Q methodology was introduced in 1935 and has evolved to become the most elaborate philosophical, conceptual, and technical means for the systematic study of subjectivity across an increasing array of human activities, most recently including decision making. Subjectivity is an inescapable dimension of all decision making since we all have thoughts, perspectives, and preferences concerning the wide range of matters that come to our attention and that enter into consideration when choices have to be made among options, and Q methodology provides procedures and a rationale for clarifying and examining the various viewpoints at issue. The application of Q methodology commonly begins by accumulating the various comments in circulation concerning a topic and then reducing them to a smaller set for administration to select participants, who then typically rank the statements in the Q sample from agree to disagree in the form of a Q sort. Q sorts are then correlated and factor analyzed, giving rise to a typology of persons who have ordered the statements in similar ways. As an illustration, Q methodology was administered to a diverse set of stakeholders concerned with the problems associated with the conservation and control of large carnivores in the Northern Rockies. Participants nominated a variety of possible solutions that each person then Q sorted from those solutions judged most effective to those judged most ineffective, the factor analysis of which revealed four separate perspectives that are compared and contrasted. A second study demonstrates how Q methodology can be applied to the examination of single cases by focusing on two members of a group contemplating how they might alter the governing structures and culture of their organization. The results are used to illustrate the quantum character of subjective behavior as well as the laws of subjectivity. Discussion focuses on the broader role of decisions in the social order.
Steven R. Brown
Cross-cultural measurement is an important topic in social work research and evaluation. Measuring health related concepts accurately is necessary for researchers and practitioners who work with culturally diverse populations. Social workers use measurements or instruments to assess health-related outcomes in order to identify risk and protective factors for vulnerable, disadvantaged populations. Culturally validated instruments are necessary, first, to identify the evidence of health disparities for vulnerable populations. Second, measurements are required to accurately capture health outcomes in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for cross-cultural populations. Meaningful, appropriate, and practical research instruments, however, are not always readily available. They may have bias when used for populations from different racial and ethnic groups, tribal groups, immigration and refugee status, gender identities, religious affiliations, social class, and mental or physical abilities. Social work researchers must have culturally reliable and valid research instruments to accurately measure social constructs and ensure the validity of outcomes with cultural populations of interest. . In addition, culturally reliable and valid instruments are necessary for research which involves comparisons with different cultural groups. Instruments must capture the same conceptual understanding in outcomes across different cultural groups to create a basis for comparison. Cross-cultural instruments must also detect and ascertain the same magnitude in the changes in health outcomes, in order to accurately determine the impact of factors in the social environment as well as the influence of micro, mezzo, and macro-level interventions. This reference provides an overview of issues and techniques of cross-cultural measurement in social work research and evaluation. Applying systematic, methodological approaches to develop, collect, and assess cross-cultural measurements will lead to more reliable and valid data for cross-cultural groups.
How events become news has always been a fundamental question for both journalism practitioners and scholars. For journalism practitioners, news judgments are wrapped up in the moral obligation to hold the powerful to account and to provide the public with the means to participate in democratic governance. For journalism scholars, news selection and construction are wrapped up in investigations of news values and newsworthiness. Scholarship systematically analyzing the processes behind these judgments and selections emerged in the 1960s, and since then, news values research has made a significant contribution to the journalism literature. Assertions have been made regarding the status of news values, including whether they are culture bound or universal, core or standard. Some hold that news values exist in the minds of journalists or are even metaphorically speaking “part of the furniture,” while others see them as being inherent or infused in the events that happen or as discursively constructed through the verbal and visual resources deployed in news storytelling. Like in many other areas of journalism research, systematic analysis of the role that visuals play in the construction of newsworthiness has been neglected. However, recent additions to the scholarship on visual news values analysis have begun to address this shortfall. The convergence and digitization of news production, rolling deadlines, new media platforms, and increasingly active audiences have also impacted on how news values research is conducted and theorized, making this a vibrant and ever-evolving research paradigm.