|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AN ILLUSTRATION OF
SELF-CHARACTERIZATION IN A CHILD'S DRAWING: THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS
|
|
|
Susan J. Bell*, Richard C. Bell** |
|
|
* Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia, **Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
Although Self-characterization is a reasonably well known tool for PCP
diagnosis, the rules by which information is drawn from the writing are less
well known. Here we show how these rules can be applied to a child's drawing,
and how attention to these rules highlights the importance of the process in
making inferences about constructs in drawings.
Keywords: self
characterization; construct elicitation; children’s drawings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
The nature of personal construct theory
seems especially suited to research with children, since it is essentially a
forward-looking theory that emphasizes change, and all children change as they
grow up (Hayhow, Lansdown, Maddick & Ravenette, 1988, p.199). Yet there is relatively
little research with children in Personal Construct Psychology. (The
bibliography of Chiari (1990) lists only 45 references to childhood in a total
of around 1700. Why this is so is hard to say, however it may well be partly
that the traditional methods of enquiry in personal construct psychology are
not well suited to work with children.
In fact a variety of PCP techniques have been used in both research and
clinical applications with children. This has included: a form of self
characterization (Jackson, 1988; Jackson and Bannister, 1985); responses to set
questions (Bannister & Agnew, 1976); a board game variant of the grid (Jones,
1997); a range of drawing techniques (Ravenette, 1977, 1999, 2003); and of
course the ubiquitous repertory grid (Applebee, 1976; Baxter, Jack, &
Schröder, 1998; Edwards, 1988; and Salmon,1976). This range of techniques is
surprising, considering the general picture of dominance of grid methods (see
for example Figure 1 of Neimeyer, 1985 p. 146) in personal construct research.
In this paper we wish to focus on the issue of process in personal construct
inquiry. In doing so we hope to show some previous initiatives; i.e., Jackson
and Bannister's (1985) work with self characterization, and a drawing approach,
somewhat different to that of Ravenette (1977, 1999, 2003), can be combined to
provide a method of personal construct inquiry appropriate for children. In
doing so, we propose to apply Kelly's formal rules of self-characterization to
a drawing and show how the process of constructing the drawing contains useful
information in itself.
TECHNIQUES OF ELICITING CONSTRUCTS
The Repertory Grid
Kelly (1955) proposed two major techniques
for identifying a person's constructs, the Repertory Test and the Analysis of
Self-Characterization. The former has gone on to fame if not fortune, although
it is a much generalized approach and has been renamed the Repertory Grid
Technique in order to avoid the normative connotations of the word 'test'. As a
technique, it is very much a process; elements are defined one after another,
then constructs are elicited, again one after another, and finally, elements
are related to con structs (through ratings, rankings or some such). The
latter two stages may be completed alternately [as in the original Kelly
approach and in computer approaches such as FOCUS (Shaw & Thomas, 1978)], or
sequentially, where all constructs are elicited prior to ratings being made.
Keen and Bell (1981) have proposed a further amalgamation where elements,
constructs and ratings are all collected in turn.
However there have been few considerations
of the actual process of collecting personal constructs. Some computer based
approaches [e.g. Shaw & Thomas (1978), Bell and Keen (1981)], have attempted
to assess the differentiation among constructs or elements during the process
of grid elicitation, but this has aimed simply at increasing the variation in
the grid, rather than describing the process.
Salmon (1976) reviewed the use of grids
with children. She reported that a child needed to be about eight years old in
order "to categorize elements presented in verbal terms" (p.24). In general she
suggested, that the younger the respondent, the more concretely defined would
the elements need to be. Allison (1972), was reported as working with children
as young as four years using names of people as elements. However, no checks
were made on the meaningfulness of the childrens' usage of these names.
The use of triadic elicitation of
constructs seems even more equivocal. Such procedures have tended to produce
more concrete, physicalistic constructs rather than abstracted psychological
ones (Brierly, 1967; Jones, 1997; and Ravenette, 1964), leading to either
supplied construct approaches (eg Applebee, 1976; Hicks & Nixon, 1989), or
dyadic rather than triadic elicitation (e.g. Allison, 1972; Baxter, Jack, &
Schröder, 1998). However dyadic elicitation may increase the possibility of
problems of the subsequent use of constructs in that Yorke's (1983) 'bent'
scales may emerge.
