Children and Young Peoples Services Q methodology -combining the best of qualitative and quantitative techniques John Bradley Nottingham University 2009.

Children and Young People’s Services

Q methodology

-combining the best of qualitative and quantitative techniques

John Bradley

Nottingham University 2009

Aims of the workshop

• Describe Q methodology

• Locate it within quantitative and qualitative approaches

• What sort of research questions it is useful for?

• Illustrate its use from my research

• Look at some Q data

Limitations of existing methodologies

• Quantitative- surveys with large samples but narrow answers

• Qualitative – richer interview and focus group material but…

…concerns about reporting qualitative material

Archer, L. and M. Hutchinson (2001). "Higher than Einstein: constructions of going to university among working class non-

participants." Research Papers in Education 16(1): 69-91.

• “..our respondents constructed two very different pictures of HE. One was of Oxbridge and campus universities, pleasant environments in which middle-class students, who had gained entry with good A-levels, and who have adequate financial support, are able to enjoy either leisure (partying, drinking) or study (as boffins), and can look forward to achieving prestigious degrees and careers. The second construction was of rather unattractive buildings in which ‘skint’ working-class students (who had entered through vocational qualifications, or through Access or special entry) have to work hard under considerable pressure, combining study with a job and having little time for social life. This second picture was the sort of HE that our respondents generally talked about as available to them, and they saw it as inferior to ‘real’ HE”.

majority discourseminority discourse

no evidence

• “..our respondents constructed two very different pictures of HE. One was of Oxbridge and campus universities, pleasant environments in which middle-class students, who had gained entry with good A-levels, and who have adequate financial support, are able to enjoy either leisure (partying, drinking) or study (as boffins), and can look forward to achieving prestigious degrees and careers. The second construction was of rather unattractive buildings in which ‘skint’ working-class students (who had entered through vocational qualifications, or through Access or special entry) have to work hard under considerable pressure, combining study with a job and having little time for social life. This second picture was the sort of HE that our respondents generally talked about as available to them, and they saw it as inferior to ‘real’ HE”.

Looking for a methodology :

• Give rich, detailed complex accounts

• Rebalance the power of the researcher and participant

• Transparent processes of analysis

• ‘Well warranted accounts’

And would be…

• Engaging for participants

• Interesting to use

• Have wide range of applications

• …novel

Q – the ‘traditional’ story

• William Stephenson• Spearman, Burt and factor analysis in search of

‘g’• Stephenson came to reject the model

Using factor analysis to map opinions (‘subjectivity’)

• Spearman gave people tests and factor analysed the test scores (by item FA)

• Stephenson asked people to express their views and applied factor analysis to the pattern of responses (by person FA)

• ….to explore the pattern of opinions around a topic

• ‘he looked at people measuring rather than being measured – correlating persons instead of tests’ (Brown 1995)

The British Postmodernist interest in Q

• ‘a collective of British critical psychologists’• “social constructionist and postmodernist

approaches have lacked any attempt to find new methods”

• Numerical data has been treated as ‘suspect’ (intrinsically masculinized, positivist)

• ‘ a quest for new methods of scrutiny’• ‘a systematic approach to DA’

Both ‘traditional’ and ‘critical’ approaches are

• Interested in the ‘flow of ideas’

• Interested in patterns of opinion not in quantification

• Interested in preserving minority voices

Q methodology

• Collect a ‘concourse of statements’

• Select representative ‘Q sample’

• ‘The Q –sort’

• Sorted according to a ‘condition of instruction’

• Factor analysis (by-person not by-item)

• Interpretation

Q methodology

• Collect a ‘concourse of statements’

• Select representative ‘Q sample’

• ‘The Q –sort’

• Sorted according to a ‘condition of instruction’

• Factor analysis (by-person not by-item)

• Interpretation

Statements…

• ‘Even if your not keen on the course its worth doing it anyway to have the university experience’

• ‘University students are poor’

• ‘Its hard to go to university if you’re the first one in your family to do it’

• ‘Going away to university breaks you away from your real friends’

Mini- activity

In your area of research interest:

• Identify a contentious issue

• Think of some of the ‘statements’ in the concourse around your topic

Q methodology

• Collect a ‘concourse of statements’

• Select representative ‘Q sample’

• ‘The Q –sort’

• Sorted according to a ‘condition of instruction’

• Factor analysis (by-person not by-item)

• Interpretation

Most Disagree Most Agree

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

The layout for a 60 item Q sort

Doing a Q sort

• Read the statements and roughly sort in to 3 piles – agree/don’t know/disagree

• Then sort them out on to the sorting sheet• Keep going till you are happy with the result

Most Disagree Most Agree

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

25 51 6 59 9 34 10 29 38 1 18 46 26

45 55 14 24 44 23 4 36 56 12 42 52 27

33 43 13 49 57 28 30 53 2 39 16 19 35

58 15 7 37 5 54 3 20 47 17 48

32 8 40 21 31 11 41

50 22 60

Analysing the data

• Exploratory factor analysis

• Grouping together participants with similar viewpoints

• By-person FA

• Contrast with typical use of FA in psychology which is by-item

• PQMethod

Pqmethod.pif

Describing each viewpoint (factor )

PQMethod gives rich detailed data

• Description of each viewpoint (factor)• Comparisons between viewpoints (factor)• Distinguishing statements• Consensus statements

• Take a look at some of my data

My data came from

• 53 participants

• Year 12 students

• Studying for level 3 qualifications

• From ‘former coalfield communities’

The five viewpoints…

1. Positive

2. Put off

3. Perplexed

4. Pragmatic

5. Other plans

Beyond the Q study

• Q gives the pattern of views but makes no claim to quantify these – use Q to design a survey (Q Block )

• Use the Q findings as the basis for a content analysis (my thesis)

• Feed back the Q findings to promote dialogue and solution finding (environmental issues)

Activity - PMI

• Pluses – what seem to be the positives of Q methodology?

