2015 Conference

Full Presentation Panel

Q Methodology provides an innovative approach to study environmental issues that are complicated by individual perspectives and biases, which in turn shape discourses, actions, and outcomes.  It is increasingly being used within environment-related fields as a way to systematically study the subjectivity of individuals.  For example, it can be used to study subjective questions regarding the equity and justice of governance that frequently arise when issues cross political, social, and environmental boundaries.  Moreover, different conceptualizations of environmental problems and people’s biases contribute to competing solutions.  Q method’s quantitative methodology provides a means to study such subjective or qualitative data using a version of factor analysis to cluster survey respondents according to common preferences.  This panel will examine Q Method through current research on topics such as mining, natural resource management, urban infrastructure, and conflict assessment.  After brief presentations, the panel discussion will explore opportunities where Q method could complement or advance environmental research, as well as some of the challenges associated with using such a method.  

Title: Advancing Environmental Research with Q Methodology

Organizer: Abby Lindsay, American University, abby.lindsay@american.edu

Facilitator: Abby Lindsay, American University, abby.lindsay@american.edu

Session Abstract:

Q Methodology provides an innovative approach to study environmental issues that are complicated by individual perspectives and biases, which in turn shape discourses, actions, and outcomes.  It is increasingly being used within environment-related fields as a way to systematically study the subjectivity of individuals.  For example, it can be used to study subjective questions regarding the equity and justice of governance that frequently arise when issues cross political, social, and environmental boundaries.  Moreover, different conceptualizations of environmental problems and people’s biases contribute to competing solutions.  Q method’s quantitative methodology provides a means to study such subjective or qualitative data using a version of factor analysis to cluster survey respondents according to common preferences.  This panel will examine Q Method through current research on topics such as mining, natural resource management, urban infrastructure, and conflict assessment.  After brief presentations, the panel discussion will explore opportunities where Q method could complement or advance environmental research, as well as some of the challenges associated with using such a method. 

Presentations:

1. Q Theory, Method and Technique, Will Focht, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, 228 Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, will.focht@okstate.edu;

Abstract: Q methodology was developed by William Stephenson in 1935, as outlined in a brief article published in Nature (“The Technique of Factor Analysis”) and fully articulated in his book, The Study of Behavior: Q Technique and Its Methodology, published by the University of Chicago Press in 1953.  Since then Q methodology has been used to scientifically explore subjectivity in fields as diverse as nursing, journalism, psychology, sociology, political science … and environmental studies and sciences.  The International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity (ISSSS) was founded more than 30 years ago to advance and expand the application of Q methodology.

This presentation will briefly review Q methodology in an attempt to convince environmental researchers of the unique power of Q to link qualitative and quantitative research methods to naturalistically reveal and analyze subjective perspectives on environmental issues.  A discussion of the theory underlying Q methodology will be reviewed, followed by a discussion of Q method and technique, and concluding with arguments for its value in various environmental research applications.  As such, this presentation will serve as a foundation for the presentations to follow in this panel, which demonstrate how Q has been used successfully in environmental research.

1. Q-Sort Application to Sustainable Forestry- Natural Resource Management, James S. Gruber, Ph.D., Department of Environmental Studies, Antioch University New England, jgruber@antioch.edu

Abstract: Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) has been recognized as an effective governance approach for sustainably managing common-pool resources or ‘the commons.’  There is, however, limited empirical research on answering the critical question: ‘What are the principles and key characteristics that are needed to ensure long-term effective and sustainable CBNRM programs?’   One research approach that can be applied to gain an understanding of the perspectives of a range of constituency groups associated with successful CBNRM sites is the use of Q-sort methodology.

The basic difference between Q-methodology as compared to standard survey analysis is its design to identify patterns within and across individuals rather than patterns across individual traits, such as age, class, etc. (Barry and Proops 1999). The result is the development of factors (or group perspectives, discourses) based upon shared values and meanings.

