RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

PROCEDURES IN GRID ANALYSIS 439
investigated, and the second is that the selected
elements must be representative. The greater the
number of elements (typically between 10 and 25)
or constructs that are elicited, the greater is the
chance of representativeness. Constructs can be
psychological (e.g. anxious), physical (e.g. tall),
situational (e.g. from this neighbourhood), and
behavioural (e.g. is good at sport).
Laddering and pyramid constructions
The technique known as laddering arises out
of Hinkle’s (1965) important revision of the theory
of personal constructs and the method employed in
his research. Hinkle’s concern was for the location
of any construct within an individual’s construct
system, arguing that a construct has differential
implications within a given hierarchical context.
Here a construct is selected by the interviewer,
and the respondent is asked which pole applies
to a particular, given element (Alban-Metcalf
1997: 316). The constructs that are elicited form
asequencethathasalogicfortheindividualand
that can be arranged in a hierarchical manner of
subordinate and superordinate constructs (Alban-
Metcalf 1997: 317). That is ‘laddering up’,
where there is a progression from subordinate
to superordinate constructs. The reverse process
(superordinate to subordinate) is ‘laddering down’,
asking, for example, how the respondent knows
that such and such a construct applies to a
particular person.
Hinkle (1965) went on to develop an
Implication Grid or Impgrid, in which the subject
is required to compare each of his constructs
with every other to see which implies the other.
The question ‘Why’ is asked over and over
again to identify the position of any construct
in an individual’s hierarchical construct system.
Box 20.3 illustrates Hinkle’s laddering technique
with an example from educational research
reported by Fransella (1975).
In pyramid construction respondents are asked
to think of a particular ‘element’, a person, and
then to specify an attribute which is characteristic
of that person. Then the respondent is asked
to identify a person who displays the opposite
characteristic. This sets out the two poles of the
construct. Finally, laddering down of each of the
opposite poles is undertaken, thereby constructing
apyramidofrelationshipsbetweentheconstructs
(Alban-Metcalf 1997: 317). For further discussion
of laddering we refer the reader to Butt (1995).
Grid administration and analysis
The example of grid administration and analysis
outlined below employs the split-half method of
allocating elements to constructs and a form of
‘anchor analysis’ devised by Bannister (1970). We
assume that 16 elements and 15 constructs have
already been elicited by means of a technique such
as the one illustrated in Box 20.1.
Procedures in grid administration
Draw up a grid measuring 16 (elements) by 15
(constructs) as in Box 20.1, writing along the top
the names of the elements, but first inserting the
additional element, ‘self’. Alongside the rows write
in the construct poles.
You now have a grid in which each intersection
or cell is defined by a particular column
(element) and a particular row (construct). The
administration takes the form of allocating every
element on every construct. If, for example,
your first construct is ‘kind–cruel’, allocate each
element in turn on that dimension, putting a
cross in the appropriate box if you consider that
person (element) kind, or leaving it blank if you
consider that person cruel. Make sure that half of
the elements are designated kind and half cruel.
Proceed in this way for each construct in turn,
always placing a cross where the construct pole to
the left of the grid applies, and leaving it blank if
the construct pole to the right is applicable. Every
element must be allocated in this way, and half
of the elements must always be allocated to the
left-hand pole.
Procedures in grid analysis
The grid may be regarded as a reflection of
conceptual structure in which constructs are
Chapter 20