Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Zabala A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6849601 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Zabala Aiora A Sandbrook Chris C Mukherjee Nibedita N

Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 20180720 5

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 ...[more]

PMID: 29707822

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:During the outbreak of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq that started in 2015, the course of the disease and the treatment were not consistent with the available literature. Physicians, particularly dermatologists, faced challenges with treating the cutaneous leishmaniasis lesions with high rates of treatment failure and resistance to treatment. We used Q-methodology to understand the range and diversities of opinions and the practical experiences of dermatologists about the treatment difficulties of cutaneous leishmaniasis. METHODS:This Q-methodology study was carried out in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, and involved 37 dermatologists. A set of 40 statements related to different aspects of difficulties and uncertainties of treating cutaneous leishmaniasis was prepared. The dermatologists were requested to distribute the 40 statements into a scaled grid of nine piles from least agree to most agree. We applied by-person factor analysis using PQMethod 2.35 for the data analysis. RESULTS:The analysis revealed two different viewpoints about the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis and a consensus viewpoint. The first viewpoint emphasized the use of sodium stibogluconate-based combination therapy, concerns with treatment failure, and lack of compliance with the treatment. The second viewpoint emphasized the lack of standard treatment and advances in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. There was a consensus between both groups of respondents about many aspects of the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis, including considering sodium stibogluconate the first drug of choice for cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment. CONCLUSIONS:This study revealed a diversity of viewpoints and uncertainties about the effectiveness of the available treatment modalities and treatment difficulties and failure. Interrupted supply and poor quality of the available drugs and lack of a standard and advanced treatment are the main problems facing the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. More research is required to determine the best treatment modalities for the different types of cutaneous leishmaniasis. There is a need for the development of treatment guidelines specific to the Iraqi context with a particular focus on the treatment of the resistant and atypical cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis.

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems face challenges in using research evidence to improve policy and practice. These challenges are particularly evident in small and poorly resourced health systems, which are often in locations (in Canada and globally) with poorer health status. Although organizational resources have been acknowledged as important in understanding research use resource theories have not been a focus of knowledge translation (KT) research. What resources, broadly defined, are required for KT and how does their presence or absence influence research use?In this paper, we consider conservation of resources (COR) theory as a theoretical basis for understanding the capacity to use research evidence in health systems. Three components of COR theory are examined in the context of KT. First, resources are required for research uptake. Second, threat of resource loss fosters resistance to research use. Third, resources can be optimized, even in resource-challenged environments, to build capacity for KT.MethodsA scan of the KT literature examined organizational resources needed for research use. A multiple case study approach examined the three components of COR theory outlined above. The multiple case study consisted of a document review and key informant interviews with research team members, including government decision-makers and health practitioners through a retrospective analysis of four previously conducted applied health research studies in a resource-challenged region.ResultsThe literature scan identified organizational resources that influence research use. The multiple case study supported these findings, contributed to the development of a taxonomy of organizational resources, and revealed how fears concerning resource loss can affect research use. Some resources were found to compensate for other resource deficits. Resource needs differed at various stages in the research use process.ConclusionsCOR theory contributes to understanding the role of resources in research use, resistance to research use, and potential strategies to enhance research use. Resources (and a lack of them) may account for the observed disparities in research uptake across health systems. This paper offers a theoretical foundation to guide further examination of the COR-KT ideas and necessary supports for research use in resource-challenged environments.

Project description:BackgroundEHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate.MethodsWe conducted 15 focus groups (n =?110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters.ResultsFor initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions.ConclusionsExternal validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.

Project description:BackgroundAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the major cause of blindness for the older population in the developed world. Geographic atrophy (GA) is an advanced form of AMD. This progressive degenerative disease causes loss of visual function but unlike exudative AMD there are currently no approved therapeutic treatments for GA. Instead management of the condition is through supportive care. The aim of this study was to conduct exploratory qualitative research to develop a further understanding specifically of the impact of geographic atrophy (GA) on the quality of life for both patients and their families and to explore the resources GA patients most frequently access.MethodsTwo focus groups were conducted where participants were assigned to the 'better' or 'worse' group based upon their level of visual acuity. The data were analysed using the principles of thematic analysis. Transcripts were coded using an a priori framework. Emerging themes and subthemes were added, and transcripts recoded to reflect this. Transcripts were coded by one researcher, and the emerging themes and subthemes discussed and agreed prior to transcript recoding.ResultsNine participants were recruited to the study (n = 5 'better group' and n = 4 'worse group'). Six overarching themes were identified. These are: experience of symptoms and understanding of GA; impact on activities; feelings and emotions; relationships and informal support; accessing formal support; and information needs.ConclusionKey findings indicated that: participants had little knowledge of the mechanisms of GA but were aware of their prognosis; activities impacted by GA included management of daily activities and reading; emotions experienced included fear and frustration, and these frequently crossed over into their relationships with others; and access to formal support was mainly practical and information needs were largely unmet, with peer support being identified as important. Management of GA should include signposting to appropriate support agencies, such as low-vision services and charities.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets