Content uploaded by Steven R Brown
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steven R Brown on Jan 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science
... First, we asked participants to sort the Q-set of 33 statements, with one statement in each slot of a grid according to the instruction: "What means do you consider as important to manage and preserve water in a better way?" from the "not important" (-3) to "very important" (þ3) ones. The basics of Q methodology state that the sorting grid follows a quasi-normal forced distribution (Brown 1980;Stephenson 1953) that helps to catch psychological significance, highlighting the importance of extreme choices. As underlined by Brown (1980), the larger the number of statements, the wider the range of available scores; in our case, we selected a continuum of 7 columns between −3 and 3 (Table 1). ...
... The basics of Q methodology state that the sorting grid follows a quasi-normal forced distribution (Brown 1980;Stephenson 1953) that helps to catch psychological significance, highlighting the importance of extreme choices. As underlined by Brown (1980), the larger the number of statements, the wider the range of available scores; in our case, we selected a continuum of 7 columns between −3 and 3 (Table 1). Distribution is forced to allow for a mathematical comparison between Q-sorts and to compel agents to prioritise statements. ...
... For this reason, we decide to focus on factor loadings and try various cuts before ending with five factors. Our selection process was also guided by interpretability of visions since factors are associated with two or more sorts (Brown 1980). Indeed, with eight factors, factors 5 and 6 have only one associated participant, and 17 individuals are not flagged with a p value < 0.05. ...
Enlightening discourses and subjective perceptions is a crucial issue for policy makers to improve public acceptance and better understand social conflicts. This paper offers an overview of reasons to use Q methodology in environmental economic policy and an example on water governance. Based on 35 face-to face interviews with French water stakeholders, this study highlights consensus and disagreements on the controversial use of water. Participants sorted statements representing means to manage the resource in a better way, associated with domestic, agricultural, and industrial consumption reduction, preservation of the resource in quality and quantity, city planning and innovation, water governance and information, solidarity, and shared initiatives. This study identifies five prevailing stakeholder perspectives. They rely on the trade-off between quality and quantity, collective involvement, knowledge of water resources, technological optimisation and pricing and regulation. These perspectives are then developed to inform decision-making of various stakeholders such as policy makers and water experts.
... For example, in a recent study on L2 WTC implementing a Q methodology, Solhi and Thumvichit (2024) identified three groups of L2 learners, namely selfassured communicators, motivated communicators, and nervous communicators. Q was firstly designed to help researchers understand individuals' subjectivities, providing contextual insights rather than quantitative data (Brown 1980;Stephenson 1953). Since individuals' subjectivities are understood as 'emotionally charged ideas of the nature of the world' (Leidig et al. 2022, 441), Q enables researchers to uncover the intricate ways people understand and navigate their situations. ...
... Another major strength of Q is its ability to mitigate the impact of social desirability (Watts and Stenner 2012), a common limitation in large-N surveys where participants might select responses that they believe are socially acceptable, avoiding taking a definitive stance on the topic. Q research is typically carried out in five sequential steps, as proposed by Brown (1980): developing a Q sample, obtaining a P sample, administering Q sorting, data analysis, and interpretation. The Q sample refers to a collection of statements reflecting a variety of views or experiences related to the topic. ...
... Prior to building the Q sample for the current study, we constructed a concourse which serves as the basis from which the Q sample is selected (Brown 1980). To achieve this, a hybrid technique was used. ...