• Minuses – what seem to be the drawbacks of Q methodology?

• Interesting – what other issues strike you and leave you thinking – ‘that’s interesting’

Chat in twos or threes then we’ll open up

Further reading

• Handout

Evaluation of the session

• WWW (What worked well…)

• EBI (It would have been even better if…)

Additional material

Content analysis of a prospectus

34

38

18

20

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Factor 5 (Other Plans)

Factor 4 (Pragmatic)

Factor 3 (Perplexed)

Factor 2 (Put Off)

Factor 1 (Positive)

Number of references (combined weighted scores)

Viewpoint (factor) 2

Strongly held statements:• You might get to university and find you don’t fit in • What to do after school is the first really important choice

you have to take in life • I’m really not sure what to do next after school• Choosing a course and a university is stressful

Distinguishing statements:• I don’t even want to think beyond the next year or so • In the long run I’d earn more as a graduate • Boring lectures, writing essays: university would drive

me mad • Once you’ve been to university you don’t fit in so well,

back where you came from

Content analysis:

One of the statements factor 2 feels strongly about is:

‘Choosing a course and a university is stressful’.

Coders identified the sentence:

‘Choosing a university is often difficult and confusing, however your decision might be made easier by asking yourself certain questions…’

as referring to that issue.

Another example: ‘At university you don’t really get that

much support from the teachers/ lecturers, so its all down to you.’

‘We provide you with the practical support you need to flourish.’

ten Klooster et al (2008)

• Used the same statements, with the same participants, using Likert questionnaire and Q-sort

• Compared the results

Mean item scores using QVery high

correlationR=.93

Mean item scores using Likert

Comparing the overall scores

Mean item scores

for factor A

Mean item scores using Likert

Mean item scores

for factor B

Mean item scores

for factor C

No correlation

Comparing overall Likert picture with individual Q factors

Factor array for factor 1

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 7 12 17 37 28 13 9 4 46 32 25 29 52 1 54 51 43 56 45 16 49 14 33 50 57 36 19 11 26 22 58 27 59 48 38 41 10 23 34 18 30 24 15 53 3 31

44 21 35 60 20 6 55 47 8 42 2 5

39 40

Generating factor arrays

Qsort e (.916)

Qsort f (.873) -6 -5-4-3-2 -1 0+1+2+3+4+5

+6

Factor 1

Q sort array

Qsort d (.758)

Abductive method Inductive method Hypothetico–deductive method

Sequence:Data–Phenomena–Theory–Theory appraisal

Sequence:Data–Theory

Sequence:Phenomena–Theory–Data–Theory appraisal

Examples: Q–methodologyGrounded theoryExploratory factor analysis

Example:Stimulus–response studies in radical behaviourism

Examples:Most experimental cognitive psychology1945–present

RAW SCORES

Participant Item A Item B Item C Item D

1 10 8 3 1

2 10 8 3 2

3 9 9 2 3

4 9 9 2 3

5 8 10 1 2

6 8 10 1 1

‘Rate these statements from 10 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree)

(Brown 1980)

RAW SCORES

Participant Item A Item B Item C Item D

1 10 8 3 1

2 10 8 3 2

3 9 9 2 3

4 9 9 2 3

5 8 10 1 2

6 8 10 1 1

NORMALISED SCORES

Participant zA zB zC zD

1 1.22 -1.22 1.22 -1.22

2 1.22 -1.22 1.22 0.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22

5 -1.22 1.22 -1.22 0.00

6 -1.22 1.22 -1.22 -1.22

1. Positive

Overall this is a positive and optimistic viewpoint on universities, held by a group of pupils who are certain to apply. They anticipate social, developmental, academic and economic benefits from a university education.

2. Put off

For this viewpoint the perceived benefits of going to university are negated by a fear of not fitting in and of finding the academic side unpalatable. They see the process of deciding as stressful and are adamant that they will not be applying.

3. Perplexed

Concerns about money, a general sense of uncertainty and puzzlement, a weak sense of any career or social benefits, doubts about the advice received at school and the support they would get at university all combine here to leave these young people only weakly committed to applying to university

4. Pragmatic

This viewpoint sees the question of going to university as still undecided – they can see good practical reasons for going, they have a broadly positive view of university, but they have not closed down other options and are yet to make up their mind.

5. Other plans

A viewpoint that is not antagonistic to university – it holds a generally positive view, but is not convinced of its importance to future life chances and holds positive views about alternatives such as an apprenticeship. These young people are saying ‘universities may be fine places, but I don’t think I need to go and I’ve got other options.’

Activity

• In small groups

• Choose an issue to explore

• Have a brief discussion

• Use what emerges from the discussion to devise a set of statements