|
Pictorial ways of eliciting
constructs |
|
In recognising the
different needs, orientations and skills of clients or research
participants who might benefit from engaging with a PCP
framework, a plethora of methods have been developed to help them
articulate
their constructs. Closest to the
traditional method of repertory grid
elicitation is the use of pictures, or indeed artefacts that
are real examples
of an element set, to replace the verbal labels usually used to
represent
elements. These have the advantage of being concrete and readily
manipulated
so that, in using the full context format or triadic elicitation,
elements
can be physically sorted and grouped together according to their
similarities
and differences. Apraiz (2001) used a technique like this, in which the
elements were large postcards reproductions of famous works of art,
with
adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities. As they sorted
the
pictures and commented on why some were placed near or on top of others
or far away from them, Apraiz noted the arrangements and the constructs
as they emerged so that the participants’ focus was on how they saw the
images rather than on a procedure.
There are often occasions in research and counselling when
confrontation with a formal procedure may act as a barrier to
reflection on experience and articulation of constructs. A client or
participant may be more comfortable with a narrative
format, more akin to normal conversation, yet they may need help in
focussing on particular experiences in order to explore them further. A
raft of methods that might be subsumed under the description ‘pictorial
methods’ make use of ‘non-text’ formats, such as
pictures, to stimulate a narrative process that helps the construer to
identify
constructs in use. Once articulated, these constructs may be explored
further
using questions about contrasts, laddering
and pyramiding techniques etc.
One branch of this family of techniques includes stimulated recall (
Bloom, 1953, Pope, 1981, Dolk et al, 1999). As its name
suggests, the aim is to enable participants to bring back to mind
events
that have happened in the past in order to explore further such issues
as what happened, why and what reactions there were to the event. Just
as Proust’s (1922) taste of Madeleine’s evoked memories thought long
since
vanished, pictures such as old photographs, video clips or even
illustrations
from magazines can bring to mind a rich web of constructs. Researchers
exploring
professional work contexts have used photographs of typical work
situations
to elicit constructs not only about how professionals might react in
some
situations but also what values and beliefs orient that reaction
(Sexton
& Denicolo 1997). Mignot (2002), working with young people in a
study
on career counselling, had his participants take photographs of
situations,
events and people which represented for them both positive and negative
futures. A collage exercise, sorting and collating images into those
that
were similar and different in various ways generated a rich set of
constructs.
Other examples of the same genre include drawings either provided to or
generated by participants.
Research into conceptual understanding in science and the alternative
frameworks that children bring to bear in their studies (Osborne and
Gilbert 1980), made use of stick figure drawings that illustrate
situations in which a chosen scientific concept (e.g. energy) is either
present or absent.
These simple drawings focus children’s discussion on the action being
portrayed
so that their discussion is replete with constructs about what is going
on and why. In contrast, Illuminative Incident Analysis
(Cortazzi
& Roote, 1975) involves participants or clients in producing a
drawing
to illustrate a particular incident that epitomises for them a general
situation
in which they are involved. Such interventions are particularly useful
in
contexts that are highly emotive, blocking verbal discourse. Talking
about,
describing what is going on in the drawing, why it is happening that
way
and how any people illustrated are feeling, provides a conduit to
otherwise unverbalised constructs. Ravenette (1997) provided many
examples of the
power of this method for shedding light on the worlds of children,
especially
those who had initial difficulty in expressing fears and worries in a
purely
verbal form.
Another form of putting pencil to paper to help unravel complicated
constructs and their provenance can be found in the technique variously
known as lifelines, snakes or rivers of experience
which can be traced back to the writings of the philosopher Dilthey. He
noted (quoted in a translation
by Rickman, 1976) that, among the plethora of experiences within an
individual’s life, there are some which have ‘special dignity’ or
significance and are held together by common meaning. The basic
structure of this technique
involves encouraging participants to focus on a particular role
they play in life (a professional or familial role, or self as a
musician
or writer, for instance) and then to consider events in their lives
that
influenced it. They are asked to draw their lives as a river or snake,
annotating
bends, twists and turns with a note of the causal events. Having
completed
the task very little input from the researcher/counsellor is required
as
participants describe what happened, how it influenced their
understandings
of the world and so on. During the process significant constructs that
guide
their current action are revealed, as is the history of their
development.
Examination of these can reveal to the participant potential
alternatives,
constructs which can now be challenged, having been revealed and
articulated,
as well as those which are useful to them in dealing with the present
and
the future.
Examples of these techniques and more detail about procedures can be
found in Denicolo & Pope (2001) and in Fransella (ed) (2003).
|
|
References
|
|
- Apraiz
E (2001). Using pictures of paintings as aids to communication with
people who have learning disabilities, Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University
of Reading
- Bloom
B S (1953). Thought Processes in Lectures and Discussions, Journal
of General Education 7:160-9
- Cortazzi
D & Roote S (1975). Illuminative Incident Analysis.
London:
McGraw Hill
- Denicolo
P M & Pope M L (2001). Transformative Professional
Practice: Personal Construct Approaches to Education and Research.
London: Whurr Publishers
- Dolk
M, Korthagen P, Wubbels T (1999). Instruments to investigate
knowledge
in teaching situations. Paper presented at ISATT Conference, Dublin,
July
- Fransella
F (ed) (2003). International Handbook of Personal
Construct
Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons
- Mignot
P (2002). Metaphor: a Paradigm for Constructive and Critical
Research into Career, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading
- Osbourne
R & Gilbert J (1980). A technique for exploring students’
views of
the world, Physics Education 15(6): 376-9
- Pope
M L (1981). In True Spirit: Constructive Alternativism in
Educational Research, paper presented at the 4th International Congress
on PCP, Brock University, Canada.
- Ravenette
A T (1997). Tom Ravenette: Selected Papers, PCP and the
Practice of
an Educational Psychologist. Farnborough: EPCA
- Rickman
H P (Ed and Translator) (1976). W.Dilthey - Selected
Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Sexton
R & Denicolo P M (1997) Formative Critical Incidents in
Early Professional Life, in Denicolo and Pope (eds) Sharing
Understanding and Practice. Farnborough:EPCA 133-43
|
|
Pam Denicolo
|
|
|