Dear All,
re Marcus Offer's comment:
<snip>
> We need another construct at right angles to
> this one to tell us what it is about human interaction shoulder to
> shoulder in front of the computer as opposed to eyeball to eyeball to
> each other, that is different, better, worse or what....?
What a very interesting way of putting it. Colin Eden used an
interactive package to store grid information derived from a
management employee who had left the company, as a way of
providing induction for the manager's replacement. The replacement
explored the constructs and their interrelationships as a way of
familiarising himself with the tacit aspects of the job. Significantly,
he commented that he appreciated sitting next to a colleague as he
did so: to be able to talk about the information he was obtaining,
and the inferences he was making, from the material being
presented in the grid. Verbalisation helps; and talking to yourself
isn't enough!

Kind regards,

Devi

In relation Andrew's questions,

>1) If you pre-determine the elements that are to be used to elicit
>constructs AND you give a subset of constructs which research shows are
>associated with the "typical interviewee" (ouch), does this neagate the
>value of Rep Grid in this sense?

There are at least two aspects relevant to the term rep grid. In one sense,
a rep grid is just a data set of columns and rows, which can be manually
analysed or analysed via a variety of statistical proceedures. In the other
sense, a grid is one of the methods developed by Kelly to examine human
construing. A nomothetic approach to the grid doesn't necessarily negate
the value of a grid in the former sense, in the second sense it can
(depending on a range of factors including the assumptions of your research
and its philosophical underpinings).

The risk of nomothetic grid use, is that the richness and diversity of
construing may not be reflected in it. This can be addressed by ensuring
relevant constructs are included, including both supplied and elicited
constructs, as well as asking whether key constructs have been
incorporated. Pilot testing is also valuable in this regard. If your
interest is in comparing individuals (particulalry if there is more than
10), you at least need to supply common elements.


>2) If Dendritic analysis comes up with strong correlations so that you can
>say, for example, Interviewee X perceived a strong
>correlation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in terms of the
>construct Removed from Reality - In touch with the people they govern, what
>is the NEXT step from this? I think I'm looking for *meaning* behind the
>correlations. SOrry I can't be more specific at this stage.


Firstly, grid analysis and interpretation is neither straight forward nor
hard science. If you analysed the same grid, using different proceedures
you will not necessarily get the same results, and two people looking at
the results can come up with different interpretations. This is not
necessarily an issue just for grid analysis. Regarding the issue of
meaning, this is where an undestanding of the PCP literature will assist. A
coorelation indicates a correlation between x and y, it doesnot tell you
what x or y mean to the individual people.

Secondly, all proceedures have their limitations. For example some years
ago there was a robust debate between Patrick Slater and ? Rump, regarding
the merits of principal components analysis vs cluster analysis; Mackay has
written of the problems regarding correlational approaches, and there has
been debate regarding the different distance measures which are used in
cluster and other analyses. These issues need critical consideration in
determining how your data is to be analysed, especially if you are wanting
to compare multiple participants' responses (for example correlations,
euclidean distance and correlations have been used to examine group data
and have their respective problems).

You might find some of the following references of interest:

regards,

Bob Green


Adams-Webber J  (1970).  Elicited Versus Provided Constructs in
Repertory Grid Technique:  A Review.  British Journal of Medical
Psychology. 43, 349 -354.

Adams-Webber J  (1989).  Some Reflections on the "Meaning" of
Repertory Grid Responses.  International Journal of Personal
Construct Psychology.  2, 77- 92.

Bannister D and Mair J  (1968).  The Evaluation of Personal
Constructs.  Academic Press London.

Bavelas J, Chan A and Guthrie J  (1976).  Reliability and
Validity of Traits Measure by Kelly's Repertory Grid.  Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Science. 8, 23-38.

Beail N (1983). Equivalence of Grid Forms: A Case Report.
British Journal of Medical Psychology.  56, 263-264.

Beail N  (1984).  Consensus Grids:  What About the Variance?
British Journal of Medical Psychology.  57, 193-195.

Beail N  (1985).  An Introduction to Repertory Grid Technique,
in Beail N  (ed).  Personal Constructs:  Applications in Clinical
and Educational Settings.  Groom Helm, London.

Beail N and Fisher K  (1988).  Two-Component Solutions of
Repertory Grid Data: A Comparison of Three Methods.
International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.  1,
369-374.

Bell R  (1987).  G-Pack: A Computer Programme for the Elicitation
and Analysis of Repertory Grids.  Version 3.0.  University of
Melbourne, Melbourne.

Bell R  (1988).  Theory - Appropriate Analysis of Repertory Grid
Data.  International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.
1, 101-118.

Bell R  (1990a).  Analytic Issues in the Use of Repertory Grid
Technique, in Neimeyer G and Neimeyer R  (eds).  Advances in
Personal Construct Psychology:  A Research Annual (Vol 1).  JAI,
Greenwich.

Bell R  (1990b).  Repertory Grids as Mental Tests:  Implications
of Test Theories for Grids.  International Journal of Personal
Construct Psychology.  3, 91-103.

Bell R (1993).  On Testing Commonality of Constructs in Supplied
Grids.  Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress of
Personal Construct Psychology, Townsville (Australia).


Bender M  (1974).  Provided Versus Elicited Constructs:  An
Explanation of Warr and Coffman's (1970) Anomalous Finding.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.  13, 329-330.

Bonarius H  (1984).  Personal Construct Psychology:  A Reappraisal of Basic
Theory and its Applications, in Bonarius H, Van Heck G and Smid N  (eds).
Personal Psychology in Europe:  Theoretical and Empirical Developments.
Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Bringmann M  (1992) Computer-Based Methods for the Analysis and
Interpretation of Personal Construct Systems, in Neimeyer R and
Neimeyer G (eds).  Advances in Personal Construct Psychology (
Vol. 2).   JAI, Greenwich.