This presentation will illustrate the application of Q-sort methodology through a research project that included three successful forestry CBNRM sites. These sites are located in the Apuseni Mountains of Romania; Randolph, New Hampshire; and Ixtlán de Juárez of Oaxaca, Mexico.  The Q-sort findings in this study, point to four unique perspectives as to what is essential for effective governance of their common-pooled resources. There were also a number of areas of consensus. Some of these findings transcend cultural differences, while others are associated with specific local conditions and cultural characteristics.  This presentation will conclude with summarizing the challenges of effectively using Q-sort methodology across different cultures and languages.

1. Using Q-methodology to Explore Ecological Restoration Worldviews in Practice, Marissa Matsler, Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, a.marissa.matsler@pdx.edu; Paper co-author: Sarah Kidd, School of the Environment, Portland State University

Abstract: Ecological restoration is a process driven by human actions. There is active debate, however, in the field of restoration regarding the appropriate degree of human intervention in ‘natural’ ecosystems required to produce desired ecological outcomes from restoration projects. Within the restoration practitioner community, there is further disagreement regarding how and if these restoration interventions are tied to ecological theory. We utilize Q-method as an exploratory mixed methods approach to describe a variety of ecological worldviews found in the restoration community to better understand this contestation over appropriate restoration implementation. Over 50 restoration practitioners participated in our study during the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) World Conference in 2013. Conducting the surveys at this biannual gathering allowed us to interact with restoration practitioners involved in many levels of on-the-ground restoration project implementation and management. Using Q-sorts and follow-up interviews, we identify the ways in which restoration practitioners prioritize contrasting ecological theory (in particular ecological succession and novel ecosystems), creating hybrid theories and frameworks to justify different restoration techniques; we also begin to understand how practitioners classify ‘designed’/‘man-made’ nature vs. ‘natural’ nature by exploring their perceptions of the required human input/management/intervention in short-term and long-term maintenance of restoration projects. The continued professionalization of the field of restoration makes this a timely investigation. As an international organization that provides resources and leadership for the restoration practitioner community, SER is developing the first global restoration practitioner certification program. Standardization of the field of ecological restoration will impact the use of different management techniques and ecological theories. A firmer grasp on the ways different ecological theories and worldviews influence restoration implementation and continued site management can assist SER, and the field of restoration ecology in general, in designing a certification program that will explicitly represent their goals and mission statement on the ground.

1. Rare earth and the minerals that lie beneath: Competing perspectives of nature between multiple use access and extractive resource development in Wyoming's Black Hills, Jeffrey Jenkins, Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), jsjenkin@uscs.edu  

Abstract: The Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) is recognized by rural land users as a premier multiple use landscape for hunting, off-highway vehicles, timber production, and grazing. It is also the site of the proposed Bearlodge rare earth mine, currently under environmental review by the Forest Service. Evidence from the ‘new’ conservation and resource use debate demonstrates that for federal lands conservation and resource management there is an ontological divide over the ecological role of humans within or apart from the natural world and values-based rift over how lands should be administered to serve human needs (Soule 2013, Karieva and Marvier 2012).

An analysis of stakeholder perspectives about economic development and environmental change from extractive mineral development was undertaken using Q-method. Statements that best reflected the concourse of perspectives were chosen from 153 scoping comments submitted by the public in response to a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed mine. Stakeholder participants (N=24) were asked to sort a final set of 32 statements. A preliminary analysis of these results reveals that the perspectives of rural land users and environmental groups diverge from that of the state permitting agencies and the mining corporation with regard to 1) perspectives on ecological degradation and the role humans within or apart from nature, and 2) whether or not federal lands should be managed for natural resource development or local access to multiple use activities. These findings suggest that land managers with local ecological knowledge, not necessarily traditional urban environmentalists, have contested the state and the corporation most vociferously. Thus, if the socio-ecological 'license' to operate is to be granted, it must incorporate a more nuanced approach that takes into account local understandings for how nature works and how users access surface resources that aren't otherwise part of state or corporate scientific assessments.