Supplied constructs depend on how relevant one
person's constructs are for another, and correspond in a sense to the direct
questioning of Bannister and Agnew (1976), or the supplied prompts in
Ravenette's (1977) elaborated complaints approach. Edwards (1988) in a study of
four year-old children, used situation grids with supplied elements and
constructs, drawing these from extensive pilot work and representing
individuals and objects with simple line drawings, though noting that "they
were able to deal with familiar situations as elements with visual signifiers"
(p. 235)
Self-characterization
Self-characterization is more often seen as
a product, given that it is an essay produced in response to specific
instructions:
"I want you to write a character
sketch of Harry Brown, just as if he were the principal character in a play.
Write it as it might be written by a friend who knew him very intimately and
very sympathetically, perhaps better than anyone could ever really know him. Be
sure to write it in the third person. For example, start out by saying 'Harry
Brown is ..''
(Kelly,1955, p.323)
Recitation of these instructions generally seems
to be the extent of acquaintance with the technique in work subsequent to Kelly
(see e.g. Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004) in literature on personal
construct psychology techniques. However Kelly (1955) himself went much
further, giving quite specific directions for analysis, using four techniques;
observation of sequence and transition, observation of organization, reflection
against content, and collation of terms. The analysis also proceeded through
three bases: contextual areas, thematic analysis and dimensional analysis. The
inclusion of observations of sequence and transition, pointed to an awareness
by Kelly of the process that underlay the product.
Jackson (Jackson, 1988; Jackson &
Bannister, 1985) analysed children's self characterizations via six scores;
view of others, personal history and future, psychological cause and effect,
psychological statements, contradictions, and insights. These were related to
corollaries of the theory but could also be seen as corresponding to Kelly's
bases of r interpreting self-characterization: view of others and personal
history and future as contextual areas, psychological cause and effect as thematic
analysis, and the rest as dimensional analysis. Kelly indicated that this last
basis was the most directly relevant to personal construct theory since it was
here that the constructs could be identified. Also, in one of the few classical
developmental aspects to his work he linked preverbal constructs with the
construal of "those elements of which an infant could be aware" (p.461) and saw
them as representing "a kind of core of the client's construct system".
This suggests two conclusions. One is that
we can expect that the younger the child, the more important will be the
preverbal constructs in his or her repertoire. This will not be due simply to
the child's restricted verbal skills, but also to the closeness to that period
of life (infancy) where preverbal constructs were pre-eminent. We can also
conclude that it is important, since these constructs are at the core of the
child's construal system, to explore these in some detail with the child. A
consequence of these conclusions is that in order to inquire into such
construct systems, we may need a technique that is both non-verbal and
relatively unstructured. Drawings provide such a possibility.
Children's drawings
The use of drawings in a personal construct
context has been pioneered by Ravenette (1977). One of his techniques is
reported as requiring the child to
"to draw pictures to show five
occasions when he would be troubled or upset. While the invitation is being
made a sheet of paper is folded into six rectangles and a mark is put into five
of them. It is pointed out to him that these marks are merely to help him get
started on his drawings and he does not have to use them. He is given the
pencil and invited to carry on. ... In the sixth space the child is invited to
draw a situation in which everything would be fine, he would feel good and
people would seem good."
(Ravenette, 1977, p.277)
Ravenette's example is design for use with
older more articulate children, since the child is asked to verbally elaborate
on this. The technique can also be seen to be an elaboration of a superordinate
construct of 'troubled occasions - good occasion'.
Another of his techniques was a variant of
the ‘squiggle’ approach of Winnicott.
“It involves the drawing, in the centre of
a sheet of paper, of a three-inch-long line bent over for a further half inch.
The child is then invited to turn the line into a picture (not just an object).
When that is finished, and only then, the child is asked to draw a picture
which is an opposite.” (Ravenette, 2003, p.290)
The child is then invited to give an
account of the two drawings.
Here we wish to consider the information in
a single drawing, and in a more general sense. In the preceding section we
concluded that core preverbal constructs were of particular importance in
working with children. If we wish the child to present us with a representation
of these core constructs then we know that these will be largely symbolic, may
be threatened by the child's candour, and may not be accessible to verbal
labelling. Self characterization is a way of doing this with the verbally
competent (although we suspect it is much less used [in comparison with the
grid] than it should be). With young children we are left to find other means.
