Describe one situation in two maps and mark the gap

Write one real situation, read it through two developmental maps, and note exactly where the two readings disagree.

Pourquoi ça marche

Two maps reading the same episode can disagree where their level boundaries fall differently. Writing both readings side by side makes the disagreement something you can look at, instead of a verdict in one voice. On this page’s reading, the place where the readings split points to the distinction the situation depends on. That is a hypothesis to test against the situation, not a result the sources establish.

Comment faire

1. Pick a situation from the last two weeks that you keep replaying, and describe it in three or four sentences of plain fact.
2. Read it through one model’s vocabulary, such as the STAGES tiers or Kegan’s subject-object question, and write that reading in a short paragraph.
3. Read the same episode through a second model, such as Torbert’s action logics, and write that reading separately.
4. Mark each point where the two readings disagree, and write which distinction seems to cause the disagreement.

Données probantes

Murray and O’Fallon (2020) say Kegan’s and Loevinger’s constructs are “closely related,” say the Loevinger/Kegan lineage and the neo-Piagetian theories “should have important differences and useful similarities,” and note that several neighboring developmental models have not been compared empirically. This practice is a reflective method derived from that caution. It has not been tested. (anecdotal)

Two readings written by the same person can share one blind spot. No published study shows that this exercise improves self-understanding.

Sources

• Murray, T., & O’Fallon, T. (2020). A Summary of Research on and with the STAGES Developmental Model. Integral Review, 16(1).

Erreur fréquente

Writing the second reading so that it agrees with the first. The exercise only works if the second model is allowed to see something the first one missed.