With respect to Laddering Up as described by Devi you may wish to explore
Enquire Within which provides two strategies for implementing that and a
way of implementing Laddering Down.
By contrast with Laddering Up, Laddering Down asks you for more detail and
greater differentiation about the construct. Laddering Up leads to answers
which are more abstract, conceptual, and global. Laddering Down produces
answers which are more specific and behavioral.
Hope this helps
John Mayes
At 22:36 7/5/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Lynda Koenig writes:
>
>>So my reason for delaying would be to establish basic notions like
>>construct structures, laddering, resistance-to-change, Individuality,
>>Commonality, and Sociality corrolaries first of all.))
>>
>>I'm very interested in this discussion and would appreciate some
>>discussion/description of 'laddering' and 'resistance to change exercises.'
>
>I'm sure lots of colleagues on this mailing list will respond to this
>one! Here's my own tuppence-worth.
>
>Laddering is a procedure by which you ask your respondent to indicate
>which pole of a construct s/he prefers, followed by a question to
>establish his/her reason for the preference: "why, for you, is this pole
>preferable?". The result is expressed as a new, superordinate construct;
>and the preference-reason-new superordinate construct procedure repeated
>iteratively, until it becomes absurd to ask for further reasons. The
>resulting, "most-superordinate" construct is interpreted as a core
>construct and, in some situations, as a personal value.
>
>This procedure is repeated for all the constructs a person has recorded
>in his/her grid, and a set of most-superordinate constructs obtained.
>
>Resistance-to-change involves comparing these most-superordinate
>constructs pairwise, iteratively for all combinations, and recording the
>preferences expressed: from which it is possible to obtain a hierarchy of
>more central, and less central, superordinate constructs which, for the
>applications I use them in, can be seen as a personal values hierarchy.
>
>The classic reference to both is:
>Hinkle, D.N. _The Change in Personal Constructs from the Viewpoint of a
>Theory of Implications_ Unpub. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University,
>1965.
>but this may be difficult to obtain; you'll find a description of each
>procedure in several of the more technique-orientated textbooks.
>
>I don't have them to hand, being at home right now, so I'm sure
>colleagues will correct me on the details: but I'm fairly certain that
>you'll find a description in one or other of the following:
>
>Bannister, D. & Mair, M. _The Evaluation of Personal Constructs_ London:
>Academic Press 1968.
>Fransella, F. & Bannister, D. _A Manual of Repertory Grid Technique_
>London: Academic Press 1977.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Devi Jankowicz
>
>
>
-------------------
John Mayes
<john@EnquireWithin.co.nz>
<http://www.EnquireWithin.co.nz>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%