A METHOD FOR ELICITING AND COMPARING CAUSAL MAPS

Causal mapping has long been valued as a tool for exploring individuals' idiosyncratic beliefs. In this paper we do three things to make these benefits more utilizable by researchers. First, by detailing a replicable elicitation technique, we lay the ground for systematic and objective comparison of these beliefs: Systematic analysis and comparison require systematic elicitation. Secondly, through a careful analysis of what a causal map means, we have been able to refine a way of comparing maps which uses all of the available information within the maps and is objective in the sense that all subjective aspects of the method are made explicit (e.g, the pool of constructs, the interpretation of missing information, etc.). Thirdly, we discuss and extend various tools for analyzing the distance based measures which the comparison yields. In addition, a brief example of the use of the method is sketched. ''What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators, Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?'' So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply ''They are merely conventional signs! ''Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes But we have our brave Captain to thank'' (So the crew would protest) ''that he's bought us the best-A perfect and absolute blank!''