person. But what I might expect to see is that action
learning will be a favorite for most.  And if I am wrong, why?  What
is it about action learning that is distasteful?  THAT is worthy of
understanding as well!

Now on the blurriness, I have some work to do to make sure people know
that when I say "one-on-one" or "coaching" they know exactly what I'm
talking about.  I think it's important, too, if all interviewees
understand it the same way.  Otherwise the results could be skewed,
right?

Now here is an interesting aspect to consider.  You wrote, "As an
example the experience of coaching or mentoring would be highly
dependant on the quality of the coaching or mentoring and therfore
would be more or less favourably compared to the other methods
depending on
experience."  No doubt about that.  But wouldn't a proper interview
drive that out?  I mean, if an interview is done right, wouldn't one
be able to say that this participant didn't care for coaching because
it was conducted in such-and-such a way?  And wouldn't that be
instructive and informative?

Thanks again, John!

Dave



On Oct 21, 2008, at 2:57 PM, John wrote:

> Dear Dave,
>
> As I provided a response privately before your message was posted to
> the group I have been waiting to see if anyone in the group can
> provide information on their experience. It seems not so I'll attempt
> to provide some comment that might be helpful.
>
> First though it is of course necessary that individuals will need to
> have experience or knowledge about the methods in order for them to
> contrast and compare in any useful way.
>
> Secondly, it is very important that the purpose of the study be
> clear. For instance the purpose might be to test individuals'
> knowledge of the techniques to determine the effectiveness of a
> training intervention. Or it could be that you need some sort of
> subjective view about how it felt or how effective it was from the
> point of the participant or how effective it was from the point of
> view of the participant's supervisor. There are many scenarios that
> could be chosen depending on the purpose. There is more on the
> subject of Superordinate Purpose and the Purpose Statement at
> http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/interview_purpose.htm.
>
> Thirdly, it is very important, especially for an inexperienced grid
> interviewer and if results from different interviews are to be
> compared or amalgamated, that the elements are concrete with no
> blurring at the boundaries. Also that they cover the whole field of
> interest (the etceteras need to be spelt out). As an example the
> experience of coaching or mentoring would be highly dependant on the
> quality of the coaching or mentoring and therfore would be more or
> less favourably compared to the other methods depending on
> experience. There is more information on this at
> http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/HINTS/elements.htm and again it is
> important to get the purpose right in order to select a useful set of
> elements.
>
> The general idea appears to have potential. But the value of any
> results will depend on the quality of the groundwork done before the
> interviews start. Also it is not just the interviewer whose time is
> valuable, the most useful interviewees will be very busy people and
> will deserve the respect a well thought out project provides.
>
> I hope that helps
>
> John
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anyone want to try their hand at this?

I want to explore how participants feel about the value of the following
attributes.  I also
want to understand how they perceive the last four to be similar or dissimilar
to the first
six. Participants will understand what each one means very well:

1. Charts the course
2. Sets high expectations
3. Inspires others
4. Finds a way
5. Lives the company values
6. Delivers results
-------
7. Creates a positive climate
8. Creates positive relationships
9. Communicates positively
10. Instills positive meaning to the work

How might I construct a grid-based exercise?

Thank you.  Dave

I would suggest that you track down some research done at Motorola several
years ago.  They 'tested' their own leadership development methods to find
what was, in the experience of participants, the most effective method of
learning or 'embedding leadership attributes' as you call it.  You should  be
able
to find this research under the output of Motorola University - it was  done in
the 1980's I think.  If you cannot find the original then I  can summarise
some of the findings.

I would also suggest that you need to make a decision about wwhether you
think leadership attributes are part of an individuals 'sensemaking' repertoire
or whether they are organisational responses to defined situations.  If you
think that they are the former then trying to find out the sensemaking
repertoire would really point you in the direction of Rep Grid...if you think 
that
they are the latter then I would think that there are other reserach mthods
that would work with the enquiry.

If you want to look at Sensemaking then examine the work of Karl  Weick.

Paul Malyon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am new to PCP and using the repertory grid technique and I'm
finding it hard to find people to talk through issues with or get
some form of supervision/experienced advice. I am a forensic
psychologist in training and although I have research experience
through my undergraduate and MSc I have limited experience in more
qualitative methods. At present, I am conducting research exploring
facilitators perceptions of the rewards of their role and have used
the repertory grid technique (I attended some training by the centre
of personal construct psychology/uni. of hertfordshire). I have now
completed some research interviews using 'Enquire Within'. The
purpose/hypothesis being to explore themes in terms of societal
benefits, client change and professional benefits. During the
interviews, the elements were presribed and kept constant and
psychologists and officers were invited to explore their perceptions
of these tasks using the rep grid interview. I also encouraged
participants to reflect on the emerging themes and have completed a
frequency count between the different facilitators. I have also
sorted out the constructs into relevant themes as guided by relevant
research and also asked an independent psychologist to peruse this to
check reliability of categories. I have explored the ideal job in
comparison to the different elements and differentiated between the
different constructs until the participant was happy. I am now
writing up the results and am unsure how to write it up or what
statistical analysis I need to do to further analyse the grids. The
research is for a forensic psychology chartership dissertation and to
inform selection and support of facilitators in the prison service.
Is it enough to describe case by case in terms of the emerging themes
or do I need to do more statistical analyses to back up the
qualitative results. I have noted the correlations between constructs
and elements but am unclear how to evaluate it and cannot find an
example on the net.

I did practice with a pilot study but did not got so far as to write
up the results and am now very confused!! Any advice would be really
appreciated as I feel like I am fumbling in the dark at the moment.

Kind Regards,
Miriam Anthony
Psychologist
HMP Peterhead
Aberdeenshire
AB42 6YY

Repertory Grids have come a long way in developing techniques for
grid elicitation. They have been applied in many different areas. And
grids can be compared, to the extent that their "context" is the
same.  My question is whether there has been any work on developing
templates for different "contexts", in order to increase the
comparability of different studies. In other words, there are surely
sets of relevant & culturally defined elements and attributes that
could (and probably are) elicited in any RepGrid study in a
particular context. An inventory of these, and/or a technique for
developing these contexts could be important. Any clues from the
experts?
Thanks,
Bob Parks

>There is 1 message in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>1a. Hong Kong 2009
>     From: Bob Green
>
>
>Message
>________________________________________________________________________
>1a. Hong Kong 2009
>     Posted by: "Bob Green" bgreen@...
>     Date: Thu Nov 6, 2008 1:32 am ((PST))
>
>Hello Robert,
>
>It's  along time away but my wife and I may be in Hong Kong on July
>29. Are you likely to be around?
>
>regards
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>Messages in this topic (7)
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
*  The best dictionary and integrated thesaurus on the web:
http://www.wordsmyth.net
*  Robert Parks - Wordsmyth - (607) 272-2190
* "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."  (LW)
* "Philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point, however,
is to change it." (KM)
*  Community grows as we communicate, honing our words till their
meanings tap the rich voice of our full human potential.

Dear Bob,

What you are considering is certainly something that can and has been done.
To compare different respondents, you need only have identical stimuli (in
identical order within the grid). For comparability between studies you have
a number of options. You can do a meta analysis and investigate what you
deem to be the core features/findings of each study, you can do a
hermaneutic evaluation of the findings, or you can standardize a
questionnaire (something that repertory grid can accomodate, but that I
would caution against).

The issue in my mind is that repertory grid studies represent one of the
best idiographic techniques for investigating psychologically based
phenomena. Standardizing decreases the chances of discovery of something
new.

Having said that, the tool is still very powerful even when it is
being employed with a set of standard constructs. For a very nice treatment
on how you could compare idiographic and nomothetic studies please see:
Grice, James. (2004) "Bridging the Idiographic Nomothetic Divide in Ratings
of Self and Others on the Big Five," *Journal of Personality:* 72(2) p.
203-241.

