Q Methodology: Hearing Every Voice in the Room

The Rocky Mountain Research Station has a brief paper of interest here: “Hearing Every Voice in the Room: Social Science for Public Engagement During Forest Planning.” Anyone here familiar with the Q methodology? It sounds similar to the methodology used by Region 6 folks in NW Forest Plan revision “listening sessions” a few years ago.

“At the Gila National Forest and elsewhere, Armatas and his coworkers have implemented a public engagement protocol based on a social science information-gathering approach known as Q methodology. Invented in 1935 but recently adapted and peer-reviewed for Forest Service use, Q methodology is a structured analysis of personal opinions on a given topic. It requires participants to complete something called a Q sort, where tradeoffs are elicited and natural resource benefits are prioritized. Participants also identify drivers of change—such as management actions and climate change impacts—that are most concerning to them. Information can be collected in less than an hour, participants generally find the hands-on process to be thought-provoking and fun, and the final results include an understandable and engaging representation of a diverse range of perspectives.”

13 thoughts on “Q Methodology: Hearing Every Voice in the Room”

  1. Here’s one from the Journal of Forestry about using Q methodology on research priorities: Edgely et al. 2020. What was interesting to me was that people were actually involving managers in setting research priorities.

    “Abstract
    Combining Q-methodology with focus groups offers a novel opportunity to explore how researchers and managers can collectively address natural resource management issues. We explored the potential utility of this pairing for prioritizing long-term vegetation recovery research needs after wildfire at a two-day workshop. The approach entailed individual Q-sort activities, followed by focus group discussion about differences and similarities in Q-sort outcomes between managers and researchers. We found that Q-methodology was a versatile discussion tool that offered opportunities for building shared definitions of management issues and identifying new pathways for collaboration between diverse participants. Group discussion around research needs also fostered opportunities for identifying organizational barriers and fostering partnerships to overcome them. Collecting social data on research needs prior to designing or conducting data collection efforts can help ensure that outputs have practical value and utility for land management.

    Study Implications
    Establishing shared research priorities between researchers and managers is one way to ensure that scientific advancements have practical applications. Using outputs from Q-sort activities as a prompt to initiate discussion between researchers and managers is an effective technique for understanding divergent prioritizations, identifying organizational and scientific barriers, and establishing feasible next steps for collective action to produce application-oriented research. Employing mixed-method social data collection early in the land management planning process is increasingly valuable; many recent policies for forest and natural resource management require the incorporation of collaborative components.”

    Reply
  2. This sounds better than listening to hours of repeating pleading and ranting from environmental lobbyists during two days of the Custer-Gallatin Objection Resolution meetings. Couldn’t get a word in edgewise, then we ran out of time! Almost all of the people selected to speak with Regional Supervisor Leanne Marten brought the same message. The discussions were a sham exercise for many of us.

    Reply
    • Careful Greg Beardslee. Some of you in the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance are starting to sound a lot like Kerry White at Citizens for Balanced Use.

      Reply
    • Greg, here’s a hypothesis. Perhaps the situation is due to it being at the objection (not the earlier input seeking) stage. Objections are the offspring of appeals. Often folks appealing were pre-litigatory. Litigation is after all a talking and not so much listening exercise. So I wonder if there are cultural fingerprints of the past- even though the point of objections instead of appeals was to get people less into “you didn’t follow NEPA because I think you should’ve analyzed…” to “I want more Wilderness acres.”

      I’d also be curious as to how the meeting was facilitated compared to other objection meetings. Conceivably each party could be held to a time limit such that each group gets equal time.

      I also think it would be a great idea for a social science study…. take different forest plan objection processes, observe, and get objectors and FS views perhaps before and after.

      Reply
      • I don’t think there is any real difference in the scope of the objection process vs appeals, given the way objections are defined in 36 CFR §219.54(c): an objection must include “(6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the proposed plan decision may be improved. If applicable, the objector should identify how the objector believes that the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy;”

        I think the Forest Service has successfully made a useless mess out of this process by turning it into a public forum that does not promote resolving the individual objector’s issue. Per 36 CFR §219.57(a): “Meetings. Prior to the issuance of the reviewing officer’s written response, either the reviewing officer or the objector may request to meet to discuss issues raised in the objection and potential resolution. The reviewing officer must allow other interested persons to participate in such meetings… During meetings with objectors and interested persons, the reviewing officer may choose to use alternative dispute resolution methods to resolve objections. All meetings are open to observation by the public.” This process was designed for a back and forth discussion to reach mutual understanding of a particular point of an objection with an objector, not for orally repeating positions in front of an audience. More like settlement negotiations to avoid litigation. I’ve seen very little substantive response from the Forest Service to objections. (But I agree with Sharon that we shouldn’t expect much at the end of the process if it requires much work to change.)

        Reply
    • I’m very much on-topic Greg Beardslee and your original comment was not appreciated. You ARE sounding a lot like Kerry White at Citizens for Balanced Use when you complain that you supposedly had to endure “listening to hours of repeating pleading and ranting from environmental lobbyists during two days of the Custer-Gallatin Objection Resolution meetings.” Also, as a point of order, I’m positive that most of the people who spoke up in favor of Wilderness, public lands, and wildlife habitat were not “environmental lobbyists” but rather they were mainly local people who have been longtime supporters of environmental, wildlife and public lands causes.

      Reply
      • Matthew, you are correct on most counts except two. I am not Mr. White. And I am correct in that the selected speakers used all of the allotted time, perhaps by design. One after another spoke and said essentially the same thing. Some spoke up to 15 minutes when our allotted time for everyone was only an hour. This course of action by the chosen speakers was counter to the meetings guidelines that asked for lead objectors only, in order to better utilize the allotted time. I don’t wish to minimize the message of those speakers who managed to air their concerns. Each was legitimate. But I do think time management was lacking and that is my primary issue with this process. It was a concise amount of time yet the speakers weren’t managed by any time limit. This left many of us unheard, which was not the intent of the objection resolution meetings. I’m trying to contrast the objection resolution process with the original topic, a method that sounds like it is possibly equitable.

        Reply
      • Matthew.. I think everyone here and elsewhere is entitled to their opinion. To say someone sounds like someone else, I don’t know that that is at all helpful.

        Reply
  3. Greg I would have been interested to hear more of what you had to say. Why did you not speak up more. – Your environmental lobbyist friend

    Reply
    • Phil, my technology was limited to pressing *3 on my phone to raise my hand and then be called upon. (or was it #3?) Anyway I was doing it correctly the first day and wasn’t called on. The second day I had to interject, and simply started speaking, because raising my hand didn’t work. You noticed the lady from Carbon County who spoke about soil compaction? She had to interject as well because she was effectively being ignored. I’ll speak with you about my primary objection concern sometime. That might be an invigorating discussion! Right now I want to stay on topic to hear more about process and how it could be improved.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Greg Beardslee Cancel reply