|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PCP: A PERSONAL STORY
|
|
|
Fay Fransella
|
|
|
Centre for Personal Construct Psychology,
University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfortdshire, UK |
|
|
|
|
|
We were asked to
tell the story of what
personal construct psychology has done for each of us and what we have
done for
it. It is difficult if not impossible for me to separate out what
personal
construct psychology has done for me and what I have done for it. It
seems that
my whole life changed when I came across the name ‘George Kelly’.
THE BACKGROUND
Kelly appeared in what was, for me, a
psychological desert. It was full of methods - behavioural, statistical
and mechanical. I left Occupational
Therapy in 1959 to take a
degree in psychology at University College London as a mature student.
In
itself, a wonderful experience. I really enjoyed the sex life of the
3-spined
stickle-back, the dancing bees and all those lonely rats running their
mazes –
although I was not so keen on the rats. But, apart from ten hours of
lectures in
the whole three years from a psychoanalyst, there was little on you and
me.
I then did my clinical training at the Maudsley Hospital, Institute of Psychiatry,
the emporium of Hans Eysenck. Here were individuals, but they were
treated as
objects. Off I would go with an agoraphobic lady to help her climb her
graded
hierarchy of ‘trips outdoors’. We would talk about all sorts of things
– to
help her relax and feel confident to take the next step up the
hierarchy. But my
report only talked about how well or not she had done in increasing her
exploration of the big wide world. Nothing was ever said about what we
talked
about. I thought it really strange.
I then went on to do three years as an
Assistant Lecturer at the Institute. During that time I was registered
for my
PhD. It was, naturally, mechanical. It was on the effects of speaking
in time
to a metronome on the speech of those who stutter. All good behavioural
stuff.
But sabotage was afoot. I came across the repertory grid. At the Institute of Psychiatry at
that time, anyone who had a new ‘tool’ or ‘method’ immediately became
an expert
in that tool or method. So I quickly learned a bit about a rankings
grid. To the surprise of my supervisor I decided to ask my
PhD sample of stutterers to complete a grid. It was the first method I
had come
across that combined qualitative and quantitative data. Some have said
that
Osgood’s semantic differential (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1961)
did that,
but, to me, it is a nomothetic method of measurement (Fransella, 1964)
and so
fundamentally different from the grid I had been introduced to. Here at
last I
was asking people a bit about how they saw things. But I have to say
that those
years at the Institute were very important to me. In retrospect, they
showed me
what it was I did not want to do.
The grid seemed an intriguing tool and I
got
an early chance to test its usefulness monitoring the psychological
change
process. A psychiatrist, Bernard Adams, was treating a patient who had
been
transferred from prison to the Institute for treatment of depression.
His crime
was committing acts of arson. Dr Adams
thought arsonists got sexual pleasure from setting fire to buildings.
So we
decided to test that idea (Fransella & Adams, 1966). I designed 6
different
rankings grids that this man completed over a period of time. The
results
showed that at first he was puzzled by the idea of getting sexual
pleasure from
lighting fires (one of the constructs). But he went on to construe this
idea
and decided that he was definitely not
that sort of person. That was shown by an increasingly negative
correlation
between the constructs take pleasure in
being sexually aroused and like I’d
like to be in character –0.93), like
me (–0.77) and the feelings I get
when just having put a match to a fire (–0.96). It turned out that, in his
view, he was punishing wrongdoers – wicked people. It was one of the
first
papers describing the use of the grid and it apparently appealed to
George
Kelly.
Apart from that research showing me, in
1965, just how sensitive the grid can be for monitoring change, I
developed a
lasting interest in the relation between construing of the self and
behaviour. One
of the findings was a continual negative relationship between the
construct like me and likely to commit
arson ending up with a correlation of –0.90.
So
often it is shown that people disown a form of behaviour that they know
they
possess, such as being an alcoholic (Hoy, 1973).
As many other people know, once you have
played with grids you want to learn something about where they come
from. The
dreaded two volumes of Kelly – all there was at that time. I was then
hooked
for life.