Hope this helps,

Phil


--
Philip J. Murphy, PhD
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs
Pittsburgh, PA  15260
critical.node@...
http://critical.node.googlepages.com

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:10 AM, <RepGrid@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>  For people who are interested in PCP theory and the application of George
> Kelly's repertory grid interview technique
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbmhjbDM1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdy\
cElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNoZHIEc2xrA2hwaARzdGltZQMxMjI2MTM1\
Mzk5>
>     Re: Digest Number 295
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/message/431;_ylc=X3oDMTJwMmZ2NmduBF9TAzk3\
MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BG1zZ0lkAzQzMQRzZWMDZG1zZwRz\
bGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMjI2MTM1NDAw> Posted
> by: "Robert Parks" bobp@...
> <bobp@...?Subject=+Re%3A%20Digest%20Number%20295>  robertqparks
> <http://profiles.yahoo.com/robertqparks> Fri Nov 7, 2008 7:31 am (PST)
Repertory
> Grids have come a long way in developing techniques for
> grid elicitation. They have been applied in many different areas. And
> grids can be compared, to the extent that their "context" is the
> same. My question is whether there has been any work on developing
> templates for different "contexts", in order to increase the
> comparability of different studies. In other words, there are surely
> sets of relevant & culturally defined elements and attributes that
> could (and probably are) elicited in any RepGrid study in a
> particular context. An inventory of these, and/or a technique for
> developing these contexts could be important. Any clues from the
> experts?
> Thanks,
> Bob Parks
>
>   Recent Activity
>
>    -  2
>    New
Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm00ZDV1BF9TA\
zk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzB\
HN0aW1lAzEyMjYxMzU0MDA->
>
> Visit Your Group
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc2xoNnAwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdy\
cElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTIyNjEz\
NTQwMA-->
>  Biz Resources
>
> Y! Small
Business<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o8vp7vk/M=493064.12016255.12445662.867457\
8/D=groups/S=1705083474:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1226142600/L=/B=.d_kDELaX.E-/J=1226135400\
208966/A=4025321/R=0/SIG=12a352npd/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44092/*http://sma\
llbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index>
>
> Articles, tools,
>
> forms, and more.
>  New web site?
>
> Drive traffic
now.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13ovdjuvs/M=493064.12016308.12445700.8674578/D=\
groups/S=1705083474:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1226142600/L=/B=.t_kDELaX.E-/J=12261354002089\
66/A=3848642/R=0/SIG=131eshi2t/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?\
o=US2004&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Groups3&s=Y&s2=&s3=&b=50>
>
> Get your business
>
> on Yahoo! search.
>  Yahoo! Groups
>
> Join people over
40<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o2ufs1e/M=493064.12662708.12980600.8674578/D=gr\
oups/S=1705083474:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1226142600/L=/B=.9_kDELaX.E-/J=1226135400208966\
/A=5349276/R=0/SIG=11nhsqmjq/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/EverydayWellne\
ss/>
>
> who are finding ways
>
> to stay in shape.
>  Need to Reply?
>
> Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the
> Daily Digest.
> Create New Topic
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcTZyZWg5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE\
1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI\
yNjEzNTQwMA-->|
> Visit Your Group on the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid;_ylc=X3oDMTJjYnM0N2piBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1B\
GdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyMjYxM\
zU0MDA->
>
Messages<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2Q1dGdzBF9\
TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3M\
Ec3RpbWUDMTIyNjEzNTQwMA-->|
>
Files<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMWhoczhuBF9TAzk3M\
zU5NzE1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0a\
W1lAzEyMjYxMzU0MDA->|
>
Photos<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGU1dDFxBF9TAzk\
3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3R\
pbWUDMTIyNjEzNTQwMA-->|
>
Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYWJpdXQ5BF9TA\
zk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc\
3RpbWUDMTIyNjEzNTQwMA-->
>  MARKETPLACE
>  ------------------------------
> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
>
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13rb8dn4a/M=493064.12016295.13271503.10835568/D=gro\
ups/S=1705083474:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1226142600/L=/B=.N_kDELaX.E-/J=122613540020896\
6/A=5530388/R=0/SIG=11nuutlas/*http://explore.yahoo.com/groups/kraftmealsmadesim\
ple/>
> [image: Yahoo!
Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkazJrZzF2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAz\
I1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjI2MTM1NDAw>
> Change settings via the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Fyc2trBF9TAzk3MzU5\
NzE1BGdycElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1l\
AzEyMjYxMzU0MDA->(Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to
Individual<RepGrid-normal@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Indiviual+Emai\
l>| Switch
> format to
Traditional<RepGrid-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+\
Traditional>
> Visit Your Group
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepGrid;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaGtvdjYzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdy\
cElkAzI1MjIwOTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzNDc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMjI2MTM1\
NDAw>|
> Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>| Unsubscribe
> <RepGrid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear All;
I am novice at analysing the data derived from this technique. Will you
acknowledge me about what is "average normalized variability" and also
how is it calculated (i mean what is formula). Thanks.
Gungor.

I think I know that asking the grid-interview question in the right context is
very important.
In other words, when asking someone to distinguish between people in a triad, it
is NOT
useful to just ask, "How are two of these the same and the third, different?" if
one is
wondering about eating habits or table manners.

I want to enquire into how each of 12 managers sees each other relating to team
cohesiveness. Do they see each other as adding to cohesiveness?  Detracting from
it? Do they
see each other as engendering cohesiveness through behavior of some kind?  What
is that? If
distracting from cohesiveness, what do they do that causes that?

This in mind, how might you formulate the interview question?  Might it be
something like
this:

"Tell me how two of these (in the triad) are the same and different from the
third, with
respect to cohesiveness of the team."  Is is that simple?  Is it the most potent
formulation of
words?  Is there a better way to phrase it?

Thank you!

Dave

In respect of your enquiry...the question you propose will not give you any
idea of what the different managers are using as the behaviour that
contributes  to 'team cohesiveness'.  (Do you mean team cohesion?)

In my view, you need to be specific about the behaviours that contribute to
team cohesion and then ask questions about those behaviours.  In other  words,
you need to have a theory about behaviours that lead to team  cohesion.

Behind this however is something else...if you are asking about how the
different managers contribute or otherwise to team cohesion in triads you are
more likely to be disclosing relationships between managers that might be the
result of behaviours that are not related to Team Cohesion.

I have completed a similar project with a Management Top Team...in this  case
I was not specifically involved with Team Cohesion, but with a range of
behaviours that were admired by managers in this team...

This gave us a lot to talk about in terms of whether colleagues exhibited
admired behaviours or not..  It was extremely useful in building team  cohesion
as an outcome.

Paul Malyon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David

Regarding your original construct elicitation question:  "Tell me how
two of these (in the triad) are the same and different from the third, with
respect to cohesiveness of the team." Is is that simple? Is it the
most potent formulation of words? Is there a better way to phrase it?"

At the time, I thought it could be simplified to something like:
"Thinking about team cohesion, how are two of these (in the triad)
the same but different from the third"
Whether it is better to ask about behaviours as Paul suggested is an
empirical question. Try both approaches and see which generates the
most useful responses.
Pilot testing is an essential part of the process.

regards

Bob



At 05:24 AM 11/12/2008, you wrote:

