Repertory grid technique (RGT)
Repertory grid technique (RGT)
Table of Contents
Repertory Grid Technique (RTG).................................................................................................................1/5
1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................1/5
2 Methodology......................................................................................................................................1/5
3 Process...............................................................................................................................................1/5
4 Review...............................................................................................................................................2/5
4.1 Evaluation results.....................................................................................................................2/5
4.2 Experiences..............................................................................................................................3/5
4.3 Combinations...........................................................................................................................4/5
4.4 Strengths and weaknesses........................................................................................................4/5
4.5 Further work.............................................................................................................................5/5
4.6 References................................................................................................................................5/5
i
Repertory Grid Technique (RTG)
Marleen van de Kerkhof ([email protected])
1 Introduction
Repertory Grid Technique (RGT) has its origins in construct psychology, which is one of several major
theories of psychology in the world today. Personal construct psychology has mainly been used in clinical
settings, as a way of trying to increase the psychologist's understanding of how individuals view and shape
their worlds. Since the introduction of this methodology, it has found its home in the areas of marketing
business, artificial intelligence, education and human learning. In the field of policy analysis, too, RGT has
gradually gained ground. The basic idea of RGT is that the minds of people are 'construct systems', a construct
system being defined as the set of qualities, or dimensions, that people use in their everyday efforts to make
sense of the world. These construct systems are highly individual in nature and may guide people's behavior,
provided that they develop a reflective awareness of how 'negative' constructs that impede their behavior can
be changed. People observe, draw conclusions about patterns of cause and effect, and behave according to
those conclusions. People's construct systems are not static, but are confirmed or challenged every moment
they are concious. Moreover, construct systems are not always internally consistent. People can, and do, live
with a degree of internal inconsistency within their construct system. Basically, RGT aims to unfold
categorizations by articulating the individual construct systems of people so they can be changed or
maintained. This helps to better understand what meaning people give to a certain problem situation and what
kinds of solutions they would prefer.
2 Methodology
RGT includes two concepts: 'elements' and 'constructs'. The elements are the objects of people's thinking to
which they relate their concepts or values. The constructs are the discriminations that people make to describe
the elements in their personal, individual world. An essential characteristic of constructs is that they are
'bipolar' (e.g. cold−hot, good−bad). In the first applications of RGT, the elements were formed by the people
that were important for the person. Constructs were the qualities used to describe these persons, for instance,
'nice' or 'agressive'. Basically, RGT relates the construct of an individual directly to the elements.
3 Process
RGT procedure can best be characterized as a semi−structured interview (face−to−face, computerized, or a
phone interview) in which the respondent is confronted with a triad of elements and is then asked to specify
some important way in which two of the elements are alike and thereby different from the third. The
characteristic that the respondent uses to distinguish between the elements is the construct. Since the construct
is bipolar, it can be presented on a scale. After that, the respondent is asked to rate the elements (that are
possible/desirable to rate) on the scale that represents the construct, and to indicate which pole of the construct
he or she prefers. Then, the interviewer moves on to the next triad of options. Typically, these steps are
repeated until the respondent mentions no new constructs anymore.
The basic procedure of RGT includes ten steps (Jankowicz, 2004, see also Fransella et al., 2004):
1. Agree on a topic with your respondent*.
2. Agree on a set of elements.
3. Explain to the respondent that you wish to find out how s/he thinks about the elements and that you
will do this by asking him or her to compare them systematically.
4. Take three elements and ask the respondent: 'What do two of these elements have in common, as
opposed to the third?'
5. Ask the respondent why: 'What do the two have in common, as opposed to the third?'
1/5
Repertory grid technique (RGT)
6. Check that you understand what contrast (which construct) is being expressed.
7. Present the construct as a rating (or ranking) scale, with one pole of the construct on the left and the
other pole of the construct on the right.
8. Ask the respondent to rate each of the three elements on this scale and to make clear which end of the
scale they are nearest to.
9. Ask the respondent to rate each of the remaining elements on this construct.
10. RGT aims to elicit as many different constructs as the respondent might hold about the topic. So,
repeat steps 4 to 8, with different triads of elements, asking for a fresh construct each time, until the
respondent cannot offer any new ones.