Collett P  (1979).  The Repertory Grid in Psychological Research,
in Ginsburg G  (ed).  Emerging Strategies in Social Psychological
Research.  John Wiley, Chichester.

Costigan J  (1988).  Constructions of Mid-points in Grid Rating
Scales:  Either, Neither, Both Ends or Whatever.  Paper Presented
at Fourth Australasian Personal Construct Psychology Conference,
Wollongong (Australia).

Easterby-Smith M  (1980).  The Design, Analysis and
Interpretation of Repertory Grids.  International Journal of Man-
Machine Studies.  13, 3-24.

Feixas G, Moliner J, Montes J and Mari M  (1992).  The Stability
of Structural Measures Derived From Repertory Grids.
International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.  5(1),
25-40.

Fransella F and Bannister D  (1977).  A Manual for Repertory Grid
Technique.  Academic Press, London.

Kelly G  (1955).  The Psychology of Personal Constructs.
      Norton, New York.

Kelly G  (1970).  A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct
      Theory, in Bannister D  (ed).  Perspectives in Personal
      Construct Theory.  Academic Press, London.

Leach C  (1981).  Direct Analysis of a Repertory Grid, in Shaw
M (ed).  Recent Advances in Personal Construct Technology.
Academic Press, London.

Liseth O, Ford K, Adams-Weber J, Canas A and Bedzek J (1993).
Gridgraph: Graphical Representation of Repertory Grid Data.
International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.  6,
295-300.

Mackay N  (1992).  Identification, Reflection and Correlation:
Problems in the Bases of Repertory Grid Measures.  International
Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.  5, 55-75.

Rathod P  (1981).  Methods for the Analysis of Rep Grid Data, in
Bonarius H, Holland R and Rosenberg S  (eds).  Personal Construct
Psychology:  Recent Advances in Theory and Practice.  St Martin's
Press, New York.

Rump E  (1974).  Cluster Analysis of Personal Questionnaires,
Compared with Principal Component Analysis.  British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology.  13, 283-292.

Ryle A  (1975).  Frames and Cages:  The Repertory Grid Approach
to Human Understanding.  Sussex University Press, London.

Sewell K, Adams-Webber J, Mitterer J and Cromwell R  (1992).
Computerised Repertory Grids:  Review of the Literature.
International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.  5(1),
1-23.

Shaw, M  (1979).  Conversational Heuristics for Eliciting Shared
Understanding.  International Journal Man-Machine Studies.  11,
621-634.

Shaw M  (1980).  The Analysis of a Repertory Grid.  British
Journal of Medical Psychology.  53, 117-126.

Slater P  (1969).  Theory and Technique of the Repertory Grid:
Being a Review of the Evaluation of Personal Constructs, by D
Bannister and J.M.M Mair.  British Journal of Psychiatry.  115,
1287-1296.

Slater P  (1974).   Cluster Analysis Versus Principal Component
Analysis:  A Reply to EE Rump.  British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology.  13, 427-430.

Slater P  (1977).  The Measurement of Intrapersonal Space by Grid
Technique.  Vol 2:  Dimensions of Intrapersonal Space.  John
Wiley, London.

Sperlinger D  (1976).  Aspects of Stability in the Repertory
Grid.  British Journal of Medical Psychology.  49, 341-347.

Taylor D  (1990).  Making the Most Out of Your Matrices:
Hermeneutics, Statistics, and the Repertory Grid.  International
Journal of Personal Construct Psychology.  3, 105-119.

Thomas L and Harri-Augstein E  (1985).  Self Organised Learning:
Foundations of a Conversational Science for Psychology.
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Yorke D  (1978).  Repertory Grids in Educational Research: Some
Methodological Considerations.  British Educational Research
Journal.  4(2), 63-74.

Yorke D  (1983).  Straight or Bent?  An Inquiry Into Rating
Scales in Repertory Grids.  British Educational Research Journal.
9(2), 141-151.

Yorke D  (1985).  Administration, Analysis and Assumption:  Some
Aspects of Validity, in Beail N  (ed).  Personal Constructs:
Applications in Clinical and Educational Settings.   Groom Helm,
London.

Yorke M  (1988).  Kelly's Eye:  An Alternative View of PCT, in
Fransella F and Thomas L  (eds).  Experimenting with Personal
Construct Psychology.  Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Yorke M  (1989).  The Intolerable Wrestle:  Words, Numbers and
Meanings.  International Journal of Personal Construct
Psychology.  2, 65-76.

Many thanks.

R.

-----Original Message-----
From: Guillem Feixas Viaplana [mailto:gfeixas@...]
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 02:03
To: RepGrid@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [RepGrid] Software analysis package


Dear colleagues,

I wonder whether you are aware of the existance of our computer
programme, GRIDCOR for the mathematical analysis of grid data. To
learn more about the types of analysis it performs and to download an
evaluation copy you can go to www.terapiacognitiva.net and then click
at GRIDCOR.

Best luck,
Dr. Guillem Feixas
Universitat de Barcelona





Hi John,

Like Raymond, I am interested in purchasing the analyis software for the
repertory Grid. It is nearly five years now since I did quite a lot of work
with the grid for British Telecom. I was very impressed with the tool as it
identified an issue that was not revealed by the more traditional
questionnaire approach.  However,  I did get my results analysed by a
consultant, who used quite an impressive software package.

I am now about to re-embark on a research project within my workplace
(Northland Polytechnic, New Zealand), and propose to use the grid. But I'd
also like to purchase this software analyis package.  Does Enquire supply
it? I've downloaded most of the material you have on offer.


