One of the great things about Grid is that there’s hardly any jargon and it’s all pretty transparent – in fact there are only four jargon terms: elements, constructs, qualifiers, and laddering. In this session I hope to introduce you to the basics of eliciting constructs, which are the scales that we use when making judgements our perceptions. We’ll start simple – please look at the following three people and write down or speak aloud what any two of them have in common that makes them different from the third:
THE POPE
QUEEN ELIZABETH II
PRESIDENT OBAMA
It’s best if you can get into the habit of writing down your results, and a useful convention is to keep the pair-descriptor on the left and the description of the singleton on the right. So my guess is that you’ve written observations such as:
male – female; elected – unelected; older – younger; and maybe even wears a tiara – doesn’t have to wear a tiara.
Good. Pause for a moment and observe that all I did was provide the structure for your conversation with yourself – I didn’t suggest any of the constructs (as these bipolar distinctions are known). I provided the three elements for you to think about, but no more. That’s the basis of Grid’s claim to be free from interviewer bias; the interviewer or researcher will configure the session to meet a particular purpose, but the content and how it’s used will come purely from the interviewee.
Now I want you to work a little harder – and get more personally involved, please. So I’d like you to continue thinking about those three people, but this time write down or speak aloud what any two of them have in common that makes them different from the third in terms of the way you feel about them:
I don’t know what you’ll say here, but when I’m teaching Grid in the classroom I’ll often get answers like: conservative – liberal; indifferent public speaker – brilliant public speaker; disappointed their followers – lived up to expectations; reasonable – fanatic; appeals to older people – appeals to the young; good strategic insight – poor strategic insight; good negotiator – poor negotiator …..
Observe this list of constructs. They tell you much more about the person doing the perceiving than the first list does. The first list of constructs, in fact, is what we call propositional constructs – constructs that are properties of the elements, that are objectively verifiable and that reasonable people wouldn’t disagree about. The second list tells you much more about the language that the different classroom students used when giving their own, more subjective perceptions of the elements. In most Repertory Grid sessions you’ll want to work with these ‘evaluative’ or ‘behavioural’ constructs, though propositional constructs have their uses.
Sticking with the same three elements for the moment, try the question ‘what do any two of them have in common that makes them different from the third, in terms of their leadership skills?’ This question focuses the enquiry more tightly, and the choice of the ‘in terms of’ question (the qualifier) is part of the skills you need to design an effective Grid session.
Done that? Really? Written down your answers – you’ll need the practice, and I did ask you to promise to do the exercise. Right … now try ‘what do any two of them have in common that makes them different from the third, in terms of their sex appeal?’ My guess is that this would be a somewhat less rich domain to explore … hang on to that understanding, you’ll need it later.
Let’s experiment with a different set of elements. Try:
AUDI
NISSAN
TOYOTA
with the same two-against-one pairing, but this time using ‘in terms of how I feel about them,’ ‘in terms of their safety,’ and ‘in terms of their company image.’ See how you could use this technique in market research?
Now I’d like you to try something a little more in-depth. I want you to think of three people – real people whom you know well – one for each of the following prompts:
SOMEONE I ADMIRE
SOMEONE I FEEL SORRY FOR
MYSELF
Construe them (that is, use the two-against-one technique) along the following lines:
how I feel about them … their outlook on life … their skills … anything else that seems to me to be important.
If that doesn’t keep you busy for at least twenty constructs – and if it doesn’t give you some food for thought along the way – then you’re not taking this seriously.
Pause for Thought:
When I’m teaching Grid in a class, I always tell people that at some point round about now their brains will start to feel pulled in several different directions. Typically, the newcomer to Grid will, at about this stage, be feeling any or all of the following:
How do I manage the physical task of writing down the content of the interview?
What are the answers to these questions telling me about myself?
Could I use Grid technique to investigate ……..????????
Bear with me. My aim is to first make you comfortable and then to give you mastery. That’s why I ask you to actually participate in the various exercises. For each of the three preceding questions, the lights will come on for different people at different times and in different order. (Grid’s actually much easier to learn when it’s taught in small groups, because you get to hear other people’s questions and you have more time to let the learning sink in. Learning Grid, like the Grid process itself, is very non-redundant, very information-rich, and I always tell people that one of the most valuable parts of a Grid training course is the night’s sleep at the end of Day One. The unconscious does a good deal of sorting out the new things you’ve learned).
So, don’t worry if you find yourself being pulled in several directions. You’re being introduced to a technique of immense power, and it’s not surprising if the lights are going on all over the place. One learning put it rather well: ‘It’s like being given a new musical instrument – I want to explore its power, I can think of magnificent songs, and at the same time I need to learn the fingering and do my scales and arpeggios.’
Back to Work:
I’d like to propose a little homework before you move on to the next session. Here’s what I suggest:
1. Grab hold of some friends or colleagues and practise eliciting some constructs from them. You might find it easier to write down the elements on separate cards and allow your collaborator to physically shuffle them – moving them about rather than reading from a list really helps.
2. Practise writing down the constructs – the convention is that we number the elements, and write the numbers of the pair on the left and the number of the singleton on the right.
3. If you can assemble a small group of people whom you know to have well-formed opinions (especially if you know there’s a degree of disagreement amongst them) try a group construct elicitation session using political figures as elements. It should rapidly become apparent why PCT is called Personal Construct Theory – each person’s constructs and how they use them are particular to them.
4. Think of some of your own element groups and try working with them – if you can collar a friendly teenager, try eliciting some constructs about video games or school subjects or potential careers.