* Often, the first two steps are taken by the RGT designer, meaning the interviewer decides what will be the
topic and the elements in the analysis (Fransella et al. 2004: 21).
4 Review
4.1 Evaluation results
Policy processes
RGT gives insight into the ways in which respondents view a specific problem or topic. It reveals the
'construct systems' on which respondents base their viewpoints, including the inconsistencies and conflicts
within and between these construct systems. Underlying assumptions can be explored, and changed.
The method allows for a systematic comparison of solution options and/or policy proposals in order to elicit
respondents' preferences. Using RGT can result in the selection of a preferred policy option thus helping
policy makers to make a reasoned choice on the basis of a set of criteria. RGT has been used in environmental
research, and the experience with the method in a number of studies has proven that it is a useful technique for
eliciting respondents' perceptions of environmental risks, and their preferences for specific policy options.
Operational aspects
Literature does not mention costs of this tool at all. Obviously, the costs depend very much on the number of
respondents and elements. Existing computerized versions of this tool, in which the constructs are elicited and
analyzed by means of a specific computer program, cost between 0 (some are free) and 400 Euro. Developing
project−specific software, like has been done in the project H2 Dialoog, will cost about 2000 euro. With
regard to the manpower: the interviews (elicitation) and the analysis of the constructs can be done by one and
the same person. If a computerized version of RGT is used, this person will also be the facilitator. When using
RGT in a workshop (like in the project H2 Dialoog − a workshop with 25 participants) it is useful to have a
number of people (let's say four) as facilitators to assist the workshop participants. On average, manpower can
be estimated at 2 to 3 man months.
On average, it will take about 20 to 25 interviews of about one hour each to have a sound overview of the
most relevant constructs in a particular context. Assuming one interview takes 4 hours (conducting the
interview and processing the data in to the computer), a RTG procedure will take about 80 to 100 hours. In
addition, some substantial time will be needed to select and pre−test the elements and to analyse the data
(estimated at a 100 hours).
The required data input is low. The only input that may be needed concerns the selection of elements, but this
can also be done with the help of the respondents (e.g. like in the COOL project and in the project H2
Dialoog). The output of the tool consists of a list of constructs that respondents use to give meaning to a
specific topic, as well as rankings (i.e. respondents' preferences) of elements according to the elicited
constructs.
Basically, RGT is simple but powerful. Most articles report that RGT is well understood by the respondents.
In the Dutch COOL project this was not the case for all participants, but that is probably because the tool was
2/5
Repertory grid technique (RGT)
used in phone interviews instead of in face−to−face interviews.
RGT is very transparent. Many variations exist for different aspects of the procedure such as the elicitation
procedure, the sorting technique, and the rating direction. Also, the tool is fairly user−friendly. Eliciting the
constructs is not difficult; the questions to ask respondents are simple. Analyzing the constructs is more
difficult and, if done quantitatively, requires statistical methods. The transparency of the outcomes to some
extent depends on the type of analysis that is conducted.
With regard to the reliability of the tool, researchers argue that RGT is not about producing the same results,
but to see to what extent it shows change (in preferences, meanings, etc.), and what that change is signifying.
The tool is able to measure the true range of constructs in a particular context and at a particular moment by
means of 20 to 25 interviews. This means that after 20 to 25 interviews, no new constructs will come up
anymore (saturation). Some test re−test studies show rather stable patterns of construct relationships, whereas
other studies report a lower degree.
It is hard to say what the time is before the results become outdated. People's constructs can change as the
result of new knowledge, new developments, etc. This is also one of the aims of RGT! With regard to the time
scale it needs to be stressed that the present situation is the reference. But the respondents can be asked to
specify what their preferences are for the long term, like has been done in the COOL project and in the project
H2 Dialoog.
4.2 Experiences
Much of the 'grid work' has taken/takes place in the clinical setting, with individuals, as a way of trying to
increase the psychologist's understanding of how the person views the world (Kelly, 1955; Ryle, 1975;
Bonarius et al., 1981). A few examples of psychological problems for which RGT has been used are: abuse,
anorexia nervosa, depression, suicide and phobias. Most of the studies that are published refer to a rather
successful use of RGT (see for a detailed overview Fransella et al., 2004 Chapter 8). Some studies report a
less successful use of the tool e.g. because it did not sufficiently elicit value−laden constructs.