The traditional ones have been oral discourse, drawings and play. Of these
three, we would suggest that drawing provides the construct therapist with the
most appropriate context for looking at the child's world. Drawings, like the
rep grid and self characterization, are a record of what happened. Like self
characterization (and unlike the grid) the process can be mapped over time, in
that the order in which a child introduces things to the drawing can be
recorded. Unlike the self-characterization however, the child is not
constrained to produce material in a serial order, he or she can switch from
object to object from outline to detail and back again.
Kelly (1955, p 325), in talking about the
structuring of the self-characterization task, referred to the need to minimize
threat - “The threat that the client's own sense of candour imposes on the
situation, rather than the threat which he identifies with the clinician”.
Although Kelly does not elaborate on the nature of this threat, he suggested
that “an effort is made to place the client initially in a protected spot
within a loosely construed system”. Drawings, we suggest, can provide an
excellent 'protected spot'. It is hypothesized that this will allow the child
to produce symbols for covert and even threatening constructs, in that the
potential space enables such constructs to be produced in such a way as not to
be threatening. The flexibility of drawings also brings with it a price - how
are such data to be analysed? The suggestion proposed here, is through the application
of Kelly's formal guidelines for the analysis of self-characterization data.
This is elaborated through the following illustration.
A WORKED EXAMPLE: A DRAWING BY TIM
The data
Tim is seven years old and the youngest of
four children, the oldest being 20. He lives in an outer Melbourne suburb with
his mother and the other children. His father left about three years ago
although he has continued to see the children every other weekend. Tim suffers
from asthma and a severe allergy to bee-stings.
The instructions for the drawings that Tim
was asked to do were as follows:
I am going to ask you to do some drawings.
As you draw you can talk out loud about your drawings if you like. Later after
we've finished the drawing, I'll talk to you about what you've drawn.
I'd like you to think of these sheets of
paper as a space for you to be, however you'd like. It's sort of like a part of
your world, a place for you to be while you draw. Here I'd be happy if you drew anything that
you would like. It's your space to draw something that you'd like.
Tim's drawing is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Tim's Drawing
An outline of how Tim put together this
drawing is as follows:
Tim has difficulty in deciding what to do.
He turns the paper on its side. Begins a line at the top (what turns out to be
part of the giraffe), then a lower line, shading it in rather than drawing a
solid line. Stops and begins the fence line on the left hand side, putting in
windows or bricks. Adds second line of bricks.
Works on giraffe again - draws head,
horns/feelers, eye - square markings. Extends neck downwards first on one side
for a little, then on the other and continues alternating in this fashion.
Begins a tree on the right hand side. Works
from the bottom up - from the wall line. Adds a curve in the centre of the
picture and a curly bit on the top.
On the right hand side bricks are added
from the top of the wall downwards. The bottom of what turns out to be the
zoo-keeper's booth is drawn next.
At this stage Tim is drawing very intently
and privately. He has his arm up against his head and works very close to the
paper. Adds "The Zoo" to the entrance arch.
More bricks are added to the right hand
side of the drawing. Then in turn, more work on the tree trunk, the right hand
side branches, the left hand side branches, and an animal is put in the tree.
Further bricks are added, line by line. Tim
stops and gets an eraser to rub out a mark under the giraffe's eye.
Next the side boundaries of the wall are
defined. More, very precisely drawn bricks are put in. Tim blocks out the view
of his drawing again. Left hand margin bricks are added, becoming larger as
more are added. This continues from left to right.
Tim smiles and looks self conscious.
A zoo sign is drawn in and then more bricks
on the right hand side. He begins what may be a person, but blocks any view
with his arm again. It is revealed as a person paying. The animal in the tree
is elaborated. A second person, head, body, arms and legs are added. A third
smaller person, a child is added. The smile drawn on this figure is erased and
redrawn in an exaggerated fashion.
More bricks are added near the gatekeeper.
Bricks are added in several rows to the left hand side, then to the right hand
side. All this time he rests his head on one hand.
"I've finished"
Later, during discussion Tim adds the sun
as a line across the top left hand corner.
Following this, Tim was questioned about
his drawing.
Tell me about your drawing...
That's the ticket seller. That's the queue.
That's the giraffe, the koala, and the tree. Thats all the bricks. That's the
(bridge?) opening. That's me and Mum and Dad.
What's it like being there?
