Speaker
Description
Addressing complex and multifaceted planning problems requires a deep understanding of the diverse perceptions and ideas that stakeholders hold (Healey, 2009; Innes and Booher, 2015). Still, capturing the range and nuance in perspectives, which is necessary for developing transformative actions, remains a difficult endeavor in research and planning processes. Even after the communicative turn in planning theory, planning processes frequently encounter challenges whereby the perspectives of dominant and influential stakeholders dominate those of the marginalized and less powerful (Coaffee and Healey, 2003; Huxley, 2000). This paper reflects on the use of Q-methodology as a useful tool for identifying and analyzing the ideological dimensions inherent in planning problems and some of the means in which Q-method studies can be used in planning processes.
Q-methodology, an approach combining qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques, allows researchers to systematically study subjectivity within narratives (Sneegas et al., 2021). By engaging participants in an exercise to sort statements according to their level of agreement, Q-methodology can help reveal the underlying structures of thought and patterns of ideas surrounding a subject of interest. This methodology is also useful for identifying areas of consensus and divergence in ideas between stakeholder viewpoints, which can help facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of planning issues.
This paper reflects on five separate Q-method applications and the respective strengths and weaknesses of these studies. Two of studies took place in Hawaii in the context of conflicts playing out in the media space, one of which was used to question the media narrative of community versus government regarding a flood risk management project, the other to launch a contentious discussion about water rights after the village of Lahaina was burned down. The next two studies aimed at studying tensions in flood risk management using the same study design in the context of two European cities, Grenoble, France, and Trento, Italy. The final study was deployed to understand how transdisciplinary co-creation changes perceptions of climate information services and adaptation actions.
This paper focuses on meta-lessons learned from these particular applications and the Q-method’s relevance to contemporary planning challenges. The paper emphasizes the potential value of Q-methodology as a participative and tactile tool to uncover the ideological underpinnings of diverse narratives, its value in providing a platform for constructive dialogue, as well as the potential for devising transformative actions that address multiple viewpoints. The paper also discusses some of the limits of the Q-method studies in the context of complex planning problems.
References
Coaffee, J., Healey, P., 2003. ‘My Voice: My Place’: Tracking Transformations in Urban Governance. Urban Stud. 40, 1979–1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000116077
Healey, P., 2009. The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 28, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08325175
Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. UBC Press, Hong Kong.
Huxley, M., 2000. The limits to communicative planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 19, 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900406
Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2015. A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Plan. Theory 14, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356
Sneegas, G., Beckner, S., Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., Lee, K., Seghezzo, L., 2021. Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Ecol. Econ. 180, 106864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
| Keywords | Q-methodology; water management; flood risk management; transdisciplinarity |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
