Evaluation of Environmental Policy with Q Methodology

Abstract

Environmental policy is often characterized by differences of opinion and polarized perceptions. This holds for all groups involved in lobbying, creating, implementing, and researching policy. Q methodology is a technique originally developed by William Stephenson in the 1930s for work in psychology as an alternative to R methodology, which was dominant at the time. R methodology involves gathering scores from subjects being analyzed, such as those generated by intelligence tests, and then correlating the scores with factors such as gender or ethnicity. Obviously, the scores are heavily dependent on the choice of questions set by the researcher in the tests. In contrast, Q methodology commonly uses statements generated by the participants of the study, and it is these that the subjects are asked to score. This helps to avoid the type of bias that might result from a researcher formulating the statements presented to the subjects, though it is important to note that researcher bias is also present in Q methodology through selection of the statements and the type of quantitative analysis used. In studies involving evaluation of environmental policy, Q methodology is typically used to elicit opinions from subjects by scoring participant statements obtained from interviews or statements from secondary sources such as written reports, news articles, or images. These scores are then correlated using factor analysis, and statements that group together are compiled to create discourses about different aspects of the environmental policy under evaluation.

Prioritising climate change actions post COVID-19 amongst university students; a Q methodology perspective in the United Arab Emirates

“…Four factors were chosen for interpretation based on their Eigenvalue and significant Q-sort loadings (at 0.365 or above). The Although interpretation is based on the complete ranking, PQ Method output identifies all consensus and distinguishing statements, and these are particularly useful during interpretation to identify differences as well as similarities among the factors (Graaf, 2005, Lovett et al, 2021. Distinguishing statements are those that have been scored significantly different by one factor compared to others.…”

“…Consensus statements, by contrast, are those that are ranked in a similar or identical position by all factors. (Mukherjee et al, 2018, Lovett et al, 2021.…”

Prioritising climate change actions post COVID-19 amongst university students; a Q methodology perspective in the United Arab Emirates

“…Four factors were chosen for interpretation based on their Eigenvalue and significant Q-sort loadings (at 0.365 or above). The Although interpretation is based on the complete ranking, PQ Method output identifies all consensus and distinguishing statements, and these are particularly useful during interpretation to identify differences as well as similarities among the factors (Graaf, 2005, Lovett et al, 2021. Distinguishing statements are those that have been scored significantly different by one factor compared to others.…”

“…Consensus statements, by contrast, are those that are ranked in a similar or identical position by all factors. (Mukherjee et al, 2018, Lovett et al, 2021.…”