>In respect of your enquiry...the question you propose will not give you any
>idea of what the different managers are using as the behaviour that
>contributes to 'team cohesiveness'. (Do you mean team cohesion?)
>
>In my view, you need to be specific about the behaviours that contribute to
>team cohesion and then ask questions about those behaviours. In other words,
>you need to have a theory about behaviours that lead to team cohesion.
>
>Behind this however is something else...if you are asking about how the
>different managers contribute or otherwise to team cohesion in triads you are
>more likely to be disclosing relationships between managers that might be the
>result of behaviours that are not related to Team Cohesion.
>
>I have completed a similar project with a Management Top Team...in this case
>I was not specifically involved with Team Cohesion, but with a range of
>behaviours that were admired by managers in this team...
>
>This gave us a lot to talk about in terms of whether colleagues exhibited
>admired behaviours or not.. It was extremely useful in building team cohesion
>as an outcome.
>
>Paul Malyon
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Dave,

You asked `I want to enquire into how each of 12 managers sees each
other relating to team cohesiveness.'

It may not be right on the button but you might find the following of
interest:

`The dimensions of management team performance: a repertory grid
study. Author(s): Barbara Senior, Stephen Swailes. Journal:
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Year: 2004. Volume: 53, Issue: 4. Teamwork is a key feature of work
in organisations and a central question in the extensive literature
on teams concerns the ways that team performance can be measured.
This paper summarises the concept of team performance and, focussing
on management teams, reports the results of an extensive study into
team members' constructions of performance.'

I have added this reference to
<http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/marketin.htm> in case it is of
interest to others.

My best wishes for a Merry Christmas to you and all members of the
Group.

Regards

John

I am interested in finding out whether there has been any research into
group construct elicitation. If there is, could you direct me to it, as
i have not found any anywhere.

Thanks
Shell

You can check the research by
Melanie Mireaux, David N. Cox , Amy Cotton, Greg Evans (2007),
"An adaptation of repertory grid methodology to evaluate Australian consumers’
perceptions of food products produced by novel technologies", Food Quality and
Preference 18, 834–848.
 
Best Regards.
Gungor.

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, shonyh1 <michelle.young@...> wrote:

From: shonyh1 <michelle.young@...>
Subject: [RepGrid] Group construct elicitation
To: RepGrid@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:37 PM






I am interested in finding out whether there has been any research into
group construct elicitation. If there is, could you direct me to it, as
i have not found any anywhere.

Thanks
Shell


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you Gungor, at least it shows it has been carried out.

Shell

-----Original Message-----
From: RepGrid@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RepGrid@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
gungor hacioglu
Sent: 07 January 2009 08:11
To: RepGrid@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RepGrid] Group construct elicitation

You can check the research by
Melanie Mireaux, David N. Cox , Amy Cotton, Greg Evans (2007),
"An adaptation of repertory grid methodology to evaluate Australian
consumers’ perceptions of food products produced by novel technologies",
Food Quality and Preference 18, 834–848.
 
Best Regards.
Gungor.

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, shonyh1 <michelle.young@...> wrote:

From: shonyh1 <michelle.young@...>
Subject: [RepGrid] Group construct elicitation
To: RepGrid@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:37 PM






I am interested in finding out whether there has been any research into
group construct elicitation. If there is, could you direct me to it, as
i have not found any anywhere.

Thanks
Shell


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

 
 
   Hi Group
 
 
   I am interested in RepGrid as method of eliciting self identity , My concern
here is what elements should I provide to the Grid in order to articulate the
profile of self identity .
 
     wafaa




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I recently posted a message asking for direction to research into group
construct elicitation. I have been directed to a number of research
items, which i appreciate very much. However, they are looking at
eliciting constructs from groups, but carrying out the elicitation
process individually.

The research i am carrying out is looking into carrying out the
elicitation of constructs by using a group of people in the same
space/room together and making contribution as a group. However, i am
finding it difficult to identify research in this area. I am sure there
must be research into this, but I cannot find it.

I would very much apreciate if someone could direct me to research that
investigates the credibility of simultaneous, same space group
elicitation.

Regards
Shell

Shell,

You are more likely to find examples in the organisational/management
literature as most clinical/educational etc applications are
interested in either (a) an individuals individual constructs or (b)
an individuals perspective on applying supplied constructs/elements.


