Subject-Object Interview (SOI)

The Subject-Object Interview was created by Lisa Lahey and her colleagues at the Harvard Graduate School of Education as a means of assessing a person’s “unselfconscious epistemology or principles of meaning-coherence” (Kegan, 1994, p. 369). Though it was originally designed as a research tool for use by the constructive-developmental theorist, it became a useful tool for research and clinical work, as it provides a means by which to discern a person’s current epistemology, providing significant insight into the way in which they put their world together.

The interview takes about 75 minutes to complete and is fashioned in the style of the Piagetian semi-clinical interview, during which the interviewer asks the interviewee questions to determine how the interviewee makes sense of his experience (Kegan, 1994). The interviewer asks the interviewee to take five or ten minutes to write out some thoughts related to ten different prompts that include the following subjects: 1) angry, 2) anxious, nervous, 3) success, 4) strong stand, conviction, 5) sad, 6) torn, 7) moved, touched, 8) lost something, 9) change, and, 10) important to me. The interviewer then asks the interviewee to pick a card and elaborate on the theme selected. The interviewer guides the questioning in order to elicit subject-object material, or responses that will illuminate the interviewees underlying meaning-making capacity or epistemology. To reiterate, the fundamental question being asked during the Subject-Object Interview is this: “From where in the evolution of subject-object relations does the person seem to be constructing his or her reality? Which subject-object balance is the person primarily operating out of?” (Lahey et al., 2011, p. 7). Interviews are transcribed, and the sections which contain structural or subject-object material are identified and subjected to interpretation and analysis.

In addition to the six levels, the subject-object interview is able to make six reliable distinctions between any two orders of consciousness. Between the third and fourth orders, for example, it distinguishes between a) a system in which only the third order is in evidence [designated ‘3’]; b) a system in which the person has begun to separate from the third order [‘3(4)’]; c) a system in which both the third and fourth orders are in evidence and either the third predominates [‘3/4’]; or d) the fourth predominates [‘4/3’]; e) a system in which the fourth order is now the governing structure but it must work at not letting the third order intrude [‘4(3)’]; and finally, f) a system in which the fourth order is securely established [‘4’]. (Kegan, 1994, pp. 370-371). The table below summarizes the orders of consciousness in the constructive-developmental continuum.

Twenty-One Possible Epistemological Distinctions when Scoring the Subject-Object Interview

 Orders of consciousness Complete Equilibrium X then Y Transitional X(Y) Transitional X/Y Transitional Y/X Transitional Y(X)

Impulsive Balance 1 1(2) 1/2 2/1 2(1)

Imperial Balance/Instrumental Mind 2 2(3) 2/3 3/2 3(2)

Interpersonal Balance/Socializing Mind 3 3(4) 3/4 4/3 4(3)

Institutional Balance/Self-Authoring Mind 4 4(5) 4/5 5/4 5(4)

Interindividual Balance/Self-Transforming Mind 5