Good. I like animals. I like looking at the
monkeys and I like the butterflies. I meet friends there and I go there for
school excursions. I like it when it's not too crowded and I like the giraffes.
Why?
Because they're very tall and I like their
colours. Red and Orange. No, yellow and brown, I like, that's why I like
giraffes. They've got funny ears. And I like the lions, they're big and they
roar.
What would be good about being a giraffe?
Good. [Query] Because I'd get fed every
morning and tea and lunch. I'd eat the leaves.
How are the koala and the giraffe
different?
The koala climbs trees. Eats gum leaves.
The giraffe can't climb trees and eats different sorts of leaves. And I like
the monkeys, they swing from the branches and I like the apes. They're big. The
elephant I like because it's big and it's got a trunk. I like tigers, their
stripes. Tigers have got black stripes and I like black stripes. I like deer,
reindeer, because they've got things on their heads. I like birds, because they
have beautiful, nice colours and can fly. And I like pelicans. Ducks, I mean
pelicans, have big beaks and float on water. I like kangaroos because they
sometimes box and the mother has the baby joey and the fathers box.
Do you think you're more like a giraffe or
a koala bear?
I'm more like a koala because the branches
come over me and I can have shade and I can drink water and I like little baby
koalas. They're cute.
What would your father like?
Dad. He's small. I have to do ...(?) Dad
likes monkeys or lions or tigers. He likes tall animals. I think he'd like the
giraffe.
What would your mother like?
Mum would like the giraffe. She likes
yellow and brown animals.
I like pandas. I saw them when they came
last year. I like black and white animals. They're lucky because they travel
around the world. I like them because they're furry and warm and they eat lots
and lots and lots of bamboo shoots.
When you go to the zoo, what will the day
be like?
It will be sunny [adds sun to drawing].
Lots of kids will be there.
The analysis
The analysis of the drawing via Kelly's
self characterization procedure was as follows:
(1) Process
1(a) Observations of sequence and
transition
Simply looking at the finished product of
this drawing obscures an important quality of Tim's drawing, the sequence in
which the drawing was put together. Kelly suggests we should consider breaks in
continuity not as discontinuities, but unexpected elaborations of subjectively
similar content or contrast elaborations. Thus we saw Tim move from the giraffe
to the wall, back to the giraffe, over to the tree, joining the two parts of
the wall, elaboration of the wall, back to the tree. These elements stand very
much in contrast to one another in animate and inanimate senses, but also share
similarities in texture or in shape. The people are added towards the end of
the process in the middle of an elaborated enclosure, and even after they are
added, further bricks are drawn on th wall.
1(b) Organization
A notable feature of this drawing is its
symmetry. The top of the wall splits the vertical aspect of the picture in two,
the wall itself is divided, and there is a tall object on either side above the
wall.
Kelly suggests attention should be paid to
the opening structure, and the way this is elaborated through the narrative.
Here, the opening structure is the drawing of the giraffe's head, and this is
done with the paper on its side and relatively close to one edge, as though
there is some security in this. Tim also constructs, later in the drawing, a
boundary within the picture by putting outer edges on the wall, though he
doesn't do this for the inner edges.
1(c) Reflection against content
In a similar fashion, Kelly suggests that
we should look for the core statement, and consider how this is elaborated in
the context of the protocol as a whole. If we take (as a working hypothesis or
construct) the giraffe as the core statement, then we can see this elaborated
through the wall where the texture picks up the pattern on the giraffe's neck
and in the tree which contains an animal looking out.
1(d) Collation of terms
Kelly suggests that we should be alert to
terms which are repeated, and to linkages between the terms. The icon that is
strongest in this drawing is the square block patterning of both the wall and
the giraffes neck. It contrasts with Tim's use of curves, which are used in
isola tion on the animals (the koala and the giraffe's head) and again, this
time in combination, in the half circles used to decorate the entrance and to
enclose the people, and in the rounded heads trunks, and arms of these people.
Some elements are not repeated. The giraffe's horns (possibly mistaken by Tim
for ears) are carefully drawn circles but the tree branches are straight and
either end in points or are squared off. As the wall are linked by the arch,
the people are linked too, by their hands.
1(e) Shifting emphasis
The predominant emphasis in this drawing
are the building shapes, blocks or curves. Kelly suggests that terms repeated
point to constructs with a wide range of convenience. [In retrospect, we should
have taken this up with Tim in subsequent questioning and asked him to
elaborate on this construct.]
