essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– THE TWENTY STATEMENTS TEST –––––––––– 89APPLICATION OF THE REFERENTIAL FRAMES METHOD ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Our own initial research with the TST focused on the changes in self identity whichaccompany the career entry of a group of graduate entrants into a large technically basedorganization (Arnold and Nicholson, 1991; Nicholson and Arnold, 1989a, 1989b, 1990). Indeveloping our methodology for the research, we sought measures which would reflecttransformations in aspects of self identity over the course of the entry transition. We assembleda battery of methods for this purpose, including repertory grids, interviews, and standardizedquestionnaires. Many of these methods tend to bias towards stability (‘retest reliability’ intesting jargon), and we wanted to be sure that, even over a short period of time, we wouldinclude instrumentation highly sensitive to subtle shifts in identity, through which we wouldbe able to test differential predictions about personal change.We hypothesized that, over time, there would be an increase in frequency and saliency ofoccupational self-identifications; for example, reference to their specialist roles in engineering,computing or marketing, and increasing endorsement of organizational values and norms. We alsoexpected a decreasing proportion of C-type/reflective statements, and an increase in B-type/socialstatements. We were especially attracted by the possibilities the TST offered for revealing degreesof change in free-floating reflective constructions versus more socially anchored self perceptionsthrough this period of early career role adoption and professional identity development.The group of 97 graduate entrants was made up of 33 1982 entrants, all of whomcompleted the TST within two weeks of joining the organization, and a further 16 (four fromeach of four departments) who had joined the organization in each of the years 1978 to 1981.Of the 97 who completed the standard TST in autumn 1982, 94 completed it again a yearlater, 32 women and 62 men. We felt that an atmosphere of trust, developing over the courseof intensive interviews, was important for the successful administration of an instrument suchas the TST, which requires respondents to be unconstrained in their choice of self definitions.Individuals completed the form in privacy, and then handed it to us for analysis.Confidentiality was assured and guaranteed by a system of unique codes. At the first phase,respondents produced an average of 19.7 responses; and at the second phase, 19.5 responses.This yielded a total of 3,774 statements to classify and analyse.RATING SYSTEM ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The system we used for rating statements was multi-level, providing three classifications:response type (referential frame); for C-mode/reflective statements only, we constructed ourresponse content level (the SICV – Skills, Interests, Character and Values System); andresponse value (self evaluation). The purpose here was to evolve a system of rating whichcould tell us in a standard form something about the content of people’s responses. The authorsdeveloped the system after many iterations with the data and ad hoc rating trials, before it wasfully developed for test by independent raters. The earliest systems we used proved unwieldywith too many overlapping categories, with which we failed to achieve a reasonable level ofreliability. Returning to this issue some time later, another social psychologist joined us as arater, using the system as described below. All three of us trained together for one week, usingsix protocols for the purposes of illustrating categories. The second author took on the roleof arbiter for the independent ratings of the other two.