SOME OF THE ATTRACTIONS OF
PCP
I don’t remember precisely what it was
that
hooked me. It was partly its philosophy – saying none of
us is trapped by what has happened to us in the past, although
we might trap ourselves if we construe it that way. But I think it
was the
general idea that here was a psychology
that focused on the person – on that lady travelling up her
hierarchy of
situations. Now I could find out what it was all meaning to her rather
than
treating her like an automaton. Then there was that most original of
ideas –
not made clear in the 2 volumes – that
all behaviour is an experiment. But more excitement was still to
come.
In 1964 Neil Warren organised the first
PCP
conference in England at which George Kelly gave his important paper on 'The
strategy of
psychological research' (Kelly, 1969). It was at that conference that I
had my
first meeting with him. Having seen a copy of my Presbyterian arsonist
paper, he
made a joke about being a fellow Presbyterian. That fell quite flat
since I had
no idea what on earth he was talking about! He said later than he then
feared
the evening we were all to spend with him over a meal would be tough
going. It
was no such thing.
The year after I completed my PhD – in
spite of my having used a repertory grid – I
started a 3-year piece of research
funded by the Mental Health Research Fund to apply PCP to those who
stutter. I
was enormously attracted by the theory but had been educated to
question
everything. I wanted evidence that there was some connection between
the theory
and the world of behaviour. That could ideally be tested with those who
stutter.
My hypothesis was simple. As the speech of those who stutter diminished
so
their construing of being a fluent speaker would increase. I had been
lucky
enough to be introduced to Denny Hinkle’s 1965 thesis – the year I completed my
PhD. He had told his supervisor, George Kelly, that he was not clear
exactly
what a personal construct was. So his thesis was about the meaning of a
personal construct being found in what a construct implies and what is
implied
by it. As a measure he devised the implications grid as well as a
wealth of
other things of interest – including laddering and the resistance to
change
grid
But, for me, Denny offered even more. He
reworded many of the corollaries. One caught my fancy - the Choice
Corollary.
He says:
“A person
chooses for himself that alternative in a dichotomized construct
through which
he anticipates the greater possibility for increasing the total number
of
implications of his system. That is to say, a person always chooses in
that
direction which he anticipates will increase the total meaning and
significance
of his life. Stated in the defensive form a person chooses so as to
avoid the
anxiety of chaos and the despair of absolute certainty.”
The Choice
Corollary is the major motivation construct in Kelly’s system. And what
a
powerful one! We all have a say in what
sort of person we are and that surely also means we have the power to
change
things we do not like about ourselves. Although changing ourselves is
not
always that easy.
Another of those things I continue to
find
so useful about personal construct theory is the idea that all personal
constructs are bi-polar. Thus, so often I do not change something I do
not like
about myself because somewhere in that hierarchy of constructs is one
that says
“you would not want to be that sort of person.” As Kelly says, always
try to
find out what a person is not doing
by doing what they are doing. It was for this reason that I modified
Hinkle’s
implications grid so that I could examine the meaning of both poles of
all
personal constructs.
But just to finish this story about my
personal construct theory of stuttering. I argued that people stutter
because
they have done so in some form or other since childhood. Their ways of
communicating with others is by using disfluent speech. They, at some
level of
awareness, in Kelly’s theory choose to
speak in this way – it is the only meaningful way they have of
speaking. If
that were so, then I did not have to work with their disfluent speech
at all, I
needed to help each person construe, make meaningful, a fluent way of
speaking.
I did this to the best of my ability and I am glad to say a number of
the
people became significantly more fluent and,
importantly, at the same time the meaningfulness of being a fluent
speaker
increased significantly (Fransella, 1972).
Thus, I came to the conclusion that not
only does personal construct theory give one ideas of new ways to
approach
people’s problems but it also appears to link construing and behaviour
in a
meaningful way and is something that one can use for research purposes.
So, to sum up. For me, at least as
important as its philosophy, its changing behaviour from being a
response to
something to being the experiment, the whole notion of bipolarity and
the
emphasis on taking some responsibility for the sort of person we are
because we choose to be like this, is the fact
that, as Peggy Dalton and Gavin Dunnett (Dalton & Dunnett, 200?) so
elegantly put it in the title of their book, it is a psychology for living.