1(f) Restatement of the argument
Attention to the process of this drawing
showed a neat restatement by Tim - i.e., after the people had been added as the
last figures in the picture, a few more bricks were added - just to be on the
safe side perhaps.
2. Contextual areas
The topical area for this drawing is a zoo.
In it everything is contained in some way by the wall, but the animals can look
out. There is also a sense of isolation - one giraffe, one koala, one tree. The
people are small and bounded by the wall, suggesting a lack of security. We are
reminded of Kelly's views about security in this context:
"Some clients write their entire self
characterization on comparatively safe ground. Others, more venturesome, take
their chances in areas in which they are not so certain where they stand. But
we always know this much: the areas chosen are those in which the client sees
enough uncertainty to make exploration interesting and enough structure to make
it meaningful." (1955, p.334)
Kelly also suggests that in this area we
pay attention to mechanics, where mistakes indicate an attempting to work with
deeply rooted constructs. Here Tim was worried about the giraffe's eye, which
was redrawn, and the little boy's smile which was redrawn to increase the
smile.
3. Thematic analysis
Here we draw principally on Tim's talking
about his drawing. He begins by talking about animals, monkeys and butterflies
(neither one of which featured in his drawing), at the zoo where he likes to
meet with his friends from school, but doesn't like it if it's crowded. Tim
liked the giraffes (it wasn't crowded in his drawing and there was only one
giraffe). Tim had some initial confusion about the colour of the giraffe and
moved on from this element in two ways, one on to lions with their big roar,
the other onto how giraffes are fed and can feed themselves (though no food
such as leaves on the tree appeared anywhere in Tim's drawing). When asked how
koalas and giraffes were different, Tim saw differences in climbing and in the
kinds of leaves they ate. From the koala he moved on to monkeys (who were free
to swing and climb) to apes that were big. He then began a catalogue of
animals, emphasizing their particular qualities. This was focussed principally
on their appearances (tigers with black stripes, deer with things on their
heads, birds with nice colours etc). Kangaroos were noted as having mothers to
look after the baby and fathers to box. Tim himself thought he was more like a
koala, in being protected while his parents would prefer the giraffe.
4. Dimensional analysis
If we consider all the above material we
see a number of important constructs being used by Tim. The world was divided
into the secure and the not secure, where things had to be either constrained
or free, and needs (particularly in relation to food and protection) were met
or not. Figures were attractive and powerful or not, and either aggressive or
caring. Figures could be alone, and in some sense, independent and self
reliant, or dependent. Tim focussed his attention on the giraffe (which he
identified with his parents) but saw himself as a koala, protected in theory,
but as his drawing showed, rather exposed, unattractive, and without
sustenance.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has demonstrated that a drawing
for a child may be seen as a 'protected spot' that enables preverbal and submerged
core constructs to be dealt with through their symbolic representations, the
interpretation of which involves the interviewer. This issue of the role of the
interviewer was raised by a reviewer, and rightly so. The interpretations
depend on the construing processes and skills of the therapist. It is an issue
for this approach - but it is also an issue for self-characterization more
generally since the therapist makes sense of the written protocol. For example,
Neimeyer (1993, p.86) shows how the therapist infers the construct poles of
constructs identified (by the therapist) in the narrative. And it is also true
of all other enquiry methods in personal construct psychology, although rarely
recognized. Neimeyer (1993) shows how the grid user may make inferences from
construct labels in the repertory grid, and even in the quantitative analysis of
such data, the grid analyst determines the picture obtained from the grid data
(see for example, Fransella, Bell, & Bannister; 2004, pp 87-88,112). These
problems have consequences for the use of such data as a research tool, but in
a therapeutic setting such therapist construals can be tested with the external
world of the client in the same way that Kelly suggested all constructs are
validated.
Not only does the use of drawings involve
process, they have an advantage over verbal self-characterizations in that they
are not bound by the sequential process of recounting a story. Various
behaviours, such as changing some things, deleting others, and adding emphasis
makes the behaviour of drawing as important as the picture itself.
| |
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Allison, B. (1969) The development of
Personal Construct Systems: A Preliminary Study Unpublished manuscript,
Memorial University, St Johns, Newfoundland, Canada.
