Repository logo
 

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research.

Published version
Peer-reviewed

Type

Article

Change log

Authors

Sandbrook, Chris 
Mukherjee, Nibedita  ORCID logo  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2970-1498

Abstract

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long-term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.

Description

Keywords

biodiversity conservation, conflict management, conservación de la biodiversidad, conservation policy, decision-making, gobernanza, governance, human perspectives, investigación social, manejo de conflictos, perspectivas humanas, políticas de conservación, social research, toma de decisiones, valores, values, 人们的观点, 价值观, 保护政策, 冲突管理, 决策, 治理, 生物多样性保护, 社会研究, Conservation of Natural Resources, Decision Making, Humans

Journal Title

Conserv Biol

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

0888-8892
1523-1739

Volume Title

32

Publisher

Wiley
Sponsorship
NM was funded by NERC grant (NE/R006946/1), Fondation Wiener Anspach and Scriven post-doctoral fellowships