WORKING WITH AND FOR
PERSONAL CONSTRUCT PSYCHOLOGY
In the 1960’s Don Bannister in
particular
was very active in travelling around the country talking to many
university students’ Psych Socs. There was no doubt
that
university students were intrigued by this new theory and its tool, the
repertory grid. I joined him in this exercise. We soon decided that
there was a
need for a book on PCT other than the 2 volumes and so was born the
Penguin
Book Inquiring Man (Bannister &
Fransella, 1971). In 1971 there was no problem in using the term ‘man’
but by
the time of the 3rd edition in 1985 it was a problem.
However, the
publisher decided that the title of a book could not be changed after
14 years
and so the Inquiring Man it remained.
There has been no 4th edition because of the early death of
Don.
I’m not sure when it started, but early
on
in the 1960’s the Kelly Club was formed. Apart from me, others who
attended
were Don Bannister, Miller Mair, Neil Warren, Han Bonarius and Phillida
Salmon.
We met in London periodically. The Club fell apart because we could not
agree about
why we were meeting. I should add here that I have seen many other PCP
groups
failing over the years and have concluded that those who think personal
construct psychology is so important are individualists and not
clubbable.
During the 1970’s, I was teaching
medical
students at London University’s Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine. We had a
standard
University syllabus which meant it had little room for PCP. But while
there I
started introductory courses in PCP for anyone who might be interested,
including anyone from outside the University. I wanted then and have
continued
to want to this day to interest people in PCP who were not
psychologists –
probably a throwback to my first training as an Occupational Therapist.
Several
people at this conference came on those early courses. Some of these
people
wanted more and so the advanced PCP courses were created. These dealt
with
Don’s comment that we kept putting on the overtures but where was the
opera.
In 1975 Al Landfield achieved the
seemingly
impossible. He persuaded the University of Nebraska to base its Symposium on Motivation on personal
construct psychology.
Impossible because that is a highly prestigious event in psychology and
one
that was usually quite behavioural in emphasis. In any case, I had to
go to
that. It all went very well and it was on the way back to London
that I
realised it was rather like an international personal construct
psychology
congress. So, I first persuaded Don Bannister and then a reluctant
Miller Mair
to join with me to put on the first official International Congress on
Personal
Construct Psychology at Christ Church College, Oxford University. Those congresses have continued every other year since
then. The
most recent one was in Columbus, Ohio to celebrate 50 years since the publication of Kelly’s
magnum opus,
and in 2007 it is in Australia.
Then, in 1977, Don and I got so fed-up
doing courses to teach people how to do grids we decided to write a
‘manual’. A
second edition of that I worked on with Richard Bell and published in
2004
(Fransella, Bell & Bannister). I would like to emphasise here that
Kelly
saw the repertory grid as an integral part of his personal construct
theory.
That is clear from his published and unpublished work. He was, after
all,
trained as a physicist and mathematician. Al Landfield has reported
someone as
saying that he thought personal construct theory was a good theory of
physics
(Landfield, personal communication). Grids have been over-used but, on
the
other hand, they should not be dismissed out of hand as ‘not Kellyian’.
THE CENTRE FOR PERSONAL CONSTRUCT PSYCHOLOGY
In the late 1970’s I found I was being
torn
between doing what I loved, being involved with PCP, and doing what I
was being
paid to do, teaching psychology to medical students. I made the
difficult
choice, with the agreement of my husband, and took the gamble of early
retirement and founded the Centre for PCP in 1981. My aim was, once
again, "to
give PCP to whoever wanted it". Several people here were involved in
the work
of the Centre. Some are here or would have been if they could: Peggy
Dalton,
Helen Jones, Chris Thorman, and John
Porter. Others here were involved in its development including Sean
Brophy and
David Winter.
Very early on we got involved in doing
what
I called PCP diagnostic research in large organisations. The head of
training
at British Airways had read Inquiring Man
in Australia in 1971 and liked it but could not see how to use it – a
common
complaint. He made contact with me at the Centre and asked if we could
retrain
35,000 people! Needless to say I said we could not. “What can you do?”
he
asked. “We could tell you what your people think about their work and
BA”. Our
eventual proposal was accepted and it was then I had to work out how to
apply
PCP and grids to large numbers. It actually turned out to be quite
easy. First
of all we carried out individual interviews with a sample of those the
organisation were interested in – in this case cabin crew. During these
interviews we elicited personal constructs from things important to
them, such
as ‘my boss’, ‘BA as an organisation’, ‘how I see my job now’, ‘how I
would
like my job to be’ and so forth. We then sorted out the themes in their
personal
constructs and put constructs representing these themes into a grid
format.
