Q Method
- intermittent fieldwork
- months timescale
- medium resource requirement.
Q methodology is used to characterize how groups of people think about an issue in a systematic way. By paying attention to the subjective points of view of individuals, it seeks to understand the internal frame of reference of people as they relate to issues or experiences. Q methodology can be used to identify underlying explanations for points-of-view shared by people or collectives who take opposing positions on a given issue. Conversely, it can also be used in locating and explaining differences in seemingly homogenous social groups.
For example, it can illuminate diverse positions amongst communities such as ‘scientists’, ‘farmers’, ‘locals’ or ‘environmentalists’. In this way, Q methodology can make visible how communities view or experience policy interventions, environmental effects, social issues or other social or material phenomena. Hence Q methodology can provide valuable insights allowing decision makers open up the scope of possible policy goals and policy interventions in pursuit of development that is sustainable in the view of diverse interested groups.
- Should I use an Q Method?
Q methodology builds and extends concepts and approaches from psychology as a way to understand individual subjects’ frame of references, or points of view (Stephenson 1953, Smith 1996). These concepts have been applied and extended with references to domains relevant to sustainable development such as political science (Brown, 1980), policy analysis (van Eeten, 2001), human geography (Eden et al. 2005) development studies (Yeboah et al 2016) and contentious issues of environmental change (Cairns and Stirling, 2014).
Q method helps researchers understand how different people see or experience issues in often very different ways. It reveals subjectivity within topic areas which might, on the surface, appear to consist of merely technical debate (White). Both ‘marginal’ and ‘mainstream’ points-of-view are emergent from the analysis. As such it rejects a priori prioritization of issues and can help broaden out how a topic area is characterized.
While a critique of the method might be its relatively small participant size, a significant strength lies in its potential to rigorously test a full set of possible opinions or views. In fact, the range of potential subjective perspectives tested for are limited only by the ability to generate these potential perspectives from relevant literature or other sources. In this regard then, the construction of the concourse is crucial. Furthermore, the importance of constructing a well-formed concourse means that the method is best suited to topic areas there are already deep experiences or well-formed knowledge.
The requirement to engage for between one and two hours per Q sort can limit participation to those with time, or notable commitment to the research enterprise. Similarly, the form of participation privileges those who can read. Conversely, the tactile and physical nature of the method can elicit reflexivity and thoughtfulness in participants, particularly amongst those not pre-disposed to writing or reading tasks.
- How do I use Q Method?
Q method does not seek to identify and characterise representative groups or ‘categories of individuals’ through, for example, large survey methods. These kinds of methods categorise people with reference to external objective and independent variables such as age, gender or income1. Rather, Q provides a method for identifying and characterising typical points-of-view from amidst a wide diversity of relatively few subjects, typically 10 to 40 (Watts and Stenner, 2005). The key to Q is to cover the entire population of subjective points-of-view (of for example, experiences of huger or inequality), rather than the population of users per se.
Q methodology proceeds through the construction of a concourse of statements representing all of these possible subjective perspectives relating to the topic. This is usually hundreds of statements gathered from sources such as literature reviews or focus groups. Ideally these represents several competing discourses, or ways of framing the issue. A representative sample of the concourse, the Q sample, is assembled – and usually printed on individual cards – such that it provides coverage and focus on issues most relevant to the research question. In practice less than 45 statements are sufficient for this purpose.
The Q sample is sorted by the participants. These people are representative of the breadth of opinion on the topic, rather than being representative of the wider population. During the Q sort, participants arrange the Q sample statement cards so as to best best match their experience (see Figure 1 below). During or after the sorting process, participants are encouraged to explain their decisions and reasoning. Each Q sort represents the individual participant’s unique point-of-view on the topic.
Figure 1: An example of a normalised distribution shape onto which participants are asked to sort statement cards from in the Q set, in this case represented by the 42 dark grey slots. Webler 2009 debates the merits of ‘enforcing’ this normalised pattern or not.
With the distribution of statements in each Q sort recorded, factor analysis is used to find systematic relations between these diverse points-of-view2. Thereby a more limited set of commonly occurring types of points-of-view are created. In essence this step clusters the sample of Q sorts into a smaller number of archetypical points-of-view allowing for ’underlying explanations’ to be offered. Studying the points-of-view represented by these emergent factors presents an interesting approach to systematically analysing the topic space relevant to a given inquiry, in a way that combines qualitative and interpretive knowledge with quantitative and descriptive analysis.
Each of the factors point back to often diverse individuals sharing their subjective view-points. Analysis and recommendations proceed through constructing narratives around each of the factors that best explain the point-of-view, often with reference to other available data such as demographic surveys carried out on the participants or interview transcripts. More detail on the process of analysis can be found in Watts and Stenner (2005).
Q methodology can be applied at different scales, via online platforms especially designed to carry out the sorts and then assist with the analysis of data. However, in practice it is best applied in person so that participants may be interviewed or assessed in person.
- 1 “Indeed, there is no outside criterion for a person’s point of view” (Brown, 1980). It is always subjective and self-referent. Brown offers an in depth treatment of Q methodology that uncovers its philosophical and epistemological foundations.
- 2 Software is required to run the factor analysis, for example the “Q method” R package (Zabala, 2014). Further standalone software packages are detailed on Peter Schmolck’s .
- Examples of Bibliometrics in Sustainability Research
Cairns, R. and Stirling, A. (2014) ‘“Maintaining planetary systems” or “concentrating global power?” High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering’, Global Environmental Change. Elsevier Ltd, 28, pp. 25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.005.
Kroesen, M. and Bröer, C. (2009) ‘Policy discourse, people’s internal frames, and declared aircraft noise annoyance: An application of Q-methodology’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 195(126). doi: 10.1121/1.3139904.
Yeboah, T. et al. (2016) ‘Perspectives on jobs and farming : Findings from a Q study with young people , parents and development workers in rural Ghana’, The European Journal of Development Research. Palgrave Macmillan UK, (January). doi: 10.1057/s41287-016-0006-y.
Ellis G, Barry J, Robinson C. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. J Environ Plann Manag 2007, 50:517–551.
- References and Resources
Brown, S. R. (1980) Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale 5XÉçÇøÊÓƵ Press.
Eden, S., Donaldson, A. and Walker, G. (2005) ‘Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography’, Area. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), 37(4), pp. 413–422. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00641.x.
Smith, J. A. (1996) Rethinking methods in psychology. London [u.a.]: Sage.
Watts, S. and Stenner, P. (2005) ‘Doing Q methodology : theory , method and interpretation’.
van Eeten, M. J. G. (2001) ‘Issues : The Wider The Netherlands Civil Abstract’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), pp. 391–414.
White.
Zabala, A. (2014) ‘qmethod : A Package to Explore Human Perspectives Using Q Methodology’, 6(December), pp. 163–173.
- SSRP projects using Influence Matrices
Suggested citation: O'Donovan, C. (2019). Q-Method [online] Sussex Sustainability Research Programme Research Methods for Sustainability Catalogue. Available at: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ssrp/resources/research-methods/q-method.