Applebee, A. N. (1976) The development of
children's responses to repertory grids. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 15, 101-102
Bannister, D., and Agnew, J. (1977) The
child's construing of self. In A. W. Landfield (ed) Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation 1976. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. (pp. 91-125)
Baxter, I.A., Jack, F.R., & Schröder, M.J.A
(1998) The use of the repertory grid method to elicit perceptual data from
primary school children. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 73-80.
Bell, R. C., & Keen, T. R. (1981) A
statistical aid for the grid administrator. In M.L.G. Shaw (ed) Recent
developments in Personal Construct technology London: Academic Press. (pp. 209-216).
Brierly, D. W. (1967) The use of
personality constructs by children of three different ages. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of London.
Chiari, G. (1990) References in Personal
Construct Psychology & Psychotherapy. Rome: Centro do psicologia e
psicoterapia costruttivista.
Edwards, A. (1988) A child of four could
tell you: a study of identity in the nursery school using situation grids. In
F. Fransella and L. Thomas (Eds.) Experimenting with Personal Construct
Psychology London: Routledge & Keegan Paul (pp. 232-244).
Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister,
D. (2004) A manual for the repertory grid technique – 2nd edition. Chichester:
Wiley.
Hayhow, R., Lansdown, R., Maddick, J., &
Ravenette, T. (1988) PCP and
children. In F. Fransella and L. Thomas (Eds.) Experimenting with Personal
Construct Psychology. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul (pp. 199-209)
Jackson, S. (1988) Self-characterization:
dimensions of meaning. In F. Fransella and L. Thomas (Eds.) Experimenting with
Personal Construct Psychology London: Routledge & Keegan Paul (pp. 223-231)
Jackson, S. R., and Bannister, D. (1985)
Growing into self. In D. Bannister (Ed.) Issues and Approaches in Personal
Construct Theory. London: Academic Press.
(pp. 67-82).
Jones, R.A. (1997) The school behaviour
game: Making ‘human sense’ of the repertory grid in research with children. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 25, 399-407
Keen, T. R., & Bell, R. C. (1981) One
thing leads to another: A new approach to elicitation in the repertory grid
technique. In M. L. G. Shaw (ed) Recent Advances in Personal Construct
Technology London: Academic Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1955) The Psychology of
Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Neimeyer, R. A. (1985) Problems and
prospects in personal construct psychology. In D. Bannister (Ed.) Issues and
Approaches in Personal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press, (pp.143-171).
Neimeyer, R.A. (1993) Constructivist
approaches to the measurement of meaning. In G.J. Neimeyer (Ed.) Constructivist
Assessment: A casebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage (pp. 58-103).
Ravenette, A. T. (1977) Personal construct
theory: An approach to the psychological investigation of children and young
people. In D. Bannister (ed) New perspectives in Personal Construct Theory
London: Academic Press (pp.251-280).
Ravenette, A. T. (1999) Personal construct
theory in Educational Psychology: A practitioner’s view. London: Whurr
Publications.
Ravenette, A. T. (2003) Constructivist
intervention when children are presented as problems. Ch 28 in F. Fransella
(Ed.) International handbook of personal construct psychology. Chichester:
Wiley (pp. 283-293).
Salmon, P. (1976) Grid measures with child
subjects. In P. Slater (ed) The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid
technique, Vol. 1. London: Wiley.
(pp. 15-46).
Shaw, M. L. G., & Thomas, L. F. (1978)
FOCUS on education: An interactive computer system for the developmental
analysis of repertory grids. International Journal of man-Machine Studies, 10,
139-173.
Yorke, M. (1983) Straight or bent? An
inquiry into rating scales in repertory grids. British Educational Research
Journal, 9, 141-151.
| |
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHORS
Susan Bell trained
as a Child Clinical Psychologist and worked as such for a number of
years at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. She currently
works in private practice.
Richard Bell
is an Associate Professor in the School of Behavioural Science at the
University of Melbourne. He has a slight interest in analysing the data
of repertory grids.
E-mail: rcbell@unimelb.edu.au Homepage: http://www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff/BellR.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Bell,
S. J., Bell, R. C. (2008). An illustration of
self-characterization in a child's drawing: The importance of
process. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 1-9.
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp08/bell08.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 30 October 2007 – Accepted: 9 January 2008 –
Published: 18 March 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|