That standard grid was then administered to a much larger sample of
cabin crew.
Some people say that using standard
grids
is not ‘proper’ PCP. But the Commonality Corollary tells us that the
extent to
which we share a given culture so we will share many of the ways of
construing
that culture. Since we always try to ensure that we have a homogeneous
sample
of people in an organisation, such a cabin crew, we may assume that
much of
that culture is shared.
A major stumbling block was the analysis
of
the BA data. Peter Fonagy, who is now Freud
Memorial Professor of Psychoanalysis, was very
informed about statistics and computer programming and said he would
write a
program to analyse the grids. That is still in use today. Amongst other
things,
that programme makes it possible to
assess the degree to which people are using the constructs in similar
ways and,
like a well-brought up psychologist, only results that are
significantly
different from zero are reported.
Apart from a wide
range
of work in organisations, the Centre continued running courses on PCP
at
general and advanced level as well as offering a PCP therapy and
counselling
service. Helen Jones was instrumental in getting the Centre involved
with the ‘Rugby
Conference’, which developed into the United Kingdom Council for
Psychotherapy.
UKCP decided to group its organisation members into Sections. A major
problem
arose. No one wanted PCP in their Section. It is a long story, but
eventually
we got a home along with NeuroLinguistic Programming and we were
jointly called
the Experiential Constructivist Section. This was very important
because any
person trained by an organisation belonging to UKCP can call themselves
a
psychotherapist. So we were training PCP counsellors and
psychotherapists. The
training of PCP therapists and counsellors is now provided by the
organisation PCP
Association.
In the 1990’s,
Nick
Reed and I started the Centre’s distance learning programme. That has
been
particularly popular with students from across the world. Last year we
had the
first Americans, one an Occupational Therapist and the other the
Programme
Director of Art Therapy.
One major thing I
am
very pleased about is that the Centre was responsible for getting
Kelly’s two
volumes re-published by Routledge after it had been out of print for
some
years. The psychology editor said he "would like to be the person who
published
Kelly". The downside was that I had to find people who would type the
whole two
volumes on to computer. A major task but it was done and the two
volumes were
published in 1991. I am sad that so much of the published work on PCP
still cites
the 1955 version with those page numbers. That means that anyone who
only has
the Routledge 1991 version cannot directly look up those citations.
In the meantime,
David
Winter has been very active in the PCP world and his clinical courses
have
always included personal construct psychology. He was instrumental in
the
Centre becoming part of the School of Psychology at the University here under the
directorship
of Nick Reed. We are very grateful to
Professor Ben Fletcher for welcoming the Centre into his School. The
University
also houses the Fransella PCP Collection which includes books, audio
and video
tapes, correspondence, and George Kelly’s published and unpublished
manuscripts.
In addition to all this, the University made me a Professor of Personal
Construct Psychology – a title I chose.
All in all, I
believe
the Centre has played a significant part in the development of PCP and,
I hope,
will continue to do so in its new abode at this University.
As for me as the
years
have gone on, I have written more books – all PCP – and
I continue teaching on the distance learning
programme and give the occasional talk here and there.
SO,
WHERE IS PCP NOW?
Where are the
people
interested in PCP ‘out there’ spreading the word? There do not seem to
be many.
For instance, there was the Quinquennial Annual Conference in Glasgow in 2001. I could see little sign
of many PCP
papers being given in the provisional programme. So I got together
enough
people to offer a PCP symposium. It turned out to be of greater
interest than
the organisers predicted. The small room was packed out with people
covering
the floor space. Out of that symposium arose the edited International
Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology (Fransella,
2003) and then the Essential Practitioner’s
Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology (Fransella, 2004).
I really do
believe there
is a lot of interest ‘out there’ but the problem has always been how to
tap
into that interest. People often wonder why it is that PCP is not more
popular
or even better known. I would say that the BPS Quinquennial example is
a good
one. If you want PCP to be better known and used, you have to advertise
it by
giving talks at conferences and generally working to spread the word.
