Attach file abcon.
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.9277.mail06.mail.aol.com.826041781
Content-ID: <0_9277_826041781@mail06.mail.aol.com.52900>
Content-type: text/plain;
name="ABCON"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Common Ground: Abstraction versus Construction
=0D
The creation of common ground is not the same
as abstracting common ground. Pretending will =
do no good in the long run. This issue has plaqued =
the analysis of repertory grids. Do we measure =
abstractions or constructs?
=0D
Kelly linked the development of constructs to =
abstraction of common themes in life's real events. =
He may have been short sighted in this in that =
abstraction in its purest sense, entails the sloughing =
off of features that are not shared by all of a group =
of constructs. Abstraction essentially is preemptive =
(exclusive). For example, in classical psychometric =
theory (CPT), total scores are derived by adding a =
group of questionnaire items. The assumption of =
CPT is that each item is a parallel test of the =
single trait they all have in common. Their =
differences are assumed to be due to either random
measurement errors or to the fact that a deviant =
item does not really measure only the factor =
under consideration. Adding factorially pure items- =
those that only differ in terms of random measurement =
errors, creates an abstraction, not a construction. =
The random "errors" cancel out and the common =
variance that remains was already there, not created.
=0D
CPT works when there is only one factor or ground. =
With more than one factor, total scores may be still =
calculated but they no longer deliver an abstracted =
essence.This is most evident when items are =
uncorrelated (orthogonal). The abstraction of =
essences requires correlated items. Uncorrelated =
items have no common ground from which an =
essence can be abstracted. =
=0D
Of course sometimes people fake it.They ignore =
Cronbach's alpha. Others conduct a factor analysis, =
which is more honest, in that it allows us to create =
total scores (common ground) for each separate factor. =
This a common practice in grid research. The grid is =
factored and then a map of the construct system is =
plotted across the factors or components. This can =
be useful but there is a danger. It is assumed that =
the factors can legitimately be crossed and items =
plotted in their common space. The practice derives =
from the implicit assumption that the abstract factors =
actually interact in their expressions through the =
elements (items). They may not. It may be improper =
to plot elements on two factors at the same time. =
The factors may not actually share common ground.
=0D
Well, don't they share their elements? Aren't they both =
existent in the elements? Maybe but perhaps only =
incidentally. Piaget described this incidental clumping as =
syncretism. Coincidence in time or place are taken by =
the young child as sufficient grounds for equating two =
features. Poor scientists do this by seeking only to affirm =
the consequent in their research. The constructs that =
characterize people may have no interaction with one =
another semantically, but only coexist syncretistically. =
Factor analysis will not tell us one way or the other. =
Thus simply abstacting factors and clumping them
together will not necessaily deliver the dialectical =
synthesis of true common ground,i.e. construction. =
=0D
Construction ultimately consists of the synthesis of =
orthogonal essences. Construction is what you do =
after abstraction. The conjugation of essences has =
a long and distinguished history in science. Mendeleeff's =
Table of Elements is an example of how the interaction =
between abstraction and construction is useful. He used =
a logical framework to direct the discovery of yet =
undiscovered elements. The building blocks of chemical =
elements could be arranged in many ways logically. At =
first, a number of these logical possibilities had not been =
observed in nature. Using a latin square type approach, =
in which all combinations of orthgonal building blocks =
were combined, Mendeleef predicted certain undiscovered =
elements. But the prediction was only confirmed when =
nature's dialectic was discovered. Only logically =
conjugating a balanced sample of building blocks =
into an integratively complex soup would not have =
created the common ground of the yet undiscovered =
elements. Nature had to do the synthesis, =
fair and square, not syncretistically. Nature constructed =
the undiscovered elements. This creative surge of =
nature is what is missing in the stalemate grid.
=0D
We may clump our factors together in grid reseach by =
assuming their coincidence in elements. But this is not =
finding common ground, at least not with regard to =
construct systems. Until there is evidence that the =
constructs are being woven together by the person, it =
is not fair to say our factor plots are valid. They may be =
simply syncretistically clumped. How do we know that =
the person adds construct A and construct B in his =
construction of a person? A possible solution is to =
use the method of corresponding regressions to =
determine if some constructs are additive composites =
of others. Where such composition occurs, we may =
properly speak of construction. Otherwise, we may =
only be measuring piecemeal applications of =
abstractions. It would be like saying the coinicidental =
appearance of many points of view on Mr. =
Nightingale's net is evidence of construction and =
common ground. Such syncretistic posting may seem =
sexy, but it would really be something unnatural.
=0D
What do ya'll think?
=0D
Bill
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.9277.mail06.mail.aol.com.826041781--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%