3.5 Data Collection Instruments and Piloting
3.5.3 Repertory Grid Interviews
The RepGrid, as was introduced earlier (3.3.3), is a PCT-based method of structured interviewing that aims at exploring aspects of individuals’ construct systems. It was utilised in the case study in an attempt to construct a ‘perceived realities’ of RE in the context by eliciting student-teachers’ constructs relating to research. Since its
conception, the RepGrid has raised concerns about its validity and reliability (Solas
1992, Feixas et al. 1992) which were counter-argued proficiently and convincingly in
the work of Fransella and Bannister (1977), Smith (2000), Jankowicz (2004), Butt
(2008) and more recently, Hardison and Neimeyer (2012). The recurring issues in
utilising the RepGrid interview are noted by Jankowicz (2004) as topic selection,
choosing elements, specifying and labelling constructs and obtaining ratings. Below
I try to contextually situate these issues in relation to their organisation in the case
study.
Topic Selection:Deciding on the RepGrid topic generally depends on the researcher’s
purpose of selecting this method as a suitable research instrument (Jankowicz, 2004).
My purpose was threefold as I believed that, in the context of this study, the RepGrid
94
transcend the boundaries of the explicitly intended RE modules in the initial ELTE curriculum and explore STs’ perceptions of what constitutes research with respect to their possible relevant experiences in other modules (elements).
explore what sense the STs made of these research activities they have experienced by means of eliciting their constructs.
explore STs’ own favoured constructs in relation to what ‘good research experience’ constituted in their view.
Consistent with the above trail of thought, by means of the RepGrid interviews, I
intended to elicit a student-narrated ‘perceived realities’ of research education in the
context – how it is and how it should be in the eyes of the participant STs – as the third
major perspective domain in the case study (after the formally stated and observed
realities).
Choosing Elements: Beail (1985), Fransella et al. (2004) and Bell (2005) all
acknowledge the heated debate over whether the researcher should elicit or supply
elements and/or constructs. Convincing arguments exist for both ends of the elicit
versus supply dichotomy but for elements in particular, there appears consensus for
elements to be representative of the studied area and be familiar to (experienced by)
the participant so that they can be construed. In the present study, I chose to elicit
elements as I wished my participants themselves to encapsulate their lived research
experiences in the form of self- or co-labelled elements. To do so, I used the following
probe to initiate element elicitation.
All research and research-related activities that I [participant] have been engaged in as part of my BA studies, inside and outside my classes.
The final verbal labels used to represent these experiences (written on white cards)
were at times negotiated when I observed that my participant was struggling to
95
topic/theme of the experience (e.g. essay topic) and not enough on its format as an
activity (i.e. activity being an essay, or report or oral presentation etc.).
Specifying and Labelling Constructs: The abovementioned elicit versus supply
debate has taken in the RepGrid’s construct dimension as well. However, Beail (1985) among several others reminds us that ‘whatever is supplied by the investigator is itself the subject of the [participant’s] personal construing’ (Beail, 1985: 6). It thus follows that the researcher must ensure that the supplied verbal label is meaningful to the
participant. In my use of the RepGrid, I preferred to elicit constructs by means of the
triadic elicitation method (3.3.3). Akin to element elicitation (but less frequently), I
offered my participants an adjective or a phrase when I felt that they were ‘stuck for words’, for them to perhaps get inspiration from (if at all). At times, my participants
contentedly owned these offered expressions and at other times, they simply rejected
them to provide me with a construct version/alternative that they thought was more
representative of their thinking. Ultimately, Bannister and Fransella (1971) conclude
succinctly that ‘if you [inquirer] supply, what is for them [participant], an outlandish verbal label, nonsense will result’ (Bannister and Fransella, 1971: 60).
I executed the triadic elicitation of elements as follows to initiate construct generation.
In what important way are two elements [activity/experience labels on cards] similar and thereby different from the third?
Alternatively, when the difference seemed too difficult for the participant to construe, I asked:
What is the opposite of [emergent construct denoting similarity] for you?
Once the constructs were elicited (i.e. when my participants could not generate any
other new construct), I presented my participants with the scenario I created (below)
to explore their favoured pole of constructs in line with the third methodological
96
Assume that you are approached by the ELTE programme administrators. They informed you that they plan to design a ‘research’ module for the student-teachers and that your views would play a significant role in this. Imagine that either of these two poles of your constructs would represent the nature of experiences and activities to be included in this future module. Which pole would you choose?
