China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The varying economic impacts of marine spatial planning across different geographical scales
Published in C. Patrick Heidkamp, John Morrissey, Towards Coastal Resilience and Sustainability, 2018
Madeleine Gustavsson, Karyn Morrissey
This UK-based study uses a Q methodology approach to understand sectorial perspectives on the potential impact of MSP across different scales, including households, coastal, rural versus urban communities, regional and national level. The Q methodology has been described as the ‘science of subjectivity’ in that it examines the subjectivities of individuals in a systematic way (McKeown & Thomas, 2014b). Q methodology differs from other data-rich empirical (quantitative) methods in that it does not seek to identify traits across a population, nor provide results that are generalisable. As such, one of the advantages is that Q methodology does not rely on large numbers of participants. The focus of Q methodology is on identifying shared ways of thinking about an issue through revealing a number of different discourses (Eden, Donaldson & Walker, 2005; Ellis, Barry & Robinson, 2007; McKeown & Thomas, 2014b).
Study of competence from the perspective of Industry 4.0
Published in Artde D.K.T. Lam, Stephen D. Prior, Siu-Tsen Shen, Sheng-Joue Young, Liang-Wen Ji, Engineering Innovation and Design, 2019
Yao-Jen Fan, Pei-Shan Teng, Ding-Bang Luh
Most articles concerning workforce deficiency discuss professional skills and technically related subjects but little else. For this reason, it was decided that this research would perform an exploratory investigation. A direct quantified analysis of a large sample would have been unsuitable, but Q-methodology emphasizes that the viewpoints of individuals can be measured and categorized through factor analysis, thus it was adapted for this exploratory study. A result was obtained with Q-methodology and then categorized in order to determine the job traits and skills required by industries and their inter-relationship.
Identifying vehicles as green cars using Q methodology: Viewpoints of Korean transport policy experts
Published in International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2023
Q methodology involves creating a concourse, which can be constructed from people’s perceptions, knowledge sharing, or debate (Lee & Jung, 2021; Ockwell, 2008). Setting a concourse by selecting proper statements is called Q sampling (Webler et al., 2001). After Q sampling, we selected experts who participated in Q sorting. These participants were called P samples and were required to order Q statements (Brown, 1997, 1980; Brown & Rhoades, 2019). Fifteen to fifty participants are considered adequate for analysis (Brown, 1997; Nijnik et al., 2009). The P samples conduct Q sorting based on their preferences vis-à-vis the statements. Q sorting is a core process of Q methodology (Lee & Jung, 2021) for indicating subjectivity in an objective manner (Watts & Stenner, 2005, 2012). After Q sorting, factor analysis should be applied to define the typologies of subjectivity. The PQ method was used as the statistical program.
Beauty in the eye of the design reviewer: the contested nature of UK design review
Published in Journal of Urban Design, 2019
Q-Methodology has been employed in this research to provide a foundation for the systematic study of design reviewers’ viewpoints, opinions, perceptions and attitudes (Van Exel and de Graaf 2005). Q-Method is designed to ascertain how individuals think about a particular subject matter, identifying those with common views on a specific topic, including the perspectives that decision makers bring to policy issues (Brown, Durning, and Seldon 1998). Q-Methodology combines qualitative study of attitudes with the statistical rigour or quantitative research techniques (McKeown and Thomas 1988). Table 1 provides a step-by-step guide as to how Q was applied in this study. The result of this process is the identification of a series of distinctive factors, or discourses, reflecting clusters of participants (design reviewers) that share a similar view (Ellis, Barry, and Robinson 2007). Design reviewers undertook two separate Q-Sorts (see Table 1) exploring their attitudes and perceptions on (1) defining design quality in the context of design review, (2) the operation, process and role of design review. This study explored both retired and active members from the national design review panels of Scotland (Architecture and Design Scotland (A+ DS)) and Northern Ireland (Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG)).
More than a one-size-fits-all approach – tailoring flood risk communication to plural residents’ perspectives
Published in Water International, 2019
Karin A. W. Snel, Patrick A. Witte, Thomas Hartmann, Stan C. M. Geertman
Second, to acquire more in-depth insight into residents’ perspective on flood risk communication, 18 of the 69 respondents also agreed to be interviewed in depth using Q methodology. Q methodology systematically reveals individual perspectives and groups them into shared perspectives using quantitative factor analysis (Raadgever, Mostert, & Van de Giesen, 2008). The factor analysis identifies the basic principal dimensions of respondents’ perspectives (Kerr & Bjornlund, 2018). By employing Q methodology, this study combines quantitative and qualitative research methods (McKeown & Thomas, 2013). Since the aim is to overcome the implementation gap by concentrating more on translating expert knowledge to a lay perspective, Q methodology can highlight the various perspectives coexisting among Dutch residents. These different perspectives on how individuals prefer flood risk communication to be dispersed could facilitate a translation from expert to lay knowledge. It is important to understand that the focus is on identifying the various coexisting perspectives rather than generalizing about how many residents hold a particular perspective.