This may be what you are looking for.  I can't recall whether
individuals or the group generated the original data:  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, Volume 3
(pp.101-132).Greenwich: JAI Press.

You could also try the PCP mailing
list:  https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=pcp


regards

Bob

Shell, if you find something, would you be so kind as to report that?
Thank you very much.

Dave


On Jan 16, 2009, at 4:43 PM, shonyh1 wrote:

> I recently posted a message asking for direction to research into
> group
> construct elicitation. I have been directed to a number of research
> items, which i appreciate very much. However, they are looking at
> eliciting constructs from groups, but carrying out the elicitation
> process individually.
>
> The research i am carrying out is looking into carrying out the
> elicitation of constructs by using a group of people in the same
> space/room together and making contribution as a group. However, i am
> finding it difficult to identify research in this area. I am sure
> there
> must be research into this, but I cannot find it.
>
> I would very much apreciate if someone could direct me to research
> that
> investigates the credibility of simultaneous, same space group
> elicitation.
>
> Regards
> Shell
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For anyone interested I have been eliciting constructs from  groups on a
number of team performance and competency exercises. I plan to write  these up
once I have some more data. I am happy to dicuss how I do this. I  should add
that I use diadic elicitation and role elements asking participants  to pick a
pair of elements and say if they are the same or different. I then ask  them to
write down as the construct(s) the way(s) in which they are different. I  then
ask them to write down the contrast(s) to their constructs. All the  elicited
constructs<>contrasts are shared with the whole group to group  the elicited
constructs <> contrasts into themes and then to  identify  super-ordinate
constructs <>  contrasts based on the themes. it is the super-ordinate
constructs
<> contrasts that are rated against elements  (sometimes those used in the
elicitation process and sometimes other elements  within the 'range' of the
task).

Best wishes

Dr Michael Hymans.
C.Psychol., AFBPsS., ACMI


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello All,

I'm a post-graduate researcher, looking at using the Rep Grids as a
tool for mapping how people perceive their creative process.
Articulating something as personal as how one goes about creating art
or music or design is often uncomfortable, and the Rep Grid framework
has proven to be useful in getting people to open up, and delve a
little deeper into how they consider their work.

I'm having some issues with my method. I'm using triadic construct
elicitation, for a list of 7 participant defined elements. This leads
to 35 separate triads. This is problematic, as, thus far, people have
spent around 5 minutes with each construct, trying to find the exact
poles which define what they are trying to say. This pushes the time
spent on each test up to around 3 and half hours of intensive mental
work, with the result that the participant begins to tire towards the
end.

I was wondering if there was any way I could cut down the amount of
time taken with the participants. I'm wary about only using certain
triads for fear that I will not be using an exhaustive combination of
elements, but I'm also loathe to cut down the number of elements, for
fear of not getting the 'full picture'.

Ideally, I'd like the participants to keep their explanations of their
constructs in, as it is providing rich information for transcribing at
a later date.

Does anyone have, or can link to a solution to this? This is my first
time using repertory grids, so any help is extremely welcome.

Regards,

Shaun McWhinnie

Dear Shaun,

As you say, a three and a half hour interview would be tiring to say
the least!

You are using 7 elements and, normally, that would be a minimum. You
don't say if each participant has defined their own set of elements
but, if not, seven may not be enough as some participants may not be
sufficiently familiar with all of the elements.

You say you are afraid that you will not be using an exhaustive
combination of elements. I wonder if that really matters as your
objective is to articulate how one goes about creating art or music.
Perhaps it is the articulation that matters rather than being
exhaustive in the use of elements.

One of the most important steps in the application of grid is to do
pilot sessions to check that the process is fulfilling its purpose.
Then the process can be modified to both make project completion
possible while still achieving the purpose.

