Empirical Findings of a Projection
Slow Development
Clarifying and formulating structural hierarchies was initially extremely difficult. Progress depended on a deep understanding and feel for the subject, something that took a long time to develop.
The first identified emerged from the framework. Some combinations jumped out e.g. plans ()were obviously a dyadic combination. The name given to was .
As a check, a structural hierarchy was developed for . If you compare the original publication and the account on this website, you will notice significant adjustments. These adjustments were the result of exploring a variety of other structural hierarchies, of which the most important was .
Ch. 9 in Working with Values contains another early that dealt with . At the time of writing, the possibility of Tree formation was evolving and rather few taxonomic principles were available to guide naming.
There was a specific difficulty in formulating Tree Centres, which paralleled the uncertainty surrounding whether a Grouping label fitted best as Requirement (or Energy and placed above the graphic) or as a State and placed below.
I have recently established the taxonomic principle that G-Requirements (both the verb and the noun) provide the names for Tree Centres. Most provisional Trees needed some adjustment, but only the earliest investigations (like ) require significant changes.
A Surprise Finding
The study of around 2007 confirmed an intuition developed from the spiral for . All Spirals give rise to a Spiral-derived Tree. However the politics inquiry went further to establish that those Spiral-derived Trees originate structural hierarchies which generate Trees. The structural hierarchy here was named participating in political life.
During the structural hierarchy investigation, it became evident that the Groupings had a particular Root correspondence as shown below:
Investigation of the structural hierarchy emerging from followed later in 2011.
Note that at this time psychosocial pressures had not been conceived.
The diagram below was generated when checking for Root correspondence in . In this case there are two sets of G-names, depending on the perspective taken. Both sets show the same Root Level correspondence.
A Surprise Confirmation
The third identification of this pattern occurred in 2012 with the investigation of creativity in endeavours. That finding was not a surprise. The surprise came from the emergence of Appreciative Inquiry as a way to enable groups to develop their organisation around collective inquiry. It was surely not a coincidence that projection was hypothesized as targeting the Tetrads and therefore ended up in the Centre at the heart of the Structural Hierarchy Tree: •sHK-O4.
The conviction in Appreciative Inquiry is that inquiring intrinsically generates change if it occurs in a context of positivity and personal commitment, communication and aspiration. Such proposals are highly suggestive and in due course, it will become evident whether or not this approach has unconsciously accurately tapped taxonomic fundamentals.
Conclusion
Investigation of other structural hierarchies produced results similar to that found with Principal Typologies i.e. the connection with the Root Level was not obvious or necessary.
It seemed that once again I had been lucky. Fortunately, the development of conceptions in relation to the Principal Typology came to the rescue.
When I shifted the focus from the Root Level name to its associated (conjectured) psychosocial pressure, then correspondence made immediate sense in every structural hierarchy that I had developed. That applied equally to the three frameworks mentioned above.
| Root Level | Psychosocial Pressure |
projects to | •sH Grouping •sHK Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| RL7: Willingness | for Selflessness | → | G7 |
| : Purpose | for Autonomy | → | G1 |
| : Communic'n | for Understanding | → | G2 |
| : Experience | for Well-being | → | G6 |
| : Change | for Acceptability | → | G5 |
| : Inquiry | for Certainty | → | G4 |
| : Action | for Performance | → | G3 |
The implication is that we must not ask how or whether (say) or (both ) relates to , but rather why these functions necessarily operate under a pressure for autonomy.
Looking at this finding from the perspective of a Structural Hierarchy and the final Tree Level that results from the Requirements, the pattern is as follows:
| Grouping |
|
Psychosocial Pressure |
|---|---|---|
| G7- KL7 | is subject to pressure for | Selflessness |
| G6 - KL6 | is subject to pressure for | Well-being |
| G5 - KL5 | is subject to pressure for | Acceptability |
| G4 - KL4 | is subject to pressure for | Certainty |
| G3 - KL3 | is subject to pressure for | Performance |
| G2 - KL2 | is subject to pressure for | Understanding |
| G1 - KL1 | is subject to pressure for | Autonomy |
It is noteworthy that the Spiral Tree which relates to the Primal Need is grounded in and doubles up on performance in /KL1 and is centred on autonomy in CL4/KL4.
Whereas this Final sH Tree doubles up on selflessness in /KL7, is grounded in autonomy (G1/KL1), and is centred on certainty (CL4/KL4).
- Apply the findings using the notion of psychosocial pressure.
Originally posted 15-Jun-2015. Last amended 8-Jan 2023