5. Try faking it - providing a construct that isn’t yours. Observe that it can’t be done. The best that anyone can do is exert a good deal of empathy for someone else’s construct system, but they’re still your constructs. Grid can’t be faked.
Want to Eavesdrop?
Please, pretty please, do the exercise above before moving on to this bit. Here’s an opportunity to eavesdrop on a Grid session used for a very simple purpose – in this case, the task is to choose a new car. Later, you’ll be able to listen to a teacher gaining insights into his students, a patient contemplating a crisis in his life, and many more deeply meaningful quests. I’m showing you this one because the content isn’t especially earth-shattering and I want you to really understand the process before we get onto more sophisticated purposes.
VS: We will start by asking you to think of some cars which you have known. Could you name two cars which you like?
C: The Audi 80 and the BMW Series 3.
VS: And two you dislike?
C: The Honda City and the Ford Falcon.
VS: One you would have if price and other considerations were no object?
C: The Audi 200.
VS: Can you think of one which a friend or relative drives?
C: A Lexus.
VS: Another one you’d have if price etc. were no object?
C: An Audi Cabriolet.
VS: Another one you dislike?
C: The new Rover.
VS: And just one more, at random, any car you know:
C: The Bristol Beaufighter.
VS: That ends the first part. You have the names of each car written on its own piece of paper, and we’ll explore what you think and feel about them.
C: Fine.
VS: My question is: think of something that any two of them have in common which makes them different from the third. I’ve picked the Lexus, the BMW Series 3, and the Audi 200 - please think of something that any two of them have in common that makes them different from the third, in terms of how you feel about them?
C: The Lexus and the BMW Series 3 – I think they’re flashy, but the Audi 200 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
VS writes flashy – wolf in sheep’s clothing onto a card, then asks:
Next: The Audi Cabriolet, the Bristol Beaufighter, and the Lexus:
C: The Audi Cabriolet and the Bristol Beaufighter, because people will turn and stare at them, while they’ll pass by the Lexus.
VS writes people will turn and stare at – people will pass by onto another card, then asks:
VS: Next: the Honda City, Audi 200, and BMW Series 3?
C: The Audi is very reliable, the Honda and the BMW not so reliable.
VS writes not so reliable – reliable onto another card, then says:
You’ll see that I'm asking you to find the dimensions you personally use when you’re considering cars, and asking for both ends of the scale. The goal is to find all the important dimensions – called ‘constructs’ – which you use when considering cars.’ Ready for some more?
C: Ah – I understand. Interesting …
VS: The next group of three is (and so on) ...
Customer then gives the following constructs in response ...
No waiting list for – waiting list for
Lays down a challenge – fails to meet any challenge
Expensive – cheap
Makes me feel young and sprightly – makes me feel old and past it
Makes realistic claims for its performance – makes unrealistic claims for its performance
Good safety record – poor safety record
Responsive in tight situations – not responsive in tight situations
New model – old model
Difficult to get serviced – easy to get serviced
VS: Thank you. You have given 12 constructs so far. You could (i) give some more constructs now, or (ii) think about what is important to you, or (iii) go into more detail about what each construct means.
Customer chooses (ii) and says I’d like to think about what’s important to me.
VS: Your first distinction reads flashy – wolf in sheep’s clothing. Do you prefer cars that are flashy or cars that are wolves in sheep’s clothing?
C: Wolf in sheep’s clothing, any time.
VS makes a + sign over this pole of the construct, then asks: Why do you prefer cars that are wolves in sheep’s clothing?
C: I like unobtrusive superiority. I don’t want to have to fight for my place, just take it.
At this point VS could ask more about why ‘unobtrusive superiority’ is important, but let’s leave that for the moment and go on to …
VS: Say in more detail how cars that are flashy differ from cars that are wolves in sheep’s clothing. What would you see or feel?
C: Flashy cars are covered in unnecessary gadgets; have auxiliary brake lights halfway up the back; have personalised number plates (yuck!); go-faster stripes; fancy hubcaps.
Wolves in sheep’s clothing don’t have gadgets; orthodox brake lights; standard fittings.
VS can go on eliciting constructs and ‘laddering’ until they feel that they’ve achieved the purpose, entering these new constructs:
covered in unnecessary gadgets – don’t have gadgets
have auxiliary brake lights halfway up the back – orthodox brake lights
personalised number plates (yuck!) – standard fittings
go-faster stripes – standard fittings
fancy hubcaps – standard fittings
but when they’ve agreed that there’s little more that can be said, the interview moves to the third stage:
VS: The next step is for you to rate every car on every scale. For example, cars which are strongly flashy will be rated as 1 and cars which are strongly wolf in sheep’s clothing will be rated as 5 …
C: (rates all the cars and enters the ratings into a matrix).
Eavedropping over:
We’ll leave it there for the moment. You’ve had an overview of almost everything that can happen in a Grid interview; we’re leaving out the matrix analysis because this is a subject that needs special treatment. However, let’s just acknowledge that we already have enough information to ask the customer to do any of the following:
Specify the characteristics of their ideal car;
Specify the characteristics of their least-preferred car;
Generate a ‘shopping list’ with which to examine information about cars that they might have in view;
And …
Ask their spouse to use the list to specify ideal and least-preferred;
In the event of a difference of opinion, pin it down to specifics and do a spot of priority-setting …
Other uses might occur to you. Feel free. Play a little …
Love,
Valerie.
No comments:
Post a Comment