Q-methodology as a research method

Presentation for

Tshwane University of Technology

14th August, 2015

Lynda Andrews

Queensland University of Technology,

Brisbane, Australia

l.andrews@qut.edu.au

Who invented Q-method?

Innovated by William Stephenson The study of human behaviour: Q-techniques and its methodology (1953)

• Seeking a systematic research method that looks at unraveling complex subjectivities by making them accessible and rigorously examinable through statistical techniques

(Barry and Proops 2000; Brown, 1980).

1902 - 1989

What is Q-method?

• A rigorous research methodology that explores diverse positions that pervade discourses on social and economic issues in contemporary life (Brown, Durning and Selden, 1999).

• Origins in psychology, widely used in social/ political sciences – and other disciplines progressively.

Has a number of steps

Discovering the discourse of interest

Need to locate a suitable body of material that represents the

discourse of interest. Can use all sorts of data:

Photographs

Board minutes or other documents

Press releases, reports in the newspaper

Blogs / Facebook posts / Twitter comments

Interviews

Examples

Consumer behaviour

Fifteen phenomenological interviews - to ground study in the

discourse of people’s everyday experiential consumption

practices with owning and using a mobile phone.

Tourism

38 attributes from literature related to short stay holidays.

Use of theoretical or guiding frameworks Can use a guiding framework when developing interview

format - useful so that you can focus your questions

around areas of interest in the literature (academic) or

other discourse literature.

Consumer Behaviour example

Theory of Consumption Value (Sheth et al., 1991)

A typology of different types of value in consumer choice

situations, such as to use or not use a product

Four Metaphors of Consumption (Holt, 1995)

A typology to explore how individuals experience the

consumption of a product or service.

Environment

(natural/built)

Activities

(indoors/outdoors)

Value

Perceptions

1. Nature

6. Scenic

9. Beach

21. National park

22. River

39. Rural

40. Marine life

15. Swimming

18. Shopping

19. Walking/tramping

23. Fishing

24. Adventure activities

27. Surfing

28. Wineries

29. Nightlife

30. Boating

31. Four wheel driving

33. Golf

34. Water sports

36. Sports activities

2. Good value for money

4. Good accommodation

5. Good weather

8. Good service

13. Good cafes/restaurants

14. Lots to do

Emotive Social Value Tourism descriptors

3. Safe

11. Relaxing

20. Romantic

10. Uncrowded

12. Friendly locals

16. Not touristy

25. Family destination

32. Friends and relatives there

7. Within a comfortable drive

(from Brisbane)

17. Packages

26. North of Brisbane

35. Infrastructure

37. Local culture

38. Historic

Tourism example

Identifying materials

for next stage (Q-sort)

Identification of statements representing values and

metaphors frameworks from transcripts (representing

diversity within the guiding frameworks used.)

• CB study - 70 statements extracted in total – Reduction

strategy through inter-rater reliabilities. Reduced to 50

statements.

Around 50 statements or pieces of material (e.g.

photographs) is considered sufficient.

Preparing for the Q-Sort stage

Materials are numbered ready for Q-sort. In examples…. • Statements written out on to separate cards and

numbered • Short break attributes written on cards and numbered. Prepare sorting instructions Prepare Q-sort score card (for data collection)

EXAMPLE scorecard for 16 statements

Suggested measures for Scorecard

(1 strongly disagree – 7 strongly agree)

(1 = not like me at all………..7 very much like me)

but would code into Q-method as -3 to +3

Note – you can make the scale -4 to +4 or -5 to +5 if you wish

to get a flatter distribution of the statements.

Numbers in brackets will indicate the number of statements

that can be placed under each scale point

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)

Preparing the Q-Sort stage

New sample recruited. (Ideally should be different from sample who did interviews or pilot study sample).

Will need between 30 – 40 participants Instruction for Q-sort prepared. Q-sort often done in a face to face situation – so

instructions are verbal. CB example done more remotely (self administered). Research pack contained • Clearly written instructions • Set of statement cards • Scorecard • Informed consent and demographics form • S.A.E. for return of data.

Doing the Q-Sort

Participants are asked to sort the cards into 3 basic piles in terms of: • Those they sort of agree with • Those they have no opinion on • Those they sort of disagree with

As the Q sort score card is a forced choice instrument – participants

now have to decide …. • Which statements they will put in the forced choices .. That is -

which ones do they most agree with (or are most like them / least agree with (least like them)

• Which ones will they put at the 0 point (no opinion – or any left over statements after doing the forced choices on +3 or – 3 sides.

Then they write each statement number under the relevant

measurement (e.g. Statement No. 1 under +3) until scorecard is completely filled in.

Example of a completed

Scorecard for Q sort ready for analysis

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

(1) (2) (3) (4) (3) (2) (1)

Fill in your statement numbers in squares provided

13 4 5 3 2 8 1

15 14 11 6 10

16 12 7

9

Numbers in red represent

statement or card numbers

Data analysis stage

PQMethod statistical analysis package (free from

Q-method website).

Set up project – and type in all of the statements

with their numbers.

Data on scorecards keyed into the project

Two step analysis:

1. Q-method Principal Components analysis done

with Varimax rotation – to find clusters.

2. Factor arrays for each cluster presented.

Data analysis stage

Q - Principal Components analysis done with

Varimax rotation – to find clusters.