Purpose: This Q methodology study explored foreign language learners' divergent viewpoints on teachers' characteristics that contribute to unwillingness to communicate (unWTC). Design/methodology/approach: Q sorting was administered in-person with 40 Chinese undergraduate students enrolled in several Thai as a Foreign Language courses at a university in Thailand. The students sorted 30 statements, each reflecting distinct teacher characteristics that potentially silence them in the classroom, onto a forced-distribution grid. All Q sorts were analyzed using inverted factor analysis, followed by semi-structured interviews with six of the participants. Findings: The findings revealed three profiles of characteristics that contribute to L2 unWTC, namely, the impatient teacher, the uninspiring teacher, and the intimidating teacher. These profiles were found to hinder different groups from engaging in L2 communication. The findings are discussed in relation to relevant educational theories, and implications are presented. Originality/value: This study highlights the importance of understanding and addressing specific teacher behaviors that influence learners' L2 WTC. By identifying and mitigating these behaviors, educational institutions can create more supportive and encouraging learning environments that promote greater engagement and success in language learning.
... The Q-sort table includes a rating scale across the top that depending on the number of the statements in the Q-sample can vary, for example, from -3 to + 3 to -6 to + 6. The range and distribution of the Q-sort table are quite arbitrary, have a negligible effect on the results of the study, and can be altered for the convenience of the participants [38]. The Q-sort table is used for data collection and each completed Q-sort table is known as a Q-sort. ...
... Therefore, sample size is not a determining factor and low response rates do not bias the study results [39]. Usually, a sample size of 40-60 participants is sufficient for meeting the statistical requirements of Q-methodology [38]. The quantitative component of a Q-methodology study includes a by-person factor analysis of the Q-sorts to classify (factorize) participants into different groups, so that each factor includes participants with similar views or perceptions regarding the topic of study. ...
... Therefore, a participant's completed Q-sort is regarded as a valid expression of his or her view. In addition, several studies reported high test-retest reliability (≥ 0.80) for the Q-sorting process [38,43]. ...
Background
Formal evaluations are an integral part of a student's learning and encourage students to learn and help instructors identify students’ weaknesses. Over the past few decades there have been growing concerns that instructors and evaluators are passing students who do not meet expectations. This phenomenon, in which instructors pass students who do not meet expectations, has been referred to as “failure-to-fail”. In this study, we used Q-methodology to identify instructors’ justifications for failure-to-fail.
Methods
A Q-methodology study was conducted to identify the major viewpoints of instructors at a Canadian university. A by-person factor analysis with principal component factor extraction and Varimax rotation was used. The analysis was conducted using the QFACTOR program in Stata. A Cohen’s effect size of 0.80 was used to identify distinguishing statements.
Results
Fifty seven instructors participated in this study. Through a by-person factor analysis, three factors representing three viewpoints emerged: Intrinsically Motivated, Extrinsically Motivated, and Administratively & Emotionally Deterred. The Intrinsically Motivated group perceived mental barriers that prevented them from failing students. They strongly disagreed that they experienced pressure from either students or their schools to pass students. The Extrinsically Motivated believed that their higher-ups and the university encouraged them to pass all students. They perceived discomfort associated with defending their reasons for failing students and were concerned that failing students would damage their own career advancements. The Administratively & Emotionally Deterred group believed that the process of failing a student was stressful and exhausting. They disagreed that a failed student is a result of the instructor’s own inadequate guidance or mentorship.
Conclusions
This study identified three distinctive viewpoints that outline areas of consideration for addressing the failure-to-fail mechanism. More transparent discussions within schools, as well as identifying solutions, are required to create systems that ensure educational and professional standards are maintained. Further replication of this study in various disciplines may be used to determine whether these findings are consistent in different fields.
... In the 1930s, psychologist Stephenson developed the Qmethodology, which combines the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research traditions. It is also considered a semiquantitative method [ 26 ] and can thus be regarded as a pioneer of the so-called "grounded theory" approach. Using the Q-methodology to assess the importance of FESs proves instrumental in gaining a profound understanding of the complexity of FES contributions to human well-being. ...
... In the following sections, we will briefly overview each step. However, when conducting your research, referring to more comprehensive Q-method literature is recommended [ 26 ]. ...