It does
not happen by osmosis. It is very encouraging to see so many new faces
here at
this one-day conference. Perhaps there should be more things like this.
Apart from the
issue of
advertising, I think there is another reason for the lack of new people
using
PCP in their work. It could be that when Kelly’s work appeared in 1955,
and
perhaps through to the 1970’s, there were really only behaviourist and
psychodynamic approaches in psychology. Now many ideas in Kelly’s
philosophy
and theory are not new. Qualitative as well as quantitative methods of
measurement now abound. PCP is not now seen as a revolutionary theory.
It is
not so spell-binding at first glance. But it does still have some very
revolutionary ways of looking at things. Personal choice and behaviour
being an
experiment are two such.
Perhaps the ideas
are
spreading but not to psychologists. For instance, a few days ago on
BBC’s Radio
4 programme a psychiatrist said that a certain idea was a
psychological construct.
But there is yet
another
issue that needs to be addressed. There is an increasing separation
between the
interests of those in the United States and in this country. The
difference is over constructivism. Why is it the
mainly academic
psychologists in America who increasingly espouse
constructivism while
those in this country, largely non-academics, stick to personal
construct
theory? I have said that, in my view, the increasing popularity of
‘constructivism’
is, or may well, overshadow personal construct psychology. Jon Raskin’s
response
to that in the last chapter of his edited second volume of his Studies in Meaning (2004) is that I am
wrong. He thinks we, over here, are feeling threatened and made anxious
by the
change in focus in America and that there is no threat to
personal
construct psychology itself. But Trevor Butt (2004), in his review of
Raskin’s book,
has come up with a different explanation. He points to a cultural
difference.
He says “Perhaps it is not coincidental that PCP first took firm root
in the UK and that most advocates of
constructivism now
come from North
America”.
American psychology is steeped in the ideas
of Mead and has a more social than personal view.
I have also
expressed the
view that one needs a theory rather than a philosophy if one wants to
work
professionally with other people. Raskin took me to task about this
also.
Trevor says “Raskin reports Fransella as saying that constructivism is
too
philosophical. My reservations about it are quite the opposite; I don’t
think
of it as a philosophy at all; instead I think it lacks the coherent
philosophical
underpinning that PCP has”. Whatever the pros and cons of the opinions,
Raskin’s
chapter sub-head says, The constructivists are coming!
Whether
this philosophy will take attention away from
personal construct psychology is an unknown.
But, in my view, it is certainly an issue that is not going away.
SO, WHERE IS PCP GOING?
I believe that
there
are many people ‘out there’ who have come across PCP, liked the ideas,
but do
not know quite how to use it. It is not as simple a theory as it looks
at first.
But many of us here have found it worth the struggle to get hold of it.
So, I
do think it will continue to grow in use, certainly in this country.
There are many
developments, such as the narrative approach, that are ideal to be used
as
tools within the theoretical environment of PCT.
For me, I would
love to
explore the implications of Kelly’s alternative Fundamental Postulate
which says:
It is the nature of life to be
channelized by the ways
events are anticipated. (Kelly,
1980)
Kelly clearly had ambitions for this as
he
goes on to say:
“This is a more
venturesome postulate than the one from which the psychology of
personal constructs
was launched. But from it may spring some additional ideas about the
whole of
psychology.”
How different is that alternative
Fundamental Postulate from James Lovelock’s Gaia
(2000)? He looks at the earth as a self-regulating system.
Self-regulating? How
about changing Kelly’s alternative Fundamental Postulate to:
It is the nature of the Earth to be channelized by the
ways events are anticipated?
We now have
evidence from cell biologists at Edinburgh University that plants
construe –
that is, they work things out and act accordingly, of course not using
brains
but touch and smell at least (Trewavas, personal communication, 2002).
It is the nature of plants to be
channelized by the ways events are anticipated.
I suppose all this
adds
up to my seeing PCP as enormous fun. It led me to try to understand
physics to
see how that might have influenced Kelly’s thinking (Fransella, 1983).
Then it
led me to look at mathematics, part of Kelly’s physics degree
(Fransella, 1999).
It was new to me that ‘constructive mathematics’ has been around for
many
years. Personal construct psychology keeps stretching me to study new
things
and think in new ways. It is something that is difficult to give up.