Best regards,


Richard



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Dr. Guillem Feixas
Universitat de Barcelona
Facultat de Psicologia
Departament de Personalitat,
Avaluacio i Tractament Psicologics
Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 171
08035 Barcelona
Phone 34-93 312 5100/93402 1100
Fax   34-93402 1362/34-93402 1427
Home phone 34-93456 2882
e-mail "gfeixas@..."
Visit our webs at http://www.ub.es/personal/pcp.htm
     http://www.terapiacognitiva.www


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Dear colleagues,

I wonder whether you are aware of the existance of our computer
programme, GRIDCOR for the mathematical analysis of grid data. To
learn more about the types of analysis it performs and to download an
evaluation copy you can go to www.terapiacognitiva.net and then click
at GRIDCOR.

Best luck,
Dr. Guillem Feixas
Universitat de Barcelona





Hi John,

Like Raymond, I am interested in purchasing the analyis software for the
repertory Grid. It is nearly five years now since I did quite a lot of work
with the grid for British Telecom. I was very impressed with the tool as it
identified an issue that was not revealed by the more traditional
questionnaire approach.  However,  I did get my results analysed by a
consultant, who used quite an impressive software package.

I am now about to re-embark on a research project within my workplace
(Northland Polytechnic, New Zealand), and propose to use the grid. But I'd
also like to purchase this software analyis package.  Does Enquire supply
it? I've downloaded most of the material you have on offer.


Best regards,


Richard



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Dr. Guillem Feixas
Universitat de Barcelona
Facultat de Psicologia
Departament de Personalitat,
Avaluacio i Tractament Psicologics
Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 171
08035 Barcelona
Phone 34-93 312 5100/93402 1100
Fax   34-93402 1362/34-93402 1427
Home phone 34-93456 2882
e-mail "gfeixas@..."
Visit our webs at http://www.ub.es/personal/pcp.htm
     http://www.terapiacognitiva.www

Perhaps it's better to say that the computer analysis can improve the
performance of less experienced interviewer using a grid, simply because it
may alert them to some of the questions they need to ask and wouldn't have
thought of otherwise? This is not substitution for understanding PCT or the
theory behind grids, which also improves performance for everyone on using
grids. If a computerised grid elicitation and analysis program were simply
bells and whistles it wouldn't be a very good program would it? I assume
that the best grid analysis programs do not simply slot rattle from "human"
to "machine" but embody the best human insights into the computer
program..... We need another construct at right angles to this one to tell
us what it is about human interaction shoulder to shoulder in front of the
computer as opposed to eyeball to eyeball to each other, that is different,
better, worse or what....?

Marcus

P.S. I' d love a copy of that article too of yours, Devi, if it is ever
sent out but I'll try to get it otherwise in the meantime.
-----------------------------------------------




At 15:23 23/01/01 GMT, Devi Jankowicz wrote:
>Dear Karsten,
>
>I take your point about the value of using a computer in grid work.
>However, I do get worried when you imply that computerised
>routines can act as a substitute for professional experience among
>"less professional interviewers". I feel strongly that a reasonable
>knowledge of the underpinnings of the technique in personal
>construct psychology is very important, and that the bells and
>whistles of computerised techniques (and I use them daily myself,
>as well as teaching the theory) would simply distract and get in the
>way, _unless_ you said the kind of thing that I did: that computers
>are a bonus, very rarely an essential.
>
>>>(Jankowicz D. & Thomas L. (1982) 'An algorithm for the cluster
>>>analysis of repertory grids in HRD' _Personnel Review_ 11, 4, 15-
>>>22 and erratum, 1993 13, 1, 22.)
>>Do you know it it´s available somewhere on the net (which would
>>make it much quicker than going to a library)?
>
>Look at the date! And no, I haven't ever had time to rekey or scan it
>in. Tell you what, though: if your library hasn't got it and can't get it
>in through an inter-library loan scheme, please send me your snail-
>mail address and I'd be delighted to post you a photocopy.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Devi
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
Marcus Offer, NICEC
4 Featherbank Court
Horsforth
Leeds
LS18 4QF
Tel +44 (0)113 2589440
Fax +44 (0)113 2588589

On 23 Jan 2001, at 15:23, Devi Jankowicz wrote:

> Dear Karsten,
>
> I take your point about the value of using a computer in grid work.
> However, I do get worried when you imply that computerised
> routines can act as a substitute for professional experience among
> "less professional interviewers". I feel strongly that a reasonable
> knowledge of the underpinnings of the technique in personal
> construct psychology is very important, and that the bells and
> whistles of computerised techniques (and I use them daily myself,
> as well as teaching the theory) would simply distract and get in the
> way, _unless_ you said the kind of thing that I did: that computers
> are a bonus, very rarely an essential.
>

I would make too points:

1)  Kelly's theory is not complex- in fact PCT is very much
common sense.  This has, to me, been some of the attraction of it.
  It has a sort of intuitive reasonableness an familiarity to everyday
experieince.  Of course, good their usually does.  I'm concerned,
Devi, that many people in PCT surround the theory with mystery. I
think Kelly would abhore this.  All tools need to be used in context
to some theory - PCT and Repgrid is not exception.

