Structuralist research methods in a Post-Structuralist context?

Structuralist Methods

Validity re:

Structuralist assumptions in theory  incompatible and proven to be false  but

re Research

Structuralist trends in a post-structural context: ie commonalities of meaning structures due to ideological/hegemonic  forces constraining/creating  individuals self-identities  and artistic/creative process models etc

Post Structuralism and atomised postition

What about positions that acknowledge universal aspect to self

eg Deleuze (Based on Wilhelm Reich)

c.f universalising truth claims?

preemptive, stereotyped c.f. provisional (Kelly)

Current Position

*** My attitude at the time of writing coincides with Habermas  in the sense that that the abscence of an empirical foundation does not deny the possibility of a rational normative foundation which is essentially an ethics of communication, a meta ethics... if  once it is acknowledged that a 'text' can be read in as many different ways as there are readers, and  someone may have  a different association between internal feeling and external form,  the process of enquiry and communicationj becomes of much greater delicacy and importance, as assuming your own cultural forms, constructions and objects will lead to the same subjective experience & feelings in another is not rational in communicative terms...although it may be in terms of  'narrow self interested and oppressive' /'pragmatic' instrumental rationality via interpellation.. (c.f pre emptive/ stereotyping and provisional constructs) SRT

Derrida stated he sees deconstruction as Affirmation(ref). In  Derrida's own words :  deconstruction "doenst destroy but analyses the  layers and formation of  concepts, offers a genalogical analysis of trajectory of concept...  and analyses hidden assumptions"(ref youtube?). eg subject   human rights -  become aware of historical components of concept and all its determinations (human subject - female subject , european). He argues it doesnt undermine rationality in a universal sense,  but  a particular norm of rationality (associated with the universal claims  of Aristotelian binary oppositions and Cartesian Dualism and the idea of a rational coherent concious ego) which it can be argued  manifests in hegemony  and hence  deconsstruction can be seen as a step to a future, more  inclusive rationality that respects difference.  

Through abandoning meta-language ( a discussion about attribution) we abandon reason  this leaves " reason" to falls prey to instrumental rationality  ( an ideology that claims to not be an ideology ?) due to the influence of specialised  "expert interests" dominating the discourse via mystification and specialised language games ( we hand power to those who have the technique to win langauge games..)

Since the 1970's the  "empirical evidence"  points to the fact that our capitalist system,  driven by a narrow divisive instrumental rationality is well on the way to destroying its own ecological life support system... as it is driven by a limited form of "Rationality" assuming this is the case those with a more encompassing view have to respond  with some form of  rationality if they going  to be taken into account... whether it is and expanded form of rationality (Derrida) or a Communicative rationality (Habermas)

My stance is that I consider structuralist methods (eg Osgood, Kelly) can still be used effectively to elicit structures of meaning held by individuals and identify commonalities in meaning imposed via ideology even if the concept of universal structures has been disproved.

Also

take into account the width of world views from the performative to the empirical

In my opinion  essential criteria include 

1.  does the author discuss assumptions in an attempt to futher understanding or  purposely obscure them in order to win and assumed language game\ some authors claim that to clarify assumptions is impossible?

2, Frame problem  discourse boundary post structuralim : if we have a  closed expert discourse then instrumental  rationality is likely to dominate, how can we have a clsosed discourse if we have no  "self" but that constructed in discourse - c.f interpellation, binary dualism - categorisation systems <>  ecological

3: is there a simple binary distintion between  Marx and the post structuralists - Derrida 

4. Are binary distinctions addressed

5. is ideology, and instrumenta  rationality addressed

6. Are 'expectations' addressed ( expectations of outcomes in the context of experimentation)

7.In my opinion the main colonisation of the life world has been with Aristotelian Binary dualisms themselves and the dualistic premises on which our language, institutions and expert systems are built, and their manifestion in the Digital Hardware, and Software  - this needs to be taken into account. 