... In the Q-method, the participants represent the target population and are asked to rank Q-statements to express their opinions on these statements. The sample size is not a critical factor [ 19 ], as Q-methodology research aims to determine the existence of viewpoints rather than generalize them to the entire population [ 26 ]. Therefore, the number of Q-participants should typically fall between 8 and 30 individuals, with the sample size usually constituting 1 / 2 to 1 / 3 of the number of statements. ...
The stakeholders’ perceptions of forest ecosystem services (FESs) vary among different stakeholder groups. This study, using China’s Shennongjia National Park Pilot (SNP) and Canada’s Banff National Park (BNP) as case studies, identifies and evaluates the preference characteristics of key stakeholders (including farmers, individual operators, government officials, and tourists) toward various FESs. We utilized Q-methodology and semistructured interviews to conduct a sorting of 23 Q-statements regarding FESs, across 7 categories (ranging from −3 to +3), with 24 Q-participants. Stakeholders’ preferences toward FESs were categorized into 3 common perspectives: tourism and culture, production and livelihood, and ecological conservation. Different types of stakeholders hold both consensus and divergence regarding their views on FESs. For instance, there was strong consensus on services related to “natural ecotourism and biodiversity conservation”, while stakeholders expressed strong opposition regarding services related to “forest protection”. Furthermore, stakeholders elucidated the reasons behind their preferences for different types of FESs. Overall, our study indicates that besides considering the services provided by forests themselves, policymakers also need to pay attention to the preferences and divergences in needs among stakeholders of national parks. This ensures a more comprehensive fulfillment of diverse societal needs and facilitates the formulation of more effective policies to promote the sustainable management and conservation of national parks.
... In order to both discover and describe these divergent viewpoints, the researcher used Q methodology. Q methodology [hereafter referred to as Q] was specifically developed to scientifically study the multiple subjective viewpoints about any topic or event (Brown 1980(Brown , 2010(Brown , 2019McKeown and Thomas 2013;Stephenson 1953). The specific research questions are, therefore, ...
... Q is a well-established research methodology that is nearly 90 years old with its creation marked by William Stephenson's 1935 publication in Nature. Q is the appropriate methodological choice whenever a researcher is interested in opinions, judgements, decisions, and the like which are based on subjectivity (Brown 1980). Q provides far more detail about the subjective viewpoints that exist than typical Likert-scale types of surveys (McKeown 2001). ...
... Q provides far more detail about the subjective viewpoints that exist than typical Likert-scale types of surveys (McKeown 2001). Qualitative and quantitative studies seek aggregate findings, yet this approach presumes that there is a normal response to situations which is a signature of a singular viewpoint (Ramlo 2022b(Ramlo , 2023aBrown 1980;McKeown and Thomas 2013) such as persistence of undergraduates in engineering education. Nonetheless, we know that different students respond differently to the same program or even the same classroom. ...
... Distinguishing statements were identified through the comparison of the difference in Z-scores between factors and the Standard Error of differences (Brown 1980;Zabala and Pascual 2016). This ensured the criteria for distinction to be data driven and through the qmethod package allowed for identifying the level of significance for each comparison (Zabala 2014). ...
Spanning the boundaries between research and decision-making is critical for supporting environmental management. One way to do so is through knowledge brokers who, among other things, work to build social networks among decision-makers and researchers, facilitating their interaction and exchange of knowledge. While knowledge brokering has received increasing attention in the literature, critical gaps in our knowledge limit their effective recruitment and implementation, which demands for a better understanding of the personal attributes needed for their success. Such an understanding is also necessary to support the evaluation of knowledge brokering activities. Therefore, in this study, we investigate the question ‘what are the most important attributes for being a knowledge broker at the interface of environmental research and management’, and how is knowledge brokering evaluated. We do so through the study of Australia’s National Environmental Science Program (NESP) which employs a range of professional knowledge brokers, 14 of whom participated in this study. Specifically, we performed a quantitative ranking exercise (Q-methodology) and an online survey. Results show that the most important attributes to knowledge brokering were interpersonal social competencies of a unifying nature. As such, Being good at seeing opportunities for collaboration, Being able to tailor communication to different audiences, and Being able to ask questions were the most highly ranked attributes. In the dimension of evaluation, survey results show that NESP knowledge brokers are mainly evaluated through metrics relating to immediate delivery and engagement (mostly quantitative measures) and medium-term impact on end-users (qualitative measures). However, participants envisioned better options to capture the impact/value of knowledge brokering by evaluating long-term impacts and efforts throughout the full brokering process to better capture value addition in line with their goals, strategies, and required attributes. The new knowledge generated through our findings offers an applied contribution to the practice of knowledge brokering, suggesting that knowledge brokering is a distinct and complex career whereby different knowledge brokers with complementary skill sets appear relevant to perform all tasks along a knowledge brokering timeline. As such, our results also emphasize the need for bespoke approaches to evaluation that are tailored towards the diverse goals, strategies, and personal contributions of knowledge brokers to support their career progression and maximise outcomes.