2) The prime thing that computer analysis gives us TODAY (i.e. not
when most of the writing on Repgrid was done) is immediacy of
feedback.  When I first used computers the analysis was post hoc.
A computer now can give a subject feedback faster than any
manual technique other than very simple grids al la some of Kelly
early grids.  This is important becuase we can confirm the
construct system with the subject.  On the negatives of repgrid, the
language of cluster and factory analysis givethe impression of an
empirical tool - with repgrid is not.  I see this as the greatest issue
in grid analysis.  This of course is a general criticism, particularly
of cluster analysis.

regards,

Duncan


> >>(Jankowicz D. & Thomas L. (1982) 'An algorithm for the cluster
> >>analysis of repertory grids in HRD' _Personnel Review_ 11, 4, 15-
> >>22 and erratum, 1993 13, 1, 22.)
> >Do you know it it´s available somewhere on the net (which would
> >make it much quicker than going to a library)?
>
> Look at the date! And no, I haven't ever had time to rekey or scan it
> in. Tell you what, though: if your library hasn't got it and can't get it
> in through an inter-library loan scheme, please send me your snail-
> mail address and I'd be delighted to post you a photocopy.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Devi
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>


---------------------------------------
Duncan Unwin         'consilio manuque'

dunwin@...

PO Box 5023
Kenmore South, 4069
Australia

Dear all,
Valerie says:
> What does trouble me is seeing people relying on the computer to do
> their work for them. This often manifests itself as a cry of 'I've got
> all this data so please tell me what package I should use to analyse
> the results', and/or 'I've put the data through an analysis package
> but I don't know what it means.'
Verb. sap.!
Oh, if I had a pound for every time I've heard that one...
(Actually, shh... a couple of my clients came to me that way. I tried
to make sure they never came back for that reason, but learnt to do
it for themselves...)
Byeee,

Devi

May I add my two penn'orth to the discussion about whether you need a
computer to do Grid?

Those of us grey-beards (must take care of the excessive facial hair,
Valerie) who were around for the resurgence of Grid in the 1970's will
remember that when we taught Grid then, we made sure that people were
competent at interviewing skills, designing sessions to meet the purpose,
etc. Then when we got to the 'applications' part, faut de meiux we had to
help people develop the skills of designing a session without access to a
computer - certainly without immediate access. In fact I remember seeing my
very first 'portable' computer when two people wheeled it into the training
room at Brunel. The second half of 'Business Applications of the Repertory
Grid,' which I wrote in 1978, has almost all its examples based on a
computer-free world.

So I agree with Devi that it's not compulsory to have a computer. A good
Grid interviewer - and I don't think you can be a good Grid interviewer
without knowing some basic PCP theory - faced with an immediate need could
probably design a session without one. The skill required is knowing where,
for this particular purpose, the important information can be found, and
designing your session accordingly. The important information could be
found by frequency counts, content analysis, comparing just one or two
elements, comparing just one or two constructs, etc.

On the other hand I agree with Karsten that there are also situations where
a computer can do things which a human being can't - e.g. to handle very
complex data, to participate in the interview by giving instant feedback
and so helping to expand and differentiate the Grid. (Also, a computerised
version can be self-administered, which helps make cost-effective use of
the researcher's or counsellor's time).

What does trouble me is seeing people relying on the computer to do their
work for them. This often manifests itself as a cry of 'I've got all this
data so please tell me what package I should use to analyse the results',
and/or 'I've put the data through an analysis package but I don't know what
it means.' The analogy I give people is that you can do a spread-sheet on
your finances but it won't actually tell you to cancel that cruise - you
have to work that out yourself. Apart from anything else, I think that this
approach fixes people's attention on the computerised analysis. There are
some applications of Grid where the journey is more important than the
arrival - for example I've got a session on my laptop about key
relationships. What's important here is what the Grid process brings to my
attention, rather than any 'finished product'.

In the old days when we didn't have computers it was much less common to
hear the cries quoted above, because you had to think about how you'd
analyse the data as part of designing the session, and you had to have a
reasonable implicit knowledge of PCP to get your design right. Now I think
that some folk rush into an orgy of data-gathering and then find themselves
pleading to be told what to do next.

Them's me sentiments.

Valerie.

many thanks Barry. I've fofllowed this up and hopefully will be able
to track it down.

--- In RepGrid@egroups.com, brieftherapy@a... wrote:
> Andrew
> Re your request. Try and get a copy of "A Manual Repertory Grid
Technique" by
> Fransella and Bannister (Academic Press) This excellent manual will
give you
> everything including worked examples of basic grids.
>
> Barry PopePsychotherapist
> brieftherapy@a...
> www.ukpsychotherapy.com

Dear Karsten,

I take your point about the value of using a computer in grid work.
However, I do get worried when you imply that computerised
routines can act as a substitute for professional experience among
"less professional interviewers". I feel strongly that a reasonable
knowledge of the underpinnings of the technique in personal
construct psychology is very important, and that the bells and
whistles of computerised techniques (and I use them daily myself,
as well as teaching the theory) would simply distract and get in the
way, _unless_ you said the kind of thing that I did: that computers
are a bonus, very rarely an essential.

>>(Jankowicz D. & Thomas L. (1982) 'An algorithm for the cluster
>>analysis of repertory grids in HRD' _Personnel Review_ 11, 4, 15-
>>22 and erratum, 1993 13, 1, 22.)
>Do you know it it´s available somewhere on the net (which would
>make it much quicker than going to a library)?

Look at the date! And no, I haven't ever had time to rekey or scan it
in. Tell you what, though: if your library hasn't got it and can't get it
in through an inter-library loan scheme, please send me your snail-
mail address and I'd be delighted to post you a photocopy.

Kind regards,

Devi

Valerie,

Extermely helpful - many thanks for taking the time to respond in
detail.

My primary interest is in how Rep Grid analysis can interact with
other data to produce a composite picture of a particular element or
series of elements. Since the elements will be pre-supplied in this
instance I wondered if it was possible to avoid a myriad of different
constructs (which could be seen values for elements). Why? Because
I'm interested in looking at trends, and unique construct sets don't
lend themselves to this kind of investigation.

You're of course right in pointing out the value of practice, so I
think I'll follow up on your sensible advice.