Other settings in which the tool is used are: development of children, education, nursing, social relationships,
drugs use, forensic work, market research, politics, careers, business and sport (see Fransella et al., 2004,
Chapter 8). Wright (2004), for instance, reports on the use of RGT to increase the understanding of
employees' perceptions towards performance appraisals, and argues that the method allowed the investigation
to go much deeper than past research (in which conventional questionnaires were used) into the core
perceptions that influenced respondents' attitudes and subsequent behavior. Stein et al. (2003) used RGT to
evaluate the extent to which a one−semester university course helped students to better understand
technological design processes by conducting a Repertory Grid Technique at the start, and at the end of the
semester. Tan & Hunter (2002) report on the use of this tool to understand the cognition of users and
information systems professionals.
There are over a 400 articles published on RGT. Only a relative small number of these report on RGT
research in the area of environment and sustainability. As far as we are aware of, there are no reports of the
use of the tool in actual policy−making settings (although Q Methodology, a method very close to RGT, has),
but the method has been used in assessment processes that feed the policy process. Examples of applications
of the method on environmental and sustainability issues are:
UK: To evaluate urban planning map formats by lay people (Stringer, P., 1974).
Australia: To probe the ideas that students have about energy (Fetherstonhaugh, 1994); a computerized
version of the method to understand consumers' perceptions of food products (Russell and Cox, 2003, 2004);
Argentina: To elicit the perceptions of genetically modified food by consumers (Mucci, 2004).
3/5
Repertory grid technique (RGT)
The Netherlands: To elicit perceptions of scientists and other stakeholders in the Netherlands with regard to
climate risk management (Van der Sluijs et al., 2001; De Boer et al., 2000); to compare climate mitigation
options and to elicit preferences for long−term climate policy among stakeholders in the Netherlands (Van de
Kerkhof, 2004, Chapter 9, Van de Kerkhof et al., 2002), and to compare hydrogen futures and elicit the most
important concepts in the discussion on hydrogen technology (Van de Kerkhof et al., 2005).
Also in the case study of the Sustainability A−Test project, which concerns an impact assessment on the
introduction of biofuels in the European Union, related to the Biofuels Directive and the CAP Energy Crop
Premium, Consortium 3 has proposed to use RGT. The aim of RGT in this proposal is to systematically
analyze and compare the potential impacts of three different policy packages (scenarios) that can be
implemented to increase the share of biofuels in the transport sector.
4.3 Combinations
• RGT can be used in interviews, in questionnaires, but also in a computerized version. There are a
number of software packages available for both eliciting constructs, and for analyzing the repertory
grid data, such as REPGRID, FLEXIGRID, NEWGRID and WEBGRID.
• It can be used in combination with interviews, observations, and secondary data analysis (Stein et al.
2003; Fetherstonhaugh, 1994).
• In the Dutch COOL project, the method was used in a participatory assessment as input for a
stakeholder dialogue on criteria for climate policy (Van de Kerkhof, 2004).
• In the Dutch COOL project, the method was used to integrate the outcomes of an
interactive Backcasting exercise. In this exercise, groups of stakeholders had explored the
implementation pathways of a number of response options to climate change. Since the options were
mainly explored in isolation from one another, RGT was used to compare and integrate the different
analyses (Van de Kerkhof, 2004).
• Scholes and Freeman (1994) report on the use of RGT in combination with the reflexive dialogue in
order to explore the contribution of nursing practitioners to the therapeutic milieu.
• Fetherstonhaugh (1994) used RGT in combination with interviews in order to get insight into
students' ideas about energy.
• In the biofuel case study of the Sustainability A−Test project, the proposal is to use RGT in
combination with Scenario Analysis − Application and the outcomes of RGT serve as input for,
among others, Global Land Use Accounting/Total Resources Use Accounting emerges, and Life cycle
assessment.
• Q Methodology, Semantic Differential, Value−Focused Thinking, or Cognitive mapping can be used
as alternative methods for RGT.
