Q-Methodology and Human Subjectivity: The Potential for Business and Management Research Chris Phelan CJPhelan@uclan.ac.uk School of Sport, Tourism & The Outdoors University of Central Lancashire

Workshop Agenda Introductions About Q-Methodology (QM) Brief history of QM How to design / implement a QM study The five stages from literature to analysis Make the case for utilising QM in Business and Management research Review some QM studies Participate in a QM study

About QM Q methodology is used to study human perceptions, interpersonal relationships, unique viewpoints, and commonly shared views L N J

About QM Developed in 1935 by William Stephenson (letter to Nature) PhD Physicis, PhD Psychology Student of Spearman Most often used in fields of psychology, health, communication / advertising, political science… Mixes quantitative & qualitative aspects of research

About QM QM attempts to analyse ‘subjectivity’ in a structured and statistically interpretable form Unlike standard survey analysis: Interested in establishing patterns within and across individuals As opposed to patterns across individual traits (i.e. gender, age, etc.)

About QM The correlation and factor analysis of traits R methodology Q methodology The correlation and factor analysis of traits i.e. items as variables, persons as cases Aim: psychometrics – the objective measurement of traits The correlation and factor analysis of persons i.e. persons as variables, items as cases Aim: the scientific study of subjectivity

About QM QM allows the researcher to see any shared patterns across individuals and understand the diversity of accounts “It is not however the ‘constructors’ – the participants – who are the focus of the approach but the ‘constructions’ themselves” (Stainton-Rogers, 1995)

About QM Q’s strength: allows individual responses to be collated and correlated Extracts ‘idealised forms of discourse’ latent within the data provided by individuals “Particularly suited to studying social phenomena around which there is much debate, conflict and contestation” (Barry & Proops, 1999)

About QM The focus can be on the subjective dimension of any issue towards which different points-of-view can be expressed Can consist of words / statements, pictures, sounds, smells… See: Fairweather, Swaffield & Simmons (1998)

QM: The Process Definition of the ‘Concourse’ Development of the ‘Q set’ Selection of the ‘P set’ The ‘Q sort’ Analysis and Interpretation 4a) Post- sort interviews

The ‘Concourse’ Technical term for QM researchers (not to be confused with discourse) Relates to all the possible statements that could be made about subject at hand Concourse should (ideally) contain all the relevant aspects of all of the discourses

The ‘Concourse’ The concourse can be gathered from: Gathered material represents all existing opinion and argument on a topic The concourse is the raw material for a QM study the literature media reports focus groups newspapers / Interviews magazines

Development of the ‘Q set’ Likely to have generated 100’s of statement Refine to more manageable set (i.e. 30-50) Criticism: more ‘art than science’ to this process Should be balanced / representative – ideally a structure emerges to guide this Duplicates / wording / editing – similar conventions to questionnaire design

Development of the ‘Q set’ Large debate in QM circles on how to move form concourse to Q set Naturalistic? Theoretical framework? Sampling grid? QM purists respond: it is not the Q-set itself that is important but what the respondents do with it The subject gives meaning to the statements by sorting them

Development of the ‘Q set’ Dryzek & Berejikan (1993) offer best example of sampling grid 4x4 matrix, 16 cell Widely adopted in QM research as an approach Discourse element Ontology Agency Motivation Relationships Type of claim Definitive Designative Evaluative Advocative

Development of the ‘Q set’ See: Donner (2005) Other QM researchers opt for thematic headings Then required to justify the balance Majority of QM papers do not acknowledge these design stages No. of Statements Concept Connectivity 6 Information 2 Intrinsic 7 Productivity Security Other 9

Development of the Q set: Example Statements (Entrepreneurial Competencies) Able to easily describe the problems in your business (1) Have a large measure of creativity (2) Effectively put your ideas across to an audience (3) Have sound financial management skills (4) Continuously aware of new possibilities (5) Have the ability to identify unmet customer needs (6) The ability to communicate effectively and make requirements clearly understood (7) Have the ability to plan the daily operations of the business (8) Able to generate new and innovative ideas (9) Allocate the resources to allow the business to run smoothly (10) Able to identify products and services that provide real benefits (11) The ability to evaluate your own actions as much as possible (12) Willing to look for new information all time (13) Be open to criticism from others (colleagues, employees, etc.) (14) Possess the emotional ability to cope with a problem (15) Be able to enlist the support of key people (16) Able to look at problems in new ways (17) The ability to make the venture work no matter what (18) Be an effective leader (19) Be able to delegate effectively (20) Able to recognise a gap in the marketplace (21)