I'll feedback to the group on my experiences.

By the way, Fraser is my surname.

Kind regards

Andrew

--- In RepGrid@egroups.com, Valerie Stewart <106026.766@c...> wrote:
> Message text written by INTERNET:RepGrid@egroups.com
>
> Andrew (don't have your surname) wrote a couple of questions. Let
me do my
> best to answer:
>
> >1) If you pre-determine the elements that are to be used to elicit
> constructs AND you give a subset of constructs which research shows
are
> associated with the "typical interviewee" (ouch), does this neagate
the
> value of Rep Grid in this sense?
>
> Unfortunately, many answers about Grid start with 'It depends on
your
> purpose .....' because you can have lots of variations on the garden
> variety Grid and they can be valid if they suit your purpose. Garden
> variety Grid - as I've described it in the tutorial material you
refer to,
> and as it's generally understood - means that the interviewer
introduces no
> content whatsoever to the interview, after having configured the
session to
> meet the purpose. So the interviewer would plan what kind of
elements it
> would be appropriate to get the interviewee to construe, and the
> qualifiers, but wouldn't suggest the constructs. (Hints on element
> selection are on the Enquire Within web page).
>
> So the question is - why would you want to give the interviewee a
> set/subset of constructs, when the beauty of Grid is that it lets
you
> extract the interviewee's own constructs? Taken to its extreme, if
you
> supplied all the elements and constructs you'd be administering a
standard
> questionnaire format, and you couldn't call this a Rep Grid. BUT
you might
> want to see how the interviewee uses some constructs which you've
supplied
> (for instance, suppose you're doing a conflict resolution exercise
between
> Ann and John, you might at some point want to get Ann to use John's
> constructs and vice-versa).
>
> This is one of those examples when Grid's capacity to be
a 'universal
> engine' can be a handicap, because you can do almost anything with
it as
> long as you know what you've done and why. What I'd suggest is that
you try
> doing some absolutely 'pure' interviews, on a variety of topics,
until
> you've got a feel for what it's doing. Then you can experiment with
> variations to suit your purpose.
>
> 2) If Dendritic analysis comes up with strong correlations so that
you can
> say, for example, Interviewee X perceived a strong
> correlation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in terms of
the
> construct Removed from Reality - In touch with the people they
govern, what
> is the NEXT step from this? I think I'm looking for *meaning*
behind the
> correlations. SOrry I can't be more specific at this stage.
> <
> The dendritic analysis of the elements (in this case Thatcher and
Reagan)
> tells you how closely correlated those elements are, in terms of
all the
> constructs, not just one. So if T and R are seen as very similar it
means
> that they've been rated on lots of constructs, not just 'removed
from
> reality - in touch with the people they govern.'
>
> The purpose of doing the dendritic analysis is to map the
interviewee's
> perceptions of the subject-matter and then to probe more closely if
> necessary. The assumption behind the analysis is that 'meaning lies
in
> function' - i.e. you only know what the words mean if you can see
how the
> person uses them. So if the analysis shows a strong correlation
between T
> and R, it means that for your interviewee T and R are likely to be
judged
> as almost identical - on the evidence so far. So the next step is
to ask
> the interviewee whether they really are as similar as this, or are
there
> some differences between them which we haven't captured? If the
answer's 'I
> don't think they're as similar as this,' then you ask for a new
construct
> on which T scores at one end and R at the other.
>
> Same goes for the constructs. For example if your interviewee had
given
> 'pro-choice - anti-abortion' and 'unsaved - Christian' as
constructs and
> there was a strong correlation between them, then you know that
s/he is
> very likely to describe pro-choice people as heathen, and
Christians as
> anti-abortion. These two constructs are semantically very
different, but
> used in the same way. So you'd check whether this accurately
represents the
> interviewee's perceptions, by asking him/her to think of a new
element -
> someone who's Christian and pro-choice, or someone who's unsaved but
> anti-abortion.
>
> So your NEXT step from this is to explore the analysis, which shows
you the
> meanings so far and enables you to refine them as the next step in
the
> interview.
>
>
> Gosh, this takes longer to write than to demonstrate! Try a few
sessions
> yourself and feel what it's asking you to do.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Valerie.

Hi Devi,

I like your way of put things in a broader context. :)

In fact I see some advantages of using computers for Repertory Grids. I
totally agree that a good interview can be done on the back of an old
envelope by a good interviewer.
The points I see as advantages in computer bases interviewing are
1. A less professionell interviewer can be supported by software based
routines (which of course has the diadvantage of restriction for more
advanced interviewers)
2. A computer based interview can do the analysis much quicker, because the
data is already entered into the computern:
Most of our clients want feedback imidiately after an interview and don´t
want to wait for an hour.

Nevertheless I´m curious about your article.
(Jankowicz D. & Thomas L. (1982) 'An algorithm for the cluster analysis of
repertory grids in HRD' _Personnel Review_ 11, 4, 15-22 and erratum, 1993
13, 1, 22.)

Do you know it it´s available somewhere on the net (which would make it much
quicker than going to a library)?

Thanks in advance.
Kind regards

Karsten Posse


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Devi Jankowicz [mailto:devi.jankowicz@...]
Gesendet am: Montag, 22. Januar 2001 12:54
An: RepGrid@egroups.com
Betreff: Re: [RepGrid] Re: Introduction

Dear all,

On 21 Jan 01, at 20:52, John Mayes wrote:

> I am pleased that you are having a close look at Rep Grid. We here
> believe that it is a technique that has the potential to make a
> difference in the world but that it us so far under-utilised, mostly
> because it is often not easy to fully implement without the aid of
> computer technology.