Purpose: Extension and advisory services (EAS) are crucial for farm success and rural well-being in Canada. Like elsewhere, Ontario's EAS has transformed, embracing diverse providers and methods. While research on pluralistic EAS grows, little examines how stakeholders perceive the effectiveness of different methods. This study fills the gap, evaluating Ontario’s pluralistic EAS methods through key stakeholder perspectives.
Methodology: Using the Q-methodology, we conducted an online survey on Qualtrics with 49 purposefully selected producers, advisors, and researchers and used PQMethod software to analyze their viewpoints.
Findings: The findings revealed three factors representing the respondents’ views about the usefulness of different advisory methods. The first factor focuses on personalized methods, while the second highlights digitally engaged methods. The third factor stresses traditional extension methods that include group and training-based activities. Researchers’ perspectives leaned towards digital methods, while producers emphasized personalized extension methods, and most advisors were loaded undertraditional advisory methods.
Practical implications: Stakeholders value traditional and personalized extension methods for their interactivity and on-farm presence. The study suggests a personalized advice strategy integrating online, face-to-face, and group methods.
Policy implications: The findings provide insight for policymakers and practitioners to improve the effectiveness of pluralistic agricultural advisory service delivery by integrating various advisory methods.
Theoretical implication: This study enriches the discourse on pluralistic advisory systems by presenting stakeholder perspectives on method efficacy.
Originality/value: This unique study unveils multi-stakeholder views on advisory methods, aiding Ontario farmers to receive relevant, accurate information and meet their needs.
The study employed Q methodology to investigate Thai primary school teachers’ emotion regulation (ER) in classrooms with migrant students, categorizing
them into different cohorts based on their shared ER strategies and exploring how these strategies influence teachers and their multicultural classrooms. Three distinct teacher groups were identified. The first group, re-rationalizers, address obstacles by reinterpreting them in a positive light, emphasizing their roles as moral guides and facilitators of student development. The second group, change makers, tackle communication issues directly with a strong commitment to student support and an inclusive mindset. The third group, self-distractors, manage emotional difficulties by shifting their attention to the positive aspects of the situation. Although they may not directly address the issue, this strategy helps maintain a positive atmosphere in the multicultural classroom. These strategies highlight the importance of understanding teachers’ emotion regulation among the participants to enhance their effectiveness in working with diverse students, with implications for policymakers and education at large. The findings underscore the significance of understanding teachers’ emotion regulation strategies to improve their effectiveness in diverse educational settings. These insights have implications for policymakers and educational
practices.
This mixed-methods study used Q methodology to uncover two distinct perspectives among U.S. news consumers on their expectations of journalists. One expressed a traditional, neutral view of journalism. The other was more likely to accept journalistic voice and agency. The factors were similar to those uncovered in a previous study of journalists. This study revealed consensus items among news consumers, such as “a journalist’s first obligation is to the truth,” and areas of disagreement. Participants with a more traditional view were more likely to be politically conservative and older. We also found significant differences by trust and journalistic role conception.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.