Now I have
a new garden to tend and I can’t help saying to myself “dear bush, what
is
making you look so sad?” Perhaps they will come and cart me away soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Bannister, D. & Fransella, F. (1971). Inquiring
man. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Bannister, D. & Fransella, F.
(1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. London:
Academic Press.
Bannister, D. & Fransella, F.
(1985). Inquiring man (3rd edition). eBook
htto://www.tandf.co.uk/html/index.asp
Butt, T. (2006). Review of ‘Studies in
meaning
2: Bridging the personal and social in constructivist psychology’. J. D. Raskin & S. K. Bridges (eds). Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 19, 91-101.
Dalton, P. & Dunnett, G. (2005). A
psychology for living (2nd Edition). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons
Fransella, F. (1964). A comparison of
the
methods of measurement of Kelly and of Osgood. In
N. Warren. Proceedings of a symposium. The theory and methodology of George
Kelly. London: Brunel University.
Fransella, F. & Adams, B. (1966). An
illustration of the use of repertory grid technique in a clinical
setting’. Brit. J. soc.clin.Psychol. 5,
51-62.
Fransella, F. (1972). Personal
change and reconstructions. London:
Academic Press.
Fransella,
(1983). What sort of scientist is the person-as-scientist? In J.
Adams-Webber
& J. C. Mancuso Applications of personal
construct theory Ontario: Academic Press.
Fransella, F.
(1999). George Kelly and mathematics. In J. W. Scheer (ed) The
person in society: Challenges to a constructivist theory. Giessen:
Psychosozial-Verlag.
Fransella, F.
(2003) (ed). International
handbook of personal construct psychology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Fransella, F.
(2004) (ed). The essential practitioner’s
handbook of personal construct psychology. Chichester: John
Wiley &
Sons.
Fransella, F., Bell, R,
&
Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for
repertory grid technique (2nd edition). Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hinkle, D. N. (1965). The
change of personal constructs from
the viewpoint of a theory of implications Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Columbus: Ohio State University.
Hoy, R. M. (1973) The meaning of
alcoholism
for alcoholics: a repertory grid study. British
Journal of social and clinical Psychology. 12,
98-99.
Kelly, G.
A. (1969). The strategy of psychological research. In
B. Maher (Ed) Clinical psychology and
personality: the selected papers of George Kelly New York:
John Wiley & Sons .
Kelly, G. A. (1980). A psychology of the optimal man. In A. W.
Landfield & L. M. Leitner (Eds.) Personal
construct psychology: Psychotherapy and personality. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Lovelock, J. (2000). Homage to Gaia:
The life of an independent scientist. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G.
J. &
Tannenbaum, P. H. (1961). The measurement
of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Raskin, J. D. & Bridges, S. K.
(Eds). Studies in meaning 2: Bridging the Personal
and social in constructivist psychology. New York:
Pace University
Press. |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is based
on a talk given at the conference on 'PCP: a personal story' organised
by
the Centre for Personal Construct at the University of Hertfordshire, UK,
on September 29, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
Fay Fransella, PhD FBPsS, is a
Visiting
Professor in Personal Construct Psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, UK, Emeritus Reader in Clinical Psychology at the University of London and a
Personal Construct Psychotherapist (retired). Her first publication
describing
work with PCP was in 1966. Since then she has written and edited 14
books
describing personal construct theory and its methods and over 100
papers. In
1968 she gave an early description of the use of ‘laddering’, a
technique first
described by Hinkle in 1965. Her work applying personal construct
theory and
its methods to help people overcome stuttering and to test out the
theoretical
assumption that behaviour and construing are intimately related, was
published
in 1972. That work also influenced the practice of speech and language
therapy
and was also a deliberate attempt to test a major tenet of personal
construct
theory - the Choice Corollary. In 1980 she founded the Centre for
Personal
Construct Psychology in London. That is now part of the University of Hertfordshire, UK. She is now semi-retired but still very much involved in
personal
construct psychology activities. Email: ffransella@lambslane.eclipse.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Fransella,
F. (2007). PCP: a personal story. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 4, 39-45
(Retrieved
from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp07/fransella07.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 16 January 2007 – Accepted: 20 January
2007 –
Published: 31 January 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|