5.1 AN OVERVIEW

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
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 

There are many analysis procedures. Given the nature of the repertory grid

and its underlying theory, both qualitative and quantitative approaches are

available to you. If you believe that quantification matters, there are certainly

numerate procedures; but if you happen to be uncomfortable with numbers,

there are procedures that don’t depend on them.

Hold onamoment.Ihappento believethat ‘qualitative’and‘quantitative’aremisleading

terms. They’re certainly not mutually exclusive. The most quantitative technique

involves an element of subjective judgement about the nature of things ^ naming the

factorsin a factoranalysis, forexample.Themost qualitative techniqueinvolves some

concern for the extent towhich the behaviouror narrative beingexaminedis typical or

5.1 An Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.2 A Stance Towards Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.3 Describing the Basic Grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Things to Do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Things to Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

idiosyncratic; or how important the features and trends discovered might be ^ both

matters of degree, and hence quantity. And there’s no doubt that, to understand what

someone is sayingin a grid, a blend of both approaches is required.

To make a distinction between the words in which the constructs are expressed, for

example, and the ratings used to record the relationship between elements and

constructs, calling the former ‘qualitative’ and the latter ‘quantitative’ would be

somewhatmisleading.

Some people identify the content of what is being said with the words that have been

used to label the constructs, and the structure of howit’s been saidwith thematrix of

ratings provided.While that’s a littlemore useful, it’s still a bit oversimplified.

Meaning is what has been captured in a grid, and, if you think back to what the grid

interviewinvolved, you can see that meaning is expressed by both thewords and the

numbers.You need thewordsto expressand communicate a construct ^ a dimension

throughwhichmeaning can be expressed.And you need the numbers to characterise

the elements with respect to that dimension ^ that is, to express the position of the

elements on that dimension ^ in other words, to ascribe themeaning attached to the

elements by their positions on the various constructs in the grid.

Agreed. What you’re concerned with when you analyse a grid is a blend of

both. My job is to outline the procedures in a way which does not frighten off

either the verbally or the numerically inarticulate reader. I stop at the point at

which my own inarticulacy prevents me from going any further, and hand you

over to other authors.

In a grid analysis, the job is twofold: firstly, to identify the interviewee’s

meanings, and, secondly, to draw whatever implications seem to be

appropriate to you. This is best thought of in terms of achieving one or

more of the following goals. The various techniques I deal with are listed

under each heading.