You ask for some links that may help. There are a number of hints on
the application of grid listed at
<http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/hintsfor.htm> and the one on piloting
at <http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/HINTS/pilot.htm> may be of
particular relevance. That will almost inevitably lead you back to
reconsideration of your purpose. The web page entitled A Purpose for
the Repertory Grid Interview at
<http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/interview_purpose.htm> may help here.

I hope that helps

John

--- In RepGrid@yahoogroups.com, "shauunhimseelf" <shauunhimseelf@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I'm a post-graduate researcher, looking at using the Rep Grids as a
> tool for mapping how people perceive their creative process.
> Articulating something as personal as how one goes about creating
art
> or music or design is often uncomfortable, and the Rep Grid
framework
> has proven to be useful in getting people to open up, and delve a
> little deeper into how they consider their work.
>
> I'm having some issues with my method. I'm using triadic construct
> elicitation, for a list of 7 participant defined elements. This
leads
> to 35 separate triads. This is problematic, as, thus far, people
have
> spent around 5 minutes with each construct, trying to find the exact
> poles which define what they are trying to say. This pushes the time
> spent on each test up to around 3 and half hours of intensive mental
> work, with the result that the participant begins to tire towards
the
> end.
>
> I was wondering if there was any way I could cut down the amount of
> time taken with the participants. I'm wary about only using certain
> triads for fear that I will not be using an exhaustive combination
of
> elements, but I'm also loathe to cut down the number of elements,
for
> fear of not getting the 'full picture'.
>
> Ideally, I'd like the participants to keep their explanations of
their
> constructs in, as it is providing rich information for transcribing
at
> a later date.
>
> Does anyone have, or can link to a solution to this? This is my
first
> time using repertory grids, so any help is extremely welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shaun McWhinnie
>

In my study, I am creating grids before and after a leadership development
exercise. I am curious about what kind of statistical analysis can be applied
that will measure the significance of change in the ratings of the elements. 
Has anyone had any experience with that?

Dave

Hello Bob,

It has been a while since you asked your question about different templates for
different contexts in order to increase the comparability of different studies.
Phil Murphy provided one response about comparability of studies but in
rereading the question and response I was reminded of a very practical facility
built into Enquire Within that helps in this area.

Enquire Within uses the concept of resources that applies to sets of project
purposes, construct qualifiers, elements and questions used to elicit elements.
In preparation for an interview, development of these interview components takes
a lot of time and effort to get right and they can often be used in different
studies or in different contexts. So, to facilitate reuse of the resources these
can be kept separately from interview data and, when required again, reloaded
into Enquire Within for use in later studies.

I hope that adds something useful.

Regards

John

Hello!all,
     I am happy to join this group,as it gives me a lot of opportunities to learn
more about repertory grid interview, at the same time, thanks for the effort of
John.
     I am a new user of grid interview, and I am conducting a research based on
repertory grid technique.Unfortunately, I can't find the web site to download
the Rep IV (personal version), and is it support Chinese usage or presentation
?WebGrid IV support Chinese characters input, as I know.
     Thanks for all your attention, any help would be sincerely appreciated!

Regards!

Dyy Dai

Fay Fransella's book the `International Handbook of Personal Construct
Psychology', previously available from Amazon for US$230 appears now to be
available for download free from Scribd. There is a link for that at
<http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/resources.htm> near the bottom of the page under
the heading Personal Construct Psychology.
Thank you Fay!

John

With regard to my previous message I am sorry to have to advise that Fay
Fransella's book the `International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology'
which was available for downloading free has been withdrawn.

I'm studying the above topic in a group of trainee anaesthetists prior to the
installation of a hospital-wide electronic health record.  I am interested in
the reasons why doctors would choose to use such a system as opposed to the
paper record.  Having difficulty deciding on the elements where presenting a
selection of functional characteristics gave difficulty in eliciting the
constructs.  Thinking of providing a few for starters so that interviewees get
the idea but losing the idea of personal construct elicitation ending up with a
list of Likert scale statements for scoring.  Can anyone think of a better way
of getting back to the PCP way of exploring the original purpose statement?