Personal Construct Qualitative Methods

  • Viv BurrEmail author
  • Angela McGrane
  • Nigel King
Reference work entry


In this chapter, we examine a number of research methods arising from personal construct psychology (PCP). Although its techniques are often relatively unfamiliar to qualitative researchers, we show how PCP provides opportunities to extend and enrich the predominant methods currently used by them. PCP adopts a constructivist epistemology and offers a number of techniques for enabling people to gain insight into their own and others’ constructions and perceptions. We outline several of these techniques in this chapter, illustrating them through examples of our own research and providing some guidelines for data analysis.


Construct elicitation Constructivism Construing Laddering Personal construct psychology Pictor Self-characterization sketch 


  1. Androutsopoulou A. The self-characterization as a narrative tool: applications in therapy with individuals and families. Fam Process. 2001;40(1):79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell R. Did Hinkle prove laddered constructs are superordinate? A re-examination of his data suggests not. Pers Constr Theory Pract. 2014;11:1–4.Google Scholar
  3. Bravington A. Using the Pictor technique to reflect on collaborative working in undergraduate nursing and midwifery placements. Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Burr V, Giliberto M, Butt T. Construing the cultural other and the self: A Personal Construct analysis of English and Italian perceptions of national character. Int J Intercult Relat. 2014a;39:53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burr V, King N, Butt T. Personal construct psychology methods for qualitative research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2014b;17(4):341–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burr V, Blyth E, Sutcliffe J, King N. Encouraging self-reflection in social work students: using personal construct methods. Br J Soc Work. 2016;46:1997. Scholar
  7. Butt TW. Personal construct theory and method: another look at laddering. Pers Constr Theory Pract. 2007;4:11–4.Google Scholar
  8. Butt TW. George Kelly: the psychology of personal constructs. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butt T, Bell R, Burr V. Fragmentation and the self. Constructivism Hum Sci. 1997;2(1):12–29.Google Scholar
  10. Elliott D, Brooks J, King N. Support networks of young people with autism spectrum disorder using Pictor: exploring multiple perspectives. (In preparation).Google Scholar
  11. Fransella F. The essential practitioner’s handbook of personal construct psychology. London: Wiley; 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Fransella F, Dalton P. Personal construct counselling in action. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Hardy B, King N, Firth J. Applying the Pictor technique to research interviews with people affected by advanced disease. Nurse Res. 2012;20(1):6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hargreaves CP. Social networks and interpersonal constructs. In: Stringer P, Bannister D, editors. Constructs of sociality and individuality. London: Academic Press; 1979. p. 153–75.Google Scholar
  15. Hinkle D. The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of implications. Unpublished PhD thesis, Columbus: Ohio State University; 1965.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson K. Visualising mental health with an LGBT community group: method, process, theory. In: Reavey P, editor. Visual methods in psychology: using and interpreting images in visual research. Hove: Psychology Press; 2011. p. 173–89.Google Scholar
  17. Kelly GA. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton; 1955.Google Scholar
  18. King N, Horrocks C. Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage; 2010.Google Scholar
  19. King N, Melvin J, Ashby J, Firth J. Community palliative care: Role perception. Br J Community Nurs. 2010;15(2):91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King N, Bravington A, Brooks J, Hardy B, Melvin J, Wilde D. The Pictor technique: a method for exploring the experience of collaborative working. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(8):1138–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King N, Brooks J, Bravington A, Hardy B, Melvin J, Wilde D. The Pictor technique: exploring experiences of collaborative working from the perspectives of generalist and specialist nurses. In: Brooks J, King N, editors. Applied qualitative research in psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.Google Scholar
  22. Lee R. Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage; 1993.Google Scholar
  23. Liamputtog P. Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Madill A, Jordan A, Shirley C. Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. Br J Psychol. 2000;91:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mercer B. Interviewing people with chronic illness about sexuality: an adaptation of the PLISSIT model. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(11c):341–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noble B, King N, Woolmore A, Hughes P, Winslow M, Melvin J, et al. Can comprehensive specialised end of life care be provided at home? Lessons from a study of an innovative consultant-led community service in the UK. Eur J Cancer Care. 2014;24:253–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pink S. Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pope M, Denicolo P. Transformative education: personal construct approaches to practice and research. London: Whurr; 2001.Google Scholar
  29. Ross A, King N, Firth J. Interprofessional relationships and collaborative working: Encouraging reflective practice. Online J Issues Nurs. 2005;10(1):4. Scholar
  30. Sargeant S, Gross H. Young people learning to live with inflammatory bowel disease: working with an “unclosed” diary. Qual Health Res. 2011;21(10):1360–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith JA, Osborn M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Smith JA, editor. Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods. London: Sage; 2003.Google Scholar
  32. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, School of Human and Health SciencesUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK
  2. 2.Newcastle Business SchoolNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle-upon-TyneUK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations