6.1 SIMPLE RELATIONSHIPS

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 

By the time you have thought over the process by which the grid you’re

analysing was elicited, carried out an eyeball inspection of the grid, and

developed a feeling for the kinds of construct being used, you will probably be

noticing relationships within the grid. Some elements seem to have received

rather similar ratings on the various constructs, while others were construed

very differently. Perhaps there are constructs on which the ratings are

practically identical across all the elements, as if the constructs were

expressing similar meanings. You may have noticed that the presence of

certain kinds of construct precludes others (pre-emptive), or appears to make

others easier for the interviewee to offer (constellatory).

Let’s take this in two stages. Firstly, using as an example an extract from a grid

about training officers, let’s examine relationships between elements.

Secondly, let’s examine relationships between constructs, illustrating the

procedure with a grid showing the ways in which a department store manager

views her sales staff.