Q Methodology
The Q Method Page
(International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity)
Q Methodology takes an inventory of an individual's subjective positions on issues. It aims not to identify mean or average values, but to identify the spectrum of positions. It provides a number of potential uses:
analysis of contributions to dialogues
audit the effects of deliberation/participation on social learning
filter candidates for delibertive processes for issue representativeness
The steps:
Concourse definition is identifing the full breadth of social discussions and discourses surrounding the problem or issue: i.e., the "concourse." The extent of the research is limited only by the constraints of resources and time. Everything from newspaper articles and PR advertising to political speeches and neighbourhood discussions are legitimate sources. Reading, interviews and surveys can all be of value.
Q-set selection is based on the large number, possibly hundreds, of statements on the topic distilled from the concourse. This original sampling is then distilled to a more manageable number, usually no more than sixty, proportionately representative statements: the Q set.
P-sample is the set of participants in the relevant process. Usually the P-sample involves no more than fifty.
Q-sorting involves all members of the P-sample rating the statements in the Q-set on a Likert scale. The distinctive element of Q-sorting is that all statements are ranked and scored together, generating for each respondent a complete partial ordering of all statements scored across the spectrum
Statistical analysis subjects Q-sorts to factor analysis, enabling identification of clusters of Q-sorts containing ranking patterns.
Result interpretation requires careful examination of the rankings assigned to Q-statements by members of each cluster. Some times unanticipated elements emerge that may require researchers to reassess previous assumptions.
Toddi A. Steelman, Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-Methodology in National Forest Management (online paper)
Steven R. Brown, The History and Principles of Q Methodology in Psychology and the Social Sciences (online paper)
Davies, Ben B., et al. ""Recruitment," "composition," and "mandate" issues in deliberative processes: Should we focus on arguments rather than individuals? ," Environment and Planning, C: Government and Policy, 23(4) 2005, 599-615
Public participation in environmental decision-making has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasizes instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decisions is reached. Although within an idealized model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, the literature has argued that a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of “mini-publics,” which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community – for example, citizens’ juries and consensus conference. The authors identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such “mini-publics,” which they call the recruitment problem (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the composition problem (what the final composition of the mini-public is), and the mandate problem (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). They suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decision-making capacity is often unclear. They review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative – utilizing Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we argue that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.
IPAC Events