Depends what you mean by 'fully implement'. Provided you go about
it the right way (which means having regard to the basic principles
of personal construct theory rather than being hardware-dependent),
you can elicit a grid very easily indeed on the back of an old
envelope.

Moreover, you can do a variety of simple analyses of both element
and construct relationships on the reverse of that envelope.

Choose a slightly larger envelope, apply an hour's-worth of patience,
  and you can do a cluster analysis by hand to a 10 x 10 grid if you
want to (Jankowicz & Thomas 1982): and the information you obtain
in a cluster analysis is sufficient for many, many applications.

You do _not_ have to have a computer.

Kind regards,

Devi Jankowicz

Jankowicz D. & Thomas L. (1982) 'An algorithm for the cluster
analysis of repertory grids in HRD' _Personnel Review_ 11, 4, 15-22
and erratum, 1993 13, 1, 22.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Hi All,

Re Devi's comments below:

Yes I agree and I did go on to say that our web site provides
examples, not all of which require computer technology.

What I had in mind, in the context of the question from Raymond, was
an aspect of using grid with software. This was the idea of
conducting the interview while, at the same time, using the results
of analysis as feedback. Feedback can obviously be done some time
after analysis has been completed but computer analysis integrated
with the interview process provides the ability to do cluster
analysis of the data while the interviewee is present and to use that
analysis as input to further construct development.

That is not always necessary or appropriate but it does provide an
additional powerful tool which allows interactive interviewing, free
from interviewer bias, while developing very large grids. That is not
easily done manually while having an ongoing interviewing
conversation with a client!

Best wishes

John


--- In RepGrid@egroups.com, "Devi Jankowicz" <devi.jankowicz@l...>
wrote:

> Depends what you mean by 'fully implement'. Provided you go about
> it the right way (which means having regard to the basic principles
> of personal construct theory rather than being hardware-dependent),
> you can elicit a grid very easily indeed on the back of an old
> envelope.
>
> Moreover, you can do a variety of simple analyses of both element
> and construct relationships on the reverse of that envelope.
>
> Choose a slightly larger envelope, apply an hour's-worth of
patience,
>  and you can do a cluster analysis by hand to a 10 x 10 grid if you
> want to (Jankowicz & Thomas 1982): and the information you obtain
> in a cluster analysis is sufficient for many, many applications.
>
> You do _not_ have to have a computer.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Devi Jankowicz
>
> Jankowicz D. & Thomas L. (1982) 'An algorithm for the cluster
> analysis of repertory grids in HRD' _Personnel Review_ 11, 4, 15-22
> and erratum, 1993 13, 1, 22.

Message text written by INTERNET:RepGrid@egroups.com

Andrew (don't have your surname) wrote a couple of questions. Let me do my
best to answer:

>1) If you pre-determine the elements that are to be used to elicit
constructs AND you give a subset of constructs which research shows are
associated with the "typical interviewee" (ouch), does this neagate the
value of Rep Grid in this sense?

Unfortunately, many answers about Grid start with 'It depends on your
purpose .....' because you can have lots of variations on the garden
variety Grid and they can be valid if they suit your purpose. Garden
variety Grid - as I've described it in the tutorial material you refer to,
and as it's generally understood - means that the interviewer introduces no
content whatsoever to the interview, after having configured the session to
meet the purpose. So the interviewer would plan what kind of elements it
would be appropriate to get the interviewee to construe, and the
qualifiers, but wouldn't suggest the constructs. (Hints on element
selection are on the Enquire Within web page).

So the question is - why would you want to give the interviewee a
set/subset of constructs, when the beauty of Grid is that it lets you
extract the interviewee's own constructs? Taken to its extreme, if you
supplied all the elements and constructs you'd be administering a standard
questionnaire format, and you couldn't call this a Rep Grid. BUT you might
want to see how the interviewee uses some constructs which you've supplied
(for instance, suppose you're doing a conflict resolution exercise between
Ann and John, you might at some point want to get Ann to use John's
constructs and vice-versa).

This is one of those examples when Grid's capacity to be a 'universal
engine' can be a handicap, because you can do almost anything with it as
long as you know what you've done and why. What I'd suggest is that you try
doing some absolutely 'pure' interviews, on a variety of topics, until
you've got a feel for what it's doing. Then you can experiment with
variations to suit your purpose.

2) If Dendritic analysis comes up with strong correlations so that you can
say, for example, Interviewee X perceived a strong
correlation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in terms of the
construct Removed from Reality - In touch with the people they govern, what
is the NEXT step from this? I think I'm looking for *meaning* behind the
correlations. SOrry I can't be more specific at this stage.
<
The dendritic analysis of the elements (in this case Thatcher and Reagan)
tells you how closely correlated those elements are, in terms of all the
constructs, not just one. So if T and R are seen as very similar it means
that they've been rated on lots of constructs, not just 'removed from
reality - in touch with the people they govern.'

The purpose of doing the dendritic analysis is to map the interviewee's
perceptions of the subject-matter and then to probe more closely if
necessary. The assumption behind the analysis is that 'meaning lies in
function' - i.e. you only know what the words mean if you can see how the
person uses them. So if the analysis shows a strong correlation between T
and R, it means that for your interviewee T and R are likely to be judged
as almost identical - on the evidence so far. So the next step is to ask
the interviewee whether they really are as similar as this, or are there
some differences between them which we haven't captured? If the answer's 'I
don't think they're as similar as this,' then you ask for a new construct
on which T scores at one end and R at the other.

Same goes for the constructs. For example if your interviewee had given
'pro-choice - anti-abortion' and 'unsaved - Christian' as constructs and
there was a strong correlation between them, then you know that s/he is
very likely to describe pro-choice people as heathen, and Christians as
anti-abortion. These two constructs are semantically very different, but
used in the same way. So you'd check whether this accurately represents the
interviewee's perceptions, by asking him/her to think of a new element -
someone who's Christian and pro-choice, or someone who's unsaved but
anti-abortion.

