Overall, I’m a big fan of the self-characterisation we have been doing. However, I don't think it's the right tool for a lot of situations. I can imagine self-characterisation going wrong. It can be very exposing, and so (well-placed) trust is important.
Overall, I can't say I'm keen on repertory grids. I find the numerical rankings overly simplistic.
Use of a wider scale would allow you to represent unequal distance between elements, and it should be possible to score more than one element equally for each construct. It should also be possible to weight the constructs differently for significance.
I also think the linear representation of ‘construct’ and ‘contrast’ is bizarre. It assumes that the implicit and explicit are inherently distinguishable and opposing, and that the ‘preferred’ end of the continuum is recognisable, singular and static.
So, even if the ‘accuracy’ of the scoring were improved, I’m not sure what exactly is ‘measured’.
Can internal constructs ever be adequately plotted onto charts and graphs? Our evaluation of clients’ internal constructs is inevitably filtered through our own internal constructs. How can the bias of the counsellor be addressed? Does it need to be?
I can imagine situations where it might be interesting, even insightful, but it can never be ‘enough’.
Inspiration from Graduation!
16 years ago
I agree with you, asking any client to self-characterise themselves could be terrifying for some and an open invitation to off load for others. However, with my limited experience of working with adult clients in a career centre I feel this technique could be used and used well. You would need to lay down some ‘ground rules’ for want of a better expression. Ensuring they understand that you want them to give you information that is relevant to career guidance and why have them come to see you?
ReplyDeleteI suppose only through trial and error will I know if this is a useful tool to use or not!?
Interesting points. For me the exercise is like a rough guide, a snapshot of where the client is now and I think as long as you recognise the limitations it can be useful. Surely this is preferable to having a "diagnosis" performed on you by an adviser?
ReplyDeleteI agree totally about the serious limitations of trying to measure things such as constructs numerically and the bizarre nature of measuring explicit and implicit contrasts on a linear scale (even with improved 'accuracy' of scoring).
ReplyDeleteIt does oversimplify, but I guess that is the intention and perhaps with knowledge of these limitations it could be useful in some situations.
I do like the idea, though, of having a tool to help organise a lot of possibly disparate and disconnected feelings/thoughts in order to help make sense of another person's world.
I do wonder, though, whether a client may feel just as 'diagnosed' by an 'expert' (even though the constructs are created by them) as they would with a 'normal' guidance interview? I'm not sure...