>.........................................
>Well, one can ascribe enduring characteristics, or one might
>acknowledge that the grid constitutes a meaningless task for
>some people, and find some other way by which they can express
>the meaning they intend in a way that suits our research needs.
>(Po-faced constructivist holier-than-thou response, albeit also
>true.)
>I know what you mean, though. Did you use supplied, detailed
>case scenarios, or a series of eliciting statements in which
>each respondent could provide his/her own particular set of
>scenarios that nevertheless fitted your intended realm of
>discourse? Or there's always role titles as elements instead,
I >guess, though it's probably too late for your needs.
>The tyranny imposed by research design, what?
The elements were 8 case scenarios each of which filled a sheet
of A4 paper. Of the 46 grid interviews only 1 person could not
complete the task. As noted there were big differences in the
ease with which component tasks were completed(eg rating).
There were types of constructs the grid approach typically did
not elicit. Laddering may have generated some of these
constructs, eg, those pertaining to ethnic background or
goodness/badness. Alternatively, a 'test-retest' approach would
have been useful (though for me not logistically feasible) or
using 2 different types of grids, eg supplied case scenarios
followed later by an elicitating statement approach as you
suggested.
As several authors have noted, the grid (perhaps like most
procedures) is not a neutral procedure.
Regards,
Bob Green
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%