>Return-Path: <pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk>
>Received: from norn.mailbase.ac.uk by LUCY.MERRIMACK.EDU (MX V4.1 VAX) with
> SMTP; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 07:49:19 EST
>Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <LAA11356@norn.mailbase.ac.uk> (8.6.12/ for
> mailbase.ac.uk); Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:38:20 +0100
>Received: from rye.city.ac.uk by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id
> <LAA11344@norn.mailbase.ac.uk> (8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with
> SMTP; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:38:17 +0100
>Received: from swindon.city.ac.uk by rye.city.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id
> <05337-0@rye.city.ac.uk> Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:17:01 +0100
>Received: (sl368@localhost) by swindon.city.ac.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10293;
> Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:16:56 +0100
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:16:56 +0100 (BST)
>From: Cross MC <M.C.Cross@city.ac.uk>
>X-Sender: sl368@swindon
>To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>Subject: RE: MM\symbolic interactionism and PCP
>In-Reply-To: <009958BD.FF24DEC0.41@merrimack.edu>
>Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950830091133.9034A-100000@swindon>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>X-List: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>Reply-To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>Sender: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk
>Precedence: list
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Aug 1995 mmascolo@merrimack.edu wrote:
>
>> Devorah and Malcolm have commented that much work in PCP is performed
>> using methods that do not derive from PCP. Can you give some examples of
>> this and how you think it is damaging (please, I pose the question to
>> anyone on the list, of course).
>>
>> Mike Mascolo
>>
>
>In reply to Mike & all (the above read as; "put-up or shut-up") I think
>it is not so much the methods which are a problem (methods are after all,
>just events with meaning overlaid, but more often the interpretations
>(constructions) based upon them and the absence of reflexivity in their
>application which is problematic for KE's (Kellian Essentialists) like
>myself.
>
>PCT is subsumming and therefore we may use and understand any method within
>this framework. PCT however requires of the researcher, recourse to, or
>acknowledgement of, the assumption that we work with active construers
>(see Viney 1987 & her discussion of the Mutual Orientation Model of
>Research). This has implications for both methodology and subsequent
>interpretations.
>
>In relation to methodology (and even in the context of PCP's historical
>method of choice - THE GRID) the relationship between method and theory
>has been questioned (see Bell (1988) I.J.P.C.P Vol 1:101-118). In his
>paper Richard examines theory appropriate analysis of rep grid data. It is a
>nuts-&-bolts, mathmatico-deductive discussion, as only Richard
>can provide (his knowledge of numbers has always scared me). This work
>and Mike Mascolo's question (>above) remind me that there are at least two
>fronts upon which we, as Kellian researchers, are open to challenge;
>
>i) That our methods (structure, procedure, analysis etc..) are rigorous
>and have clear and traceable implicative relationships to the theory.
>
>ii) That our questions and subsequent interpretations have recourse to
>personal construct notions of personhood.
>
>Mike, unfortunaltely I can't supply a reference to a shabby piece of work
>which highlights the problems/issues I've mentioned above. In going
>through my filing cabinets it occurs to me that I don't make it my
>habit to collect such things. I know it's a bit of a cop-out, however,
>the sort of stuff I'm thinking about are research questions arising from
>non-Kellian understandings of personhood (some trait or developmental
>phase) which uses methods such as; supplied "constructs" and supplied
>elements to establish facts about people in general, in the absence of
>any reflexive validation of subsequent interpretations (absence of
>attempts to jointly share or co-construct meaning).
>
>What do you think?
>
>
> Cheers malcolm c. cross
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%