• Note – you are clustering individuals’ based on

their rating of the statements ….. (Q factor

analysis)

• Not clustering items – based on how

individuals rate them (R-factor analysis)

Example of

Q - Principal Components analysis

METAPHORS Q sort

Appendix 3: Factor Analyses for Q Sorts

ID A B C

001 .70* .10 .16

002 .51 .60* -.15

003 .65* .27 .25

004 .66* -.01 .30

005 .73* -.01 .11

Appendix 3: Factor Analyses for Q Sorts

Cases 14 9 8

% Var. 20% 14% 15%

49% of variance explained

ID is the individual who

completed the scorecard.

The number with an * is a

significant “component” under

the relevant cluster for that

individual.

ID 001 is located in Cluster A

ID 002 is located in Cluster B

Data analysis stage 2

Once Q factor analysis has been checked for

suitable number of clusters …..

• Request factor arrays

These represent the clusters shown in the factor

analysis – and the statements around which

they cluster. (e.g. clusters of shared opinions.)

Example of a factor array for a cluster

identified in the CB example

No. Statements B

3 I want the communication capabilities … it’s important nowadays to have the mobile

communication capability.

3

9 My mobile phone makes me feel safer … it makes me feel good that I can contact

people when I need to.

2

4 I like to be always contactable by friends or to be able to contact others when I want to. 2

50 I think there are times when it is appropriate to have your mobile phone off, such as in

meetings or in certain social situations, like restaurants.

3

38 I just use my mobile phone for phone calls … that’s all ... it’s a functional tool. -3

37 I use the MSN messenger style writing when I text my friends … and the smiley face/sad

face things.

2

40 In addition to calls and SMS, I use the alarm clock and the diary function for

appointments and things I have to do.

3

13 Mobile phones are a necessary evil nowadays. -3

16 My mobile phone is like a burden to me. -3

12 It’s like my baby, I take my mobile phone everywhere. 2

Table 3: Metaphor factor arrays for the Mobile Revelers

No. A B C D

Distinguishing list of destination image attributes

3 Safe 2 -1 0 -1

14 Lots to do 2 3 -3 2

9 Beach 1 4 4 4

35 Infrastructure 1 -4 0 -1

23 Fishing -4 -1 -2 4

30 Boating -3 1 0 0

Most important destination image attributes

13 Good cafes/restaurants 4 3 1 2

11 Relaxing 4 -2 3 0

7 Within a comfortable drive 3 -3 0 0

4 Good accommodation 3 -3 2 3

2 Good value for money 3 1 1 2

Least important destination image attributes

33 Golf -4 -4 -4 3

27 Surfing -3 1 -1 0

31 Four wheel driving -3 0 -4 -4

In this example the

factor array is

developed in a

more expanded

way following

Watts and Stenner

(2012) text

Cluster A results

Final stage of your Q study

naming and describing the cluster

As with any qualitative methodology – when you write up

findings you need to tell a good story.

In write up you need to describe your clusters in a

meaningful way (so need good names too) - so that you can

progress to the discussion section as well as the

implications for theory and practice.

This is the fun part … but may need several iterations.

Example from CB mobile phone Q-study

The Revelers

For the Revelers the experiential value of their mobile phones is not necessarily

for functional reasons, as demonstrated by statement 38 (-3) indicating that

they strongly disagree that it is a functional tool. This is further re-enforced by

statement 37 (+2) suggesting familiarity with the interactive aspects of SMS

texting and statement 40 (+3) showing they use additional functions on their

mobiles, such as the alarm clock or diary.

Revelers really like their phones and perceive experiential value through their

emotional attachment, shown in their agreement with statements on the

subjective expressions in the Consuming as Experience metaphor. They do not

perceive their phones as a necessary evil or as a burden (statements No. 13 and

16, both rated -3) and regard their phone in a very personal way, ‘like a baby’

that is taken everywhere (statement 12, +2).

Comments about their attributes in the post sort interviews show evidence of how these

destination image attributes interlink to create an overall picture in the participants' minds

about going on a self drive short break. For example, Good cafes/restaurants are associated

with relaxing as is good accommodation, as the following quotes highlight:

".... that's what I find relaxing, going out for dinner ..."

“I hate being uncomfortable ... as I do go on this sort of thing to relax";

".... you need good accommodation if you want to relax";

"... accommodation has to be minimal standard for me to relax."

The links between Good accommodation and value for money are highlighted as follows:

"accommodation doesn't have to be 5 star [to be good or good value]"; ".... it must be at least

3 star accommodation otherwise it's not worth it....";

"[on a short break]... you don't want to spend more than you would on a weekend anyway."

What do participants indicate as being a comfortable drive:

"... about 3.5 hours is a comfortable drive...";

"2 hours so you are not tired when you get there."

Tourism example

Using comments collected after Q-sort activity in write up

Things to consider with a Q-study

Ensuring discourse material is relevant for participants to work with. (statements and relevant measurement scale)

Cognitive demand on participants.

• Lack of examiner/reviewer knowledge of method

• Queries on sample size

• Belief it is a qualitative methodology only

My references and guides for Q-methodology

Newest reference book: Watts and Stenner, (2012) Doing Q Methodological

Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. Sage

Brown, S.R. (1980), Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology

in Political Science, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Barry, J. and Proops, J. (2000), Citizenship, Sustainability and

Environmental Research: Q Methodology and Local Exchange Trading

Systems, Edward Elgar, United Kingdom.

McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. (1988), Q Methodology, Sage Publications,

Newbury Park.

Watts, S. and Stenner, P. (2005), “Doing Q methodology: Theory, method

and interpretation”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 67-91.

What questions do you have?

Andrews, Lynda, Drennan, Judy,

Russell-Bennett, Rebekah (2012).

‘Linking perceived value of mobile

marketing with the experiential

consumption of mobile phones’.

European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 46, No. 3/4, pp. 357 - 386.