I agree with your response to
>Tony Downing who writes,
>>Does this mean it's not such a bright idea after all, to use rep. grid
>>methods to investigate these changes?
>
It seems to me many people use grids to measure change on the basis that
the grid will show change. My question always is 'change in what?'
1. What kind of thinking and behaviour are we starting with?
2. What kind of thinking and behaviour do we hope to end up with?
3. Can these kinds of thinking and behaviour be defined as structures in
grid data?
If we can find answers to these then by all means use grids to measure change.
And if you have to ask the person what the grid analysis means, it suggests
1. The grid was poorly designed or
2. The analysis was inappropriate.
Asking respondents to explain grid analysis results seems to have a flavour
of the old kelly dictum 'if you don't know what's wrong with a person, try
asking them'. My doctor must be a Kelly fan because every time I go to see
him, he asks 'what's wrong?'. When I tell him he says 'there's a lot of it
going around'. Asking people about their grid analysis results seems to
produce a similar comforting but ultimately unhelpful use of grids.
Richard
Richard C. Bell
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Melbourne
Parkville Vic 3052 Australia
ph: +61 3 9344 6364
fax: +61 3 9347 6618
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%