Those facets of Post structuralism that deny the legitimacy of any meta narrative based on unity or wholeness is  in my opinion questionable as all observation of nature shows it to consist of wholes (eg the systems approach ) the replacement of this model with  a flat plane of separate competing  discourses , priviliges distinction over union and those who promote it must be explicit about this bias  and how they address this  otherwise this leaves us with a  binary meta narrative...  and fits neatly with the meta narrative  of  a digital darwinian capitalism  of the "American Dream" as desrcibed in Jameson.

8. In what sense can/ does the performative  get colonised by instrumental rationality, is it inevitable ?

2.5 From group domination to professional and 

institutional power

Van Djik 362

9 Self Fulfilling prophecy.

Research Methods: Self-Characterisation, Kelly

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your query – always good to hear from students using a constructivist approach to their studies. 

My first impression is to agree that rep grid as a tool may not be ideal for your purposes. As you say, the experience of creativity is not easily captured in systematic binary form. Although rep grid has become the main research tool in PCP, I don’t believe that was ever intended. PCP is an essentially creative theory – it is about invention and re-invention, and constructivist research should be a creative act.

Perhaps creative flow lends itself more to an ‘unveiling’ as mentioned in your quote on poiesis? As you have been exploring your own creative practice experientially, perhaps this will be the way to work with others? The knack will be to underpin this with some methodological rigour.

I wonder if you might be able to develop methods based on Kelly’s self-characterisation techniques? This asks a person to write about themselves, intimately and sympathetically, in the third person. People could be invited to write about their creative self and its contrast.   Kelly offers a variety of clues for analysing and exporing these characterisations. These have been developed and elaborated by various practitioners, and they also lend themselves to thematic analysis.

This kind of exercise can easily be converted into art work – for example, drawing the creative self and the context in which it flourishes, and then drawing the contrast. Or expressing this contrast in a variety of other forms. These ‘products’ provide rich packets of data for further detailed exploration and for collaborative hypothesising about common themes.

We are still working with dichotomies here but in looser form, the method itself is more about ‘bringing into the light’ and less about pinning down. That comes later as we try to extract some propositional conclusions from the data.

Fay Fransella descibes it this way:

 Its analysis does not rest on the derivation of quotients for pleasure-pain statements, or on counts of such things as negative and positive statements. Instead, as Kelly puts it, one "listens to nature babbling to herself" and seeks to gain some insights into another's personal construct system.

I’ve attached a paper I wrote about learning to sing which was approached in this way. People were asked to construe themselves as non-singers and as singers. The outcome of the study was a range of proposals about how we might create a facilitative environment for non-singers learning to sing. It may be of interest to you.

Self-characterisation features in kelly’s 2-volume work on PCP (1955) and I’ve attached a handout used on PCPA introductory courses.

The conversion into images/metaphor and back out from them has some similarities to the soft systems work, although I have a sense that that methodology lends itself best to working on the process of change. Your work sounds more exploratory, less directional?

I don’t know the work you mention on management constellations – thanks for the article, I will enjoy reading it,

All good wishes

Mary

mary frances

personal and organisational development

mary.frances@virgin.net

PCP, Pragmatism

c.f Margolis 

   

Scholars locate Kelly’s Personal Construct Psychology within the context of American pragmatism. Kelly noted his conviviality with pragmatist John Dewey, but only cited William James briefly and in general terms. James’ explication of pragmatism demonstrates several areas of compatibility with PCP; examining James’ ideas might deepen understanding of PCP. This article describes relevant elements of James’ pragmatism, including the process of nature, the practical effects of ideas, truth as action and practice, passion and emotion, conventional common sense constructions, generalization of constructs, the role of human possibility, and the importance of goals and intentionality. 
    
Keywords: Pragmatism, William James, Personal Construct Theory

	Spencer A. McWilliams
	California State University  http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp09/mcwilliams091.html