Likert versus Q-approaches in survey methodologies: discrepancies in results with same respondents

Eyvindson, Kyle; Kangas, Annika; Hujala, Teppo; Leskinen, Pekka

doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0006-y

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We use Q-methodology (Webler et al, 2009) to explore the personal views of decision-makers representing different decision-making levels in nine European countries, as well as the collective views they perceive to dominate with a range of arguments for protecting biodiversity. Q-methodology has been previously used to identify the patterns in the arguments that represent perceived biodiversity and ecosystem service values among different conservation professionals (Sandbrook et al, 2011;Berry et al, 2016) and practitioners and organizations (Fisher and Brown, 2014) as well as in other natural resource and environmental decision-making contexts (Nijnik and Mather, 2008;Albizua and Zografos, 2014;Eyvindson et al, 2015). Q-methodology has been previously used to identify the patterns in the arguments that represent perceived biodiversity and ecosystem service values among different conservation professionals (Sandbrook et al, 2011;Berry et al, 2016) and practitioners and organizations (Fisher and Brown, 2014) as well as in other natural resource and environmental decision-making contexts (Nijnik and Mather, 2008;Albizua and Zografos, 2014;Eyvindson et al, 2015).…”

Section: E Nvironmental Decision-making Portrays Both Individual and mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use statements about biodiversity and ecosystem services derived from biodiversity conservation literature, covering a range of value arguments (Howard et al, 2013). Q-methodology has been previously used to identify the patterns in the arguments that represent perceived biodiversity and ecosystem service values among different conservation professionals (Sandbrook et al, 2011;Berry et al, 2016) and practitioners and organizations (Fisher and Brown, 2014) as well as in other natural resource and environmental decision-making contexts (Nijnik and Mather, 2008;Albizua and Zografos, 2014;Eyvindson et al, 2015). Here, we extend this work by undertaking a comparison of personal and collective values.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value-and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, valuesintrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connectionas well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-makingutilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decisionmaking experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decisionmaking, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.

show abstract

Section: E Nvironmental Decision-making Portrays Both Individual and mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also limited direct comparisons between item ratings acquired from q-sorts and from Likert scales, with the two again being found to produce highly similar results (Eyvindson et al, 2015;Havlikova, 2016;ten Klooster et al, 2008;Thompson et al, 2013). ten Klooster et al (2008), for example, found a correlation of .93 between q-sort and Likert ratings, noting that the method used "did not substantially affect the way respondents rated the 30 items overall" (p. 516).…”

Section: Limitations Of the Georgia Family Q-sortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While doing so is typical of these types of analyses, ensuring that the profile represents the individuals in the sample, it does mean that the two profiles are not completely independent. With the number of items in this sort, it is not statistically a problem; with smaller numbers of items, however, it could be (Eyvindson, Kangas, Hujala, & Leskinen, 2015).…”

Section: Normativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of www.FamilyProcess.org 756 / this literature focuses on comparing and contrasting results from q-factor analysis with the more traditional r-factor analysis. In these studies, results from the two methods are generally viewed as highly similar (Eyvindson et al, 2015;Havlikova, 2016;ten Klooster, Visser, & de Jong, 2008;Thompson et al, 2013), with certain caveats. Both Eyvindson et al (2015) and Havlikova (2016), for example, note that the focus of the q-sort data on subjectivity can lead to different interpretations of very similar results, and Thompson et al (2013) note that differences between the two can often be attributed to the typically smaller sample size in q-sort studies.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Georgia Family Q-sortmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normativity and Desirability in Observational Assessments of Family Interaction

Deal

2018

Family Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues of normativity (responding in a typical or average fashion) and desirability (the tendency for raters to endorse positive characteristics rather than neutral or more negative ones) are common in areas of the social sciences that frequently utilize profile correlations to measure dyadic similarity. They have implications for family scholars as well. In the present study, a pre-existing data set was used to make an initial, though limited, investigation into potential confounds of normativity and desirability for macrolevel observational assessments of family interaction. An empirical example is presented using q-sort ratings of family interaction, with variance in observational assessments decomposed into component parts. High levels of both normativity and desirability were found, indicating possible problems in terms of both reliability and validity of assessment. While the results provide an interesting beginning, they are limited due to the use of a q-sort methodology as well as an instrument with limited background and use. These limitations are discussed, as well as alternative interpretations for normativity and desirability and implications for future research.

show abstract

Using Q‐methodology to understand stakeholder perspectives on a carnivore translocation

Bavin

MacPherson

Denman³

et al. 2020

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reversing global declines in predator populations is a major conservation objective, though people frequently come into conflict over carnivore conservation. As part of a national recovery programme for the pine marten Martes martes, a protected mesocarnivore in the UK, we used Q‐methodology to understand the perspectives of residents living in an area in which a pine marten translocation project was planned. In contrast to binary ‘for or against’ characterizations of debates surrounding such projects, we identified four perspectives with distinct priorities and concerns. A single perspective, ‘Concerned Manager’, opposed the translocation and marten recovery more generally, was apprehensive about impacts and favoured traditional predator management practices. Support was characterized by three perspectives: ‘Environmental Protectionist’, ‘Natural Resource Steward’ and ‘Cautious Pragmatist’. Two explicitly supported the translocation but differed in their priorities: Environmental Protectionist framed marten restoration as an ethical imperative, whereas Natural Resource Steward emphasized ecological and economic benefits. Cautious Pragmatist supported marten recovery, but expressed ambivalence about the translocation. We identified areas of divergence between the four perspectives, particularly surrounding risks posed by martens and need for predator control. We identified two areas of consensus among the four perspectives: support for a biodiverse environment and translocations as a means of achieving this (though this was contingent on the species), and agreement there would be economic and ecological benefits if martens controlled non‐native grey squirrels Sciurus carolinensis. We highlight that perspectives on this project were influenced by wider issues of wildlife management and conservation, particularly the impact and management of increasing populations of another mesocarnivore, the badger Meles meles. Negative experiences and perceptions of badgers were germane to the Concerned Manager perspective, and their fear that protected status would preclude marten population control. ‘Rewilding’ emerged as a divisive background issue, against which some participants evaluated the translocation. In facilitating understanding of perspectives and establishing the contexts through which they were formed, we found that Q‐methodology enabled us, as a team comprising conservation practitioners and researchers, to engage meaningfully with affected residents. We recommend the tool as a useful step in assessing social feasibility of conservation translocations. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Likert versus Q-approaches in survey methodologies: discrepancies in results with same respondents

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

Normativity and Desirability in Observational Assessments of Family Interaction

Using Q‐methodology to understand stakeholder perspectives on a carnivore translocation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About