4.4 Strengths and weaknesses
RGT is a flexible method that can be applied in many variations, and in a variety of issue areas (Fransella &
Bannister, 1977). It is able to develop the intersection between objective and subjective methods of
assessment: it targets the articulation of deeply personal meanings and enables the comparison or compilation
of these meanings vis−a−vis the meaning of others (Bannister, 1985, referred to in Neimeyer, 2002).
Furthermore, with a limited number of interviews (20 to 25, see Van der Sluijs et al., 2001) RGT is able to
elicit the true range of relevant constructs in a particular context (Dunn, 2001). Another strength is that when
it is used in a participatory assessment, the method has the capacity to enhance the quality of the
argumentative process by facilitating the exploration of conflicting arguments and (underlying) claims on a
specific topic (Van de Kerkhof, 2004). A final strength that we would like to mention is that the interviewer,
due to his or her minimal role, does not steer the respondent through questioning (Van der Sluijs et al., 2001).
The role of the interviewer will become even smaller if the respondents choose the elements in the analysis
and not the respondent (Van de Kerkhof, 2004).
Weaknesses of RGT are for example the fact that the method's variations with regard to e.g. elicitation
method, sorting technique, rating direction (Neimeyer, 2002; Neimeyer & Hagans, 2002) or variations with
4/5
Repertory grid technique (RGT)
regard to the examples that are used to introduce and explain RGT (Reeve et al., 2002) affect the outcomes of
the method. In other words: variations in the use of the method may elicit different sets of constructs (this
concerns the validity of the method). As a result, the policy maker might consider the grid outcomes
insufficiently reliable and, therefore, less relevant. Another weakness is that RGT only elicits the constructs to
which a person can attach verbal labels (Fransella et al., 2004). Another weakness is that respondents can be
suspicious towards the rather open questions and, as a result, feel constraint to think up constructs with an
open mind (Van de Kerkhof, 2004). Finally, in a participatory setting, in which RGT outcomes are fed back to
the group, it is possible that participants do not know how to deal with the outcomes, especially when these
elicit inconsistencies and changes in their own way of thinking (Van de Kerkhof, 2004).
4.5 Further work
RGT seems to be a promising method to use in sustainability assessments. So far, not much work has been
done in this field, particularly not in environmental assessments. In order to improve the method, and its
relevance for policy, it is crucial to gain more experience with this method and to evaluate its use in different
problem areas. Also, it would be interesting to experiment with RGT in a dialogue setting rather than in
individual interviews, possibly with a computerized version of Repertory grid.
4.6 References
Dunn, W. (2001) Using the method of context validation to mitigate Type III errors in environmental policy
analysis. In: Hisschemoller, M., R. Hoppe, W. Dunn and J. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, power and
participation in environmental policy analysis. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. 417−436.
Fransella, F, R. Bell & D. Bannister (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique. Second edition. John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd. UK.
Jankowicz, D. (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. UK.
Kelly, G.A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs. Volume one: A theory of personality. Routledge.
London. UK (originally published New York, Norton, 1955).
Neimeyer, G.J. & C.L. Hagans (2002). More madness in our method? The effects of repertory grid variations
on construct differentiation. In: Journal of Constructivist Psychology 15: 139−160.
Russel, C.G. & D.N. Cox (2004). Understanding middle−aged consumers' perceptions of meat using
repertory grid methodology. In: Food quality and preference 15: 317−329.
Smith, H.J. (2000). The reliability and validity of structural measures derived from repertory grids. In: Journal
of Constructivist Psychology 13: 221−230.
Van de Kerkhof, M., R. Bode, E. Cuppen, M. Hisschemoller, T. Stam and I. Varol (2005). Verslag van de
Scoping Workshop van de H2 Dialoog. Working document 2. IVM W05/15. Amsterdam. The Netherlands.
Van de Kerkhof, M. (2004). Debating climate change. A study of stakeholder participation in an integrated
assessment of long−term climate policy in the Netherlands. Lemma Publishers. Utrecht. The Netherlands.
Van der Sluijs, J., M. Hisschemoller, J. de Boer and P. Kloprogge (2001) Climate Risk Assessment:
Evaluation of Approaches. Synthesis report. Utrecht University. The Netherlands.
5/5