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

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 509-522

  Eyvindson, Kyle ^a   Kangas, Annika ^a   Hujala, Teppo ^b   Leskinen, Pekka ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Attitude surveys; Participatory planning; Q method; R method; Stakeholder involvement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893845912     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-014-0006-y     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Addams, H.: Q Methodology. In: Addams, H., Proops, J. (eds.) Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., Northampton (2000)
2. Brown, S.R.: Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven (1980)
3. Brown, S.R.: Q methodology as the foundation for a science of subjectivity. Q Archive list. http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive (1996). Accessed 1 Nov 2012
4. Chess, C.: Evaluating environmental public participation: methodological questions. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 43(6), 769–784 (2000)
5. Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W.: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 10(7), 1–9 (2005)
6. Cottle, C.E., McKeown, B.F.: The forced-free distinction in Q technique a note on unused categories in the Q sort continuum. Operant Subj. 3, 58–63 (1980)
7. Danielson, S.: Q method and surveys: three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods 21(3), 219–237 (2009)
8. Favada, I.M., Karppinen, H., Kuuluvainen, J., Mikkola, J., Stavness, C.: Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. For. Sci. 55(6), 512–523 (2009)
9. Ficko, A., Bončina, A.: Ensuring the validity of private forest owner typologies by controlling for response style bias and the robustness of statistical methods. Scand. J. For. Res. (2013)
10. Germain, R., Floyd, D., Stehman, S.: Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. For. Policy Econ. 3, 113–124 (2001)
11. Glaser, B., Strauss, A.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)
12. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2006)
13. Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J.: Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 12, 213–222 (2010)
14. Karppinen, H.: Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 32(1), 43–59 (1998)
15. Kuipers, B.T., Shivan, G.C., Potter-Witter, K.: Identifying appropriate communication means for reaching nonindustrial private forest landowners. J. For. 111(1), 34–41 (2013)
16. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Ovaskainen, V.: Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. For. Sci. 42(3), 300–309 (1996)
17. Laitala, M., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Tikkanen, J.: Sidosryhmien näkemyksiä alueellisesta metsäohjelmatyöstä. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 3(2009), 227–244 (2009)
18. Lauber, B., Knuth, B.: Refining our vision of citizen participation: lessons from a moose reintroduction proposal. Soc. Nat. Res. 11, 411–424 (1998)
19. Leskinen, P., Leskinen, L., Tikkanen, J.: Assessing objectives of regional forest policy in northern Finland. Scand. J. For. Res. 19, 180–190 (2004)
20. McComas, K., Scherer, C.: Providing balanced risk information in surveys used as citizen participation mechanisms. Soc. Nat. Res. 12, 104–119 (1999)
21. McKeown, B., Thomas, D.: Q Methodology. Sage, Newbury Park (1988)
22. Miles, M., Huberman, A.: Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage, Beverly Hills (1984)
23. Moote, M., McClaran, M., Chickering, D.: Theory in practice: applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environ. Manage. 21(6), 877–889 (1997)
24. Schmolck, P.: PQMethod manual. Retrieved from the internet 24 Sept 2012. http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm (2012)
25. Robbins, P., Krueger, R.: Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Prof. Geogr. 52(4), 636–648 (2000)
26. Robson, M., Hawley, A., Robinson, D.: Comparing the social values of forest dependent, provincial and national publics for socially sustainable forest management. For. Chron. 76, 615–622 (2000)
27. Schaaf, K.A., Broussard, S.R.: Private forest policy tools: a national survey exploring the American public’s perceptions and support. For. Policy Econ. 9, 316–334 (2006)
28. Stephenson, W.: Technique of factor analysis. Nature 136, 297 (1935)
29. Stephenson, W.: Application of Q method to the measurement of public opinion. Psychol. Rec. 14(3), 265–273 (1964)
30. ten Klooster, P., Visser, M., de John, M.D.T.: Comparing two image research instruments: the Q sort method versus the Likert attitude questionnaire. Food Qual. Prefer. 19, 511–518 (2008)
31. Thompson, A.W., Dumyahn, S., Prokopy, L.S., Amberg, S., Baumgart-Getz, A., Jackson-Tyree, J., Perry-Hill, R., Reimer, A., Robinson, K.: Comparing random sample Q and R methods for understanding natural resource attitudes. Field Methods 25(1), 25–46 (2013)
32. Tuler, S., Webler, T.: Voices from the forest: what participants expect of a public participation process. Soc. Nat. Resour. 12, 437–453 (1999)
33. Urquhart, J., Courtney, P.: Seeing the owner behind the trees: a typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. For. Policy Econ. 13(7), 535–544 (2011)
34. Urquhart, J., Courtney, P., Slee, P.: Private woodland owners’ perspectives on multifunctionality in English woodlands. J. Rural Stud. 28(1), 95–106 (2012)
35. Watts, S., Stenner, P.: Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2(1), 67–91 (2005)
36. Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R.: What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manage. 27(3), 435–450 (2001)
37. Webler, T., Tuler, S.: Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Stud. J. 34(4), 699–722 (2006)
38. Weller, S.: Cultural consensus theory: applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods 19(4), 339–368 (2007)