So your NEXT step from this is to explore the analysis, which shows you the
meanings so far and enables you to refine them as the next step in the
interview.


Gosh, this takes longer to write than to demonstrate! Try a few sessions
yourself and feel what it's asking you to do.

Hope this helps,

Valerie.

Dear all,

On 21 Jan 01, at 20:52, John Mayes wrote:

> I am pleased that you are having a close look at Rep Grid. We here
> believe that it is a technique that has the potential to make a
> difference in the world but that it us so far under-utilised, mostly
> because it is often not easy to fully implement without the aid of
> computer technology.

Depends what you mean by 'fully implement'. Provided you go about
it the right way (which means having regard to the basic principles
of personal construct theory rather than being hardware-dependent),
you can elicit a grid very easily indeed on the back of an old
envelope.

Moreover, you can do a variety of simple analyses of both element
and construct relationships on the reverse of that envelope.

Choose a slightly larger envelope, apply an hour's-worth of patience,
  and you can do a cluster analysis by hand to a 10 x 10 grid if you
want to (Jankowicz & Thomas 1982): and the information you obtain
in a cluster analysis is sufficient for many, many applications.

You do _not_ have to have a computer.

Kind regards,

Devi Jankowicz

Jankowicz D. & Thomas L. (1982) 'An algorithm for the cluster
analysis of repertory grids in HRD' _Personnel Review_ 11, 4, 15-22
and erratum, 1993 13, 1, 22.

Valerie,

Welcome. I have just gone through the basics of Rep Grid from the
Enquire Within website. I like your style of writing. I'm trying to
understand a couple of things at the moment and wondered whether
you/the group can help.

1) If you pre-determine the elements that are to be used to elicit
constructs AND you give a subset of constructs which research shows
are associated with the "typical interviewee" (ouch), does this
neagate the value of Rep Grid in this sense?

2) If Dendritic analysis comes up with strong correlations so that
you can say, for example, Interviewee X perceived a strong
correlation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in terms of
the construct Removed from Reality - In touch with the people they
govern, what is the NEXT step from this? I think I'm looking for
*meaning* behind the correlations. SOrry I can't be more specific at
this stage.

Thanks

Andrew

--- In RepGrid@egroups.com, Valerie Stewart <106026.766@c...> wrote:
> Hello Group.
>
> Valerie.

Hello Group.

Valerie.

Hi Richard,

First I need to say that Enquire Within is not primarily a construct
analysis tool.

This is because Enquire Within is designed to facilitate high quality
research by providing the tools and structure to gather high quality
data on personal constructs. It puts together a range of processes
which reflect best practice (often, not all of the processes are
needed in a particular application). We find that, all too often,
researchers are paying insufficient attention to the fundamentals of
the repertory grid interview process and embarking on projects which
gather, at best, unreliable data. Then, having done that, they
attempt to draw conclusions from the data through statistical
processes.

So Enquire Within is designed to fit near the front end of the
research process to provide data from which reliable analysis can
proceed, if that is necessary. It does use dendritic analysis but
only in the cause of refining and challenging the data gathered so
far. This is an interactive process which facilitates the ongoing
filling of gaps in the data gathered and resolution of
inconsistencies which is not practicable without the power of the
computer to carry out correlation analyses on the fly (this is
largely automatic and hidden from the user so it keeps out of the way
of the interview process).

Many other software applications provide statistical analysis tools
and Enquire Within recognises the need for statistical analysis in
some projects by providing output which can be used in this way. It
also provides for data to be output for direct loading into Wingrid
for Principal Components Analysis or for other statistical analysis
software.

Best wishes

John


--- In RepGrid@egroups.com, Richard Harris <RHarris@n...> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Like Raymond, I am interested in purchasing the analyis software
for the
> repertory Grid. It is nearly five years now since I did quite a lot
of work
> with the grid for British Telecom. I was very impressed with the
tool as it
> identified an issue that was not revealed by the more traditional
> questionnaire approach.  However,  I did get my results analysed by
a
> consultant, who used quite an impressive software package.
>
> I am now about to re-embark on a research project within my
workplace
> (Northland Polytechnic, New Zealand), and propose to use the grid.
But I'd
> also like to purchase this software analyis package.  Does Enquire
supply
> it? I've downloaded most of the material you have on offer.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Richard

Hi John,

Like Raymond, I am interested in purchasing the analyis software for the
repertory Grid. It is nearly five years now since I did quite a lot of work
with the grid for British Telecom. I was very impressed with the tool as it
identified an issue that was not revealed by the more traditional
questionnaire approach.  However,  I did get my results analysed by a
consultant, who used quite an impressive software package.

I am now about to re-embark on a research project within my workplace
(Northland Polytechnic, New Zealand), and propose to use the grid. But I'd
also like to purchase this software analyis package.  Does Enquire supply
it? I've downloaded most of the material you have on offer.


Best regards,


Richard

Hello Raymond,

I am pleased that you are having a close look at Rep Grid. We here
believe that it is a technique that has the potential to make a
difference in the world but that it us so far under-utilised, mostly
because it is often not easy to fully implement without the aid of
computer technology.

The Enquire Within site is a commercial site but it does provide
freely an extensive range of information to help people come to grips
with using Grid. It is a subject so far not widely taught well so the
site covers the underlying theory, numerous examples (some not
requiring software to implement) and hints together with examples of
areas of application. The tutorial that comes with the downloadable
version provides sufficient information and worked examples for users
to get an idea of the potential of Grid and Enquire Within. The full
version provides more in depth tutorial material and the WorkBooks
provide worked examples and tutorial material for several specialist
application areas based on years of practical experience in a
consulting environment.

