PCP1998Q4: looking for some suggestions

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BDEF8D.26A7CBC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For a fledgling PhD thesis, I am about to undertake a batch of repertory =
grid interviews aimed at understanding more about the construal of =
people involved with Tourette syndrome. I say "involved with", because I =
want to look at the frame of reference of three groups: T.S. sufferers =
themselves, their clinicians (or 'treating' physicians), and the more =
removed 'research scientist' (persons involved in research and =
development of gene isolation, perhaps). The provisional assumption is =
that members of all three groups seem to speak of T.S. by using =
repertoirs taken from the current "expert line" (i.e., biomedical), yet =
- I imagine - that these models/describings are put to different social =
and practical uses (in the 'construction of this disorder'). My feeling =
is that there might be something of interest here beyond the (perhaps =
trivial) fact that some people 'have IT', while others 'work on IT'. =
At least I think it is worth exploring, and using as a model for better =
gaining a better grip of concepts and interactions between the diagnozed =
and their diagnosticians.

I'm wondering if any experienced Kellians might have any ideas on the =
type of elements (for this domain of interest), that would be A) =
concrete enough to elicit relevant constructs from; and B) significantly =
well understood from the point of view of members of all three types (of =
TS involvement, as I define it). In this, and for utility of =
comparison, I wish to procure some form of standardization - either =
through the supply of element sets, or even by 'hard wiring-in' two or =
three prepared constructs. Hopefully this will also leave plenty of =
scope for the truly personal and ideographic, and to see what that might =
also open up.

At this stage, I am very flexible and would welcome any thoughts or =
suggestions from the PCP community. One idea I have is to use other =
ailments (as elements) of which all parties have experience or knowledge =
of, and see how TS seems to fit in as an 'illness' as such. Another is =
to try and get at construal systems of the matrix of relations that does =
(or should from the persons point of view) exist between those needing =
expert help, and those providing that help. This is more on the =
interactional side, as opposed to the illness/disorder range of =
meanings. But perhaps - with at least these two examples - a framework =
could be wrought over the grid that illuminates both. These examples =
might get stimulate some thought. But putting them to the side for the =
moment, I would be most grateful for ANY tips, comments, or any =
imaginative ideas that you might have on this subject.

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BDEF8D.26A7CBC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For a fledgling PhD thesis, I am = about to=20 undertake a batch of repertory grid interviews aimed at understanding = more about=20 the construal of people involved with Tourette syndrome. I say = "involved=20 with", because I want to look at the frame of reference of three = groups:=20 T.S. sufferers themselves, their clinicians (or 'treating' physicians), = and the=20 more removed 'research scientist' (persons involved in research and = development=20 of gene isolation, perhaps). The provisional assumption is that members = of all=20 three groups seem to speak of T.S. by using repertoirs taken from the = current=20 "expert line" (i.e., biomedical), yet - I imagine - that these = models/describings are put to different social and practical uses (in = the=20 'construction of this disorder'). My feeling is that there might = be=20 something of interest here beyond the (perhaps trivial) fact that some = people=20 'have IT', while others 'work on IT'. At least I think it is = worth=20 exploring, and using as a model for better gaining a better grip of = concepts and=20 interactions between the diagnozed and their = diagnosticians.

I'm wondering if any experienced = Kellians might=20 have any ideas on the type of elements (for this domain of interest), = that would=20 be A) concrete enough to elicit relevant constructs from; and B) = significantly=20 well understood from the point of view of members of all three types (of = TS=20 involvement, as I define it). In this, and for utility of = comparison, I=20 wish to procure some form of standardization - either through the supply = of=20 element sets, or even by 'hard wiring-in' two or three prepared=20 constructs. Hopefully this will also leave plenty of scope for the = truly=20 personal and ideographic, and to see what that might also open = up.

At this stage, I am very flexible = and would=20 welcome any thoughts or suggestions from the PCP community. One = idea I=20 have is to use other ailments (as elements) of which all parties have = experience=20 or knowledge of, and see how TS seems to fit in as an 'illness' as = such. =20 Another is to try and get at construal systems of the matrix of = relations that=20 does (or should from the persons point of view) exist between those = needing=20 expert help, and those providing that help. This is more on the=20 interactional side, as opposed to the illness/disorder range of = meanings. =20 But perhaps - with at least these two examples - a framework could be = wrought=20 over the grid that illuminates both. These examples might get = stimulate=20 some thought. But putting them to the side for the moment, I = would=20 be most grateful for ANY tips, comments, or any imaginative ideas that = you might=20 have on this subject.