Development of the Q set: Example Statements (Entrepreneurial Competencies) Be prepared to negotiate with suppliers or buyers regarding prices (22) Actively look for products or services that provide real benefits to customers (23) Have the ability to name your business goals straightaway (24) The ability to incorporate feedback from customers into your products / services (25) Be a good decision maker (26) An awareness of changes in the industry and how they may impact your business (27) Aware of your own strengths and weaknesses (28) Prepared to lay down your goals in written plans (29) Possess a clear idea of where your business will be in five years (30) The ability to prioritise your work in alignment with your business goals (31) Perceptive as to what others mean by their words and actions (32) Be able to motivate others (33) Be the first to try out new things (34) Be able to picture the consequences of a decision over the coming months / years (35) Maintain a network of professional contacts (36) Be prepared to take risks (37) Be able to see things from various points of view (38) Not be easily diverted from the goals that you set yourself (39) Prepared to make large personal sacrifices when necessary (40) Be able to weigh the costs and benefits of the business decisions you make (41) Have the ability to organise and coordinate people (42)

Selection of the ‘P set’ P set (participant group) = respondents Limited numbers required P set generally smaller than the Q set Q differs widely from R here: Statements are the sample not the respondents No claims to extrapolate to wider population Aim is to gain access to range of viewpoints Not to claim viewpoints exist in % population

Q sorting Q set given to respondents as pack of randomly numbered cards Respondent sort cards according to some specific rule / condition of instruction i.e. Point of view regarding issue x Respondent asked to rank statements in a forced distribution Usually from ‘most agree’ to ‘most disagree’

Q sorting A Q classic!!!!

Q sorting Shape of Q sort depends on kurtosis and number of statements -4 -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 +4 (2) (3) (5) (7) (8) Shape of Q sort depends on kurtosis and number of statements

Lets Q sort... Travel Decision Making (van Exel, de Graaf & Rietveld, 2004) Venture Capital Decision-Making and Risk (Babcock-Lumish, 2005) Evaluating a Leadership development program (Militello & Benham, 2010) Entrepreneurial competencies for diversification to farm tourism (own work – PhD in progress)

The post Q sort interview Most disagree Neutral Most agree (2) (3) (5) (7) (8) Completed Q sort is recorded Q sort can be annotated to aid later analysis

The post Q sort interview Increasingly, post sort interview being utilised to add complimentary follow-up qualitative study Why have they sorted the way they have? Any dominant statements? Why have statements been sorted at the extremes? What was missing from the Q set? What would the participant add?

Analysis and Interpretation Dedicated analysis packages for Q analysis (PCQ, PQ Method) Analysis considered technical and objective –purists argue this is the scientific base of Q Software performs a factor analysis – people with similar views on the topic will share the same factor

Analysis and Interpretation PQ Method Free software DOS based (simple but incredibly effective!) Designed for handling Q sort entry and analysis Choices Centroid versus Principle Components factor extraction Graphical hand rotation versus Varimax

Analysis and Interpretation The PQ Method software generates print out(s) with: These outputs provide the basis for the write-up of the interpretation Analysis of interview transcripts supports this The new Watts & Stenner (2012) text provides best advice (to date) on these stages Factor loadings Distinguishing statements Factor correlations Consensus statements

Analysis and Interpretation Venture Capital Decision-Making and Risk (Babcock-Lumish, 2005) American-style managers Junior venture professionals Experienced angel investor Committed business builder

- Analysis and Interpretation - Own work: preliminary PhD findings

In Summary Hopefully: QM for hire: Raised awareness of a misunderstood method Made accessible by breaking down the stages Provided impetus to consider relevance of QM in your discipline / research area QM for hire: Always happy to talk about QM Discuss potential of QM for your project CJPhelan@uclan.ac.uk