If you haven't already read Dr Valerie Stewart's `Business
Applications of Repertory Grid' there is a free copy of the first
seven chapters available for downloading from the site at
<http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz/business.htm>. This is the classic on
the subject and should provide a good understanding.

Grid has many applications in both business and psychology. Many
applications provide good results without statistical analysis but, a
well designed and implemented academic research project can provide
useful material for in-depth statistical analysis.

We hope that you will continue with your study and we would welcome
any further questions. I am sure that you will find other members of
this eGroup also eager to help.

Regards

John Mayes
Moderator

--- In RepGrid@egroups.com, vicandray@r... wrote:
> Hi
>    I'm from Glasgow in Scotland and I've been studying the tutorial
> from Enquire Within and am interested in the various aspects of the
> Repertory Grid with a view to buying the software. I am not
> experienced in the Grid, but would like to learn more from a
personal
> point of view. I don't know if this is a business site or a
> psychological study, but I really would like to learn more.
>
>                       Sincerely
>                                Raymond Sharp

Hi
    I'm from Glasgow in Scotland and I've been studying the tutorial
from Enquire Within and am interested in the various aspects of the
Repertory Grid with a view to buying the software. I am not
experienced in the Grid, but would like to learn more from a personal
point of view. I don't know if this is a business site or a
psychological study, but I really would like to learn more.

                       Sincerely
                                Raymond Sharp

Ligia,

Try Stewart V. & Stewart A. _Business Applications of Repertory
Grid_ London McGraw Hill 1982. It's out-of-print but if you can get
hold of it through a library, has interesting sections on training
evaluation and management "attitude" assessment whuich may
provide some fruitful ideas.

Kind regards,

Devi Jankowicz

> Hello!
> I'm interested in RepGrid application in management higher education;
> I´m starting an investigation focusing on the impact of management
> courses on students' images of manager and organisation ( in
> Portugal). Any information about previous applications of RepGrid in
> this area is precious! Thanks and regards Lígia
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

Hello!
I'm interested in RepGrid application in management higher education;
I´m starting an investigation focusing on the impact of management
courses on students' images of manager and organisation ( in
Portugal).
Any information about previous applications of RepGrid in this area is
precious! Thanks and regards
Lígia

Hi Andrew,

This is quite a hard question because, although the basic grid process is
very simple, the underlying theory isn't and there are many ways it can be
used depending on what you want to achieve. So I will rely on material
available on the web to get you going and then attempt to deal with any
supplementary questions later.

Basically, a repertory grid session is a structured conversation and that
is all it needs to be. It may or may not use computer technology and may or
may not involve statistical analysis. A simple low-tech application
entitled `Sweet and Simple #1' can be found at
<http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz/sweet1.htm>.

If that helps the you might like to consider downloading `Business
Applications of Repertory Grid' the first seven chapters of the pre
computer classic on practical application by Dr Valerie Stewart. This is
available for free at <http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz/business.htm>.

I hope this helps and I would welcome further questions.

Regards

John


At 16:45 8/1/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello there. This is either the easiest or hardest question you're
>likely to get, but where can I find a Noddy guide to RepGrid that
>will explain to me in *simple* (very simple) terms what the stages in
>the process are. If there was worked example then this would help. I
>can then move on a bit.
>
>Thanks for any help you care to give
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com


John Mayes
<mailto:john@...>
<http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz>

Andrew
Re your request. Try and get a copy of "A Manual Repertory Grid Technique" by
Fransella and Bannister (Academic Press) This excellent manual will give you
everything including worked examples of basic grids.

Barry PopePsychotherapist
brieftherapy@...
www.ukpsychotherapy.com

Hello there. This is either the easiest or hardest question you're
likely to get, but where can I find a Noddy guide to RepGrid that
will explain to me in *simple* (very simple) terms what the stages in
the process are. If there was worked example then this would help. I
can then move on a bit.

Thanks for any help you care to give

Andrew

Hi Eugene,

Thank you for joining the eGroup.

In answer to your question you might find a good starting point a series of
examples of the application of Rep Grid in schools which are at our web site.

One example relates to a teacher who has a class of 9-10 year olds in a
large city and shows the progress of a session accompanied by two kinds of
commentary, what is happening and what the teacher was saying as we went
through the session - in other words, the insights it provoked in him.

Another example shows a session whose purpose is to explore and develop the
students' learning in the field of economic geography. While this may be
somewhat advanced for the students you have in mind it shows the general idea.

You can find these examples and others by going to
<http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz/example.htm>. You may find other examples
of interest linked from there or you could try searching the site.

I hope you will find other list members will share examples as the eGroup
grows.

John Mayes


At 09:53 3/1/2001 +0000, you wrote:

>I am interesting  in the practical application of Personal Construct
>Theory in the education, in primary school.
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>RepGrid-unsubscribe@egroups.com


John Mayes
<mailto:john@...>
<http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz>

I am interesting  in the practical application of Personal Construct
Theory in the education, in primary school.

Hi Dave,

There is quite a bit of information about use of Grid in groups on
our web site. One way to access this might be to go to the search
page and search for `groups'.

The WorkBook 'Developing Management Competences and Facilitating
Organisational Change'  discusses this in some detail. There is a
charge if you want to buy this, but if you wish to discuss group
processes here then we'd be pleased to do so.


--- In RepGrid@egroups.com, dave@w... wrote:
> I am interested in the experiences anyone else has in working rep
> grids with groups, either at he same time, or aggregating results
in
> some way.

I am interested in the experiences anyone else has in working rep
grids with groups, either at he same time, or aggregating results in
some way.