Ratings: In RepGrids, elements and constructs can be linked by means of
dichotomising, ranking and rating. Butt (2008), for example, favours the rating system
owing to its flexibility. He contends that the participant ‘might sharply divide
[elements] into either camp [emergent or contrast construct] but [might also] recognise
a gradient between the two’ (Butt, 2008: 41). I was also interested in exploring – as flexibly as the RepGrid linking mechanisms would allow – my participants’ self-
evaluation of various elements (activities) with respect to several construct pairs
serving as scales. Therefore, I decided to allot each construct pair an individual scale
of 7 – a midstream alternative to the less flexible 5 and potentially vague 10. I return
to my use of the numerical data obtained from the RepGrids in section 3.7.3, in the
context of data analysis.
Piloting:Before my departure to North Cyprus for fieldwork, I piloted the RepGrids
in the above-described form. Two Malaysian BA-level STs from the University of Warwick’s Centre for Applied Linguistics volunteered for the RepGrid trials (Dewi and Jaya). I came to the realisation of the following in my initial experiences with the
method and altered the interview design accordingly for the fieldwork in North
Cyprus:
Assuming that element elicitation (research experiences) would take a long time
without any point of reference, I had initially attempted to compose possible categories
to perhaps inspire the STs if/when need be. Categories were, for example, information
97
planning (devising research questions, literature review etc.) and so forth. However,
during the piloting sessions, my interviewees came up with their own creative ways
of generating elements (e.g. searching for information, collaborative tasks, critical
[information] synthesis etc.). I hence decided to elicit elements without trying to force
them into my categories and potentially distorting their original meaning and integrity
for the sake of time efficiency.
I noticed that Dewi and Jaya found it difficult to recall their research experiences
without some type of a stimulus. Jaya commented: ‘I wish I had our curriculum [module list] in front of me right now’. I took his comment as an advice and made copies of the Turkish ELTE programme’s curriculum pre-fieldwork.
Initially focussing only on the elicitation and completion of the RepGrid appeared
rather detached and ‘vacuumed’ to me, as I had not sought to gather profile information about my interviewees (e.g. their schooling background, reasons for studying ELT, academic interests, initial reactions to the word ‘research’ etc.). I, therefore, decided to design the RepGrid interview as follows to collect possibly richer
and more cohesive data and in ethical terms, to credit my participants as the individuals
98 Table 4: The RepGrid Interview Schedule
Lastly, I noticed through piloting the benefits for me to have practiced the method
before fieldwork to hone my skills as a RepGrid interviewer. I sensed and noticed a
progressive improvement of my abilities in summarising more effectively my interviewee’s constructs; that is, becoming more capable of discerning when a meaning was significant for the person as a construct and when meaning was generated
to support and elaborate on a construct.
Despite my attentive procedural planning, there were several possible shortcomings
of the RepGrid method that I needed to stay aware of and to communicate clearly with
my future participants (e.g. Jankowicz 2004). Some of these pertained to the potential
problems/risks of;
my interviewees not having enough ‘research’ experience and hence generating less than three elements
my interviewees, owing to their assumed self-positioning as the ‘respondent’, expecting me to lead and generate the majority of the content – simply put, for me ‘to speak more’ than they should
Session One:
1. Opening up questions (academic background and interests) 2. Warm-up questions (research, researching, being a researcher) 3. Element elicitation (write on cards)
4. Construct elicitation (triadic method)
[Transcribe session, assemble the RepGrid matrix, translate the matrix, and devise individual follow-up interview questions if needed]
Session Two:
1. Let participant review transcript and translations, invite suggestions for change
2. Ask follow-up questions (if any)
3. Overview the RepGrid matrix, recall session one with the participant (resort to transcript)
4. RepGrid rating (scale of 1 to 7)
5. Resort to the scenario created and identify the participant’s favoured construct pole
99
my interviewees not fully comprehending the fact that there would be no ‘right or wrong answers’
my interviewees feeling blocked or uncomfortable during construct elicitation, thinking that discussing issues in RepGrid terms and forms was simply unnatural and hence, forced
me dominating the conversation unconsciously as the interviewer, challenging or questioning my participants’ ‘strangely’ reasoned original construct pairings and hence causing them to settle on manufactured final verbal labels