3.1.2 The Basic Procedure Is in 10 Steps
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131
(1) Agree a topic with your respondent and write it onto the sheet.
(2) Agree a set of elements, and write these along the diagonals at the top of
the grid sheet.
(3) Explain that you wish to find out how s/he thinks about the elements,
and that you’ll do this by asking him or her to compare them
systematically.
(4) Taking three elements (numbers 1, 3, and 5), ask your respondent,
‘Which two of these are the same in some way, and different from the
third?’ Provide assurance that you’re not looking for a ‘correct’ answer,
just how s/he sees the elements.
(5) Ask your respondent why: ‘What do the two have in common, as
opposed to the third?’ Write down the thing the two have in common, in
the first row on the left side of the grid sheet; and the converse of this (the
reason the third element is different) in the same row on the right of the
grid sheet, making sure that you’ve obtained a truly bipolar expression – a
pair of words or phrases which express a contrast. This is the person’s
construct.
(6) Check that you understand what contrast is being expressed; use the
interviewee’s words as much as possible, but do feel free to discuss what
s/he means, and to negotiate a form of words that makes sense to you
both.
(7) Present the construct as a rating scale, with the phrase on the left standing
for the ‘1’ end of the scale, and the phrase on the right standing for the ‘5’
Figure 3.1 A basic grid sheet
end of the scale. A form of words like this: ‘Now, the words I’ve written
down on the left: imagine they define the ‘‘1’’ end of a 5-point scale.
And that the words I’ve written down on the right define the ‘‘5’’
end of a 5-point scale.’
(8) Ask your respondent to rate each of the three elements on this scale,
writing the ratings into the grid as s/he states them: ‘I’d like you to rate
each of the three elements on this scale; give each of them one of the
numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, to say which end of the scale they’re nearest to’,
or words to that effect. Occasionally, check that the directionality of the
scaling is preserved, that is, that your respondent shouldn’t be using a ‘1’
when s/he is offering a ‘5’ and vice versa.
(9) Now ask the respondent to rate each of the remaining elements on this
construct. S/he’s only rated three elements so far; now to complete
rating the rest.
(10) Your task is to elicit as many different constructs as the person might
hold about the topic. So, repeat steps 4 to 8, asking for a fresh construct
each time, until your respondent can’t offer any new ones; use a
different triad of three elements each time: numbers 2, 4, and 6; then 1, 2,
and 10, and so on. Aim to obtain 8 to 12 constructs in all.
You’ll need to practise this procedure before progressing through this book.
Skim-read the rest of this chapter if you like, but as soon as you can:
Please carry out Exercise 3.1 before reading the
next section in detail.
‘Is that it, then? Er . . . a bit of a rigmarole to end up with these constructs and
numbers? A whole book about this?’ Yes and no! The value of a grid lies in
two things:
(a) Getting an accurate picture of the way in which the other person sees the
world (or part of it at least). Accuracy demands that you go about things in
a particular way, but, to be sure, there’s nothing especially difficult about
doing it.
(b) The description and analysis of the particular topic being dealt with. Some
subject matter is fascinating in its own right: imagine doing a grid on ‘my
policies’ with the prime minister. And some subject matter depends on its
context: the duke of Windsor, or Wallis Simpson, just before and just after
the duke’s abdication.
Like any other interview technique, in other words, its use has to be designed
in accordance with the purpose of your investigation. The technique, in itself,
is straightforward enough.