Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997
To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com
From: Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se
Subject: On Kegan's CS "test"
Dear listmembers,
It seems that several of you found the idea of making a consciousness structure test intriguing, and I realize that I should have provided some explanation of Kegan's method. I have spent a lot of time reading Wilber's sources, in the last year especially the ones drawing on cognitive-developmental psychology: Loevinger, Kegan, Selman, Kohlberg, Streufert, Rosenberg and many others. None of them is working from a transpersonal perspective, which means that their models and methods only go as far as the centauric/existential consciousness structure. However, if looking at the lower half of the spectrum, I find Kegan's theory more penetrating than Wilber's. Many of the cognitive-developmentalists only focus on the cognitive dimension (the structure of thinking), but Kegan goes to the core and asks about the actual construction of the self at different stages of development.
Kegan has developed a sophisticated and reliable method for assessing what he calls the "order of consciousness" of individuals. He defines five such orders (excluding order "zero," the infant consciousness). On the whole, one could say that the 3rd order is roughly equal to the mythic-rational structure, the 4th to the mental-egoic/rational, and the 5th to the existential (however, on a closer look, there are some problems of comparability). The method is called the subject-object interview. It is a quite time-consuming method, and the interviewer must have a thorough understanding of Kegan's theory, as well as experience. The interview takes about 1 1/2 hour, then it has to be transcribed and scored according to a rather skill-dependent and laborious process. However, I really have got a great trust in the accuracy and meaningfulness of the method. There is a very good manual on the method (reference below), introducing the reader to the method, and providing increasingly difficult exercises.
In the interview, the subject is told that the aim of the interview is to explore how the subject makes sense of some personal experiences. The subject is handed ten cards with topics (anger, anxious, success, torn, etc.), and is asked to think back on the last few weeks about experiences in her/his own life that come to mind for each topic. The subject then makes some notes on the cards, and the interviewer starts the interview by asking the subject to choose as subject she/he wants to talk about. I can't go into detail about the interview technique here, but the task of the interviewer is to explore, by asking new questions, how the subject understands her/his own experiences, looking for evidence on from which consciousness structure the subject makes meaning. The questions are not standardized, but must be tailored to the needs of the moment. The interview is in the format of a conversation about the interviewees life situation, and is usually experienced as very agreeable and stimulating.
I am right now trying to learn this method, and as I hinted at in the last post, I have played with the thought of conducting e-mail interviews. I am not sure if it would work out well without the eye-to-eye relationship. On the other hand a great advantage would be that you don't have to transcribe the interview. I have not finished thinking about how to convert Kegan's method to the e-mail format, but it would clearly require a quite extended exchange of e-mails, perhaps 10-15 questions and replies over a period of a few weeks.
Now that you know that this method is not a questionnaire where you can choose between A, B, and C, twenty times, and then look up if you're a centaur or a zombie, are you *still* interested? I am quite tempted to make a try with e-mail interviews on a small and experimental scale, so if you think this might be an interesting experience, we could talk about it. However, perhaps I should interview myself first of all . . .
Thomas
References:
LAHEY, L., E. SOUVAINE, R. KEGAN, R. GOODMAN, S. FELIX (1988) A Guide to the Subject-Object Interview: Its Administration and Interpretation, Cambridge: Subject-Object Research Group.
KEGAN, R. (1982) The evolving self. Problem and process in Human Development, Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press.
KEGAN, R. (1994) In over our heads. The mental demands of modern life, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Two doctoral dissertations based on Kegan's framework:
LAHEY, L., (1986) Males’ and females’ construction of conflict in work and love, Thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Education of Harvard University.
STEINER, P. P. (1996) Conforming and non-conforming concurrence: Aspects of "groupthink" and orders of consciousness in democratic decision making, Thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Education of Harvard University.
*************************************
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997
To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com
From: Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se
Subject: Even more on Kegan's CS "test"
I forgot to mention some things in my last post:
– Kegan makes very fine discriminations in consciousness structures. Using his methodology one can discern five substages between two orders of consciousness, e.g. 3, 3(4), 3/4, 4/3, 4(3) and 4. This means that he provides a detailed framework for interpreting the transitions between one consciousness structure and the next.
– Kegan has still not found any examples of persons having developed the 5th order before reaching their 40's (if I remember correctly).
– The structure of Kegan's theory could perhaps be used to extend his framework beyond the 5th order (existential structure), even though it might prove difficult to find enough empirical material to study . . . :-). Kegan refers to Wilber's "The Atman Project" in a footnote in his most recent book, but does not comment upon Wilber's framework.
– I have made some efforts of summarizing Kegan's framework (I am planning an empirical study on the role of consciousness structures in destructive territorial behaviour in conflicts). If you ask me, I'll send my notes as a text file. But remember: there is no analysis of transpersonal structures.
Thomas J.