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. Ecological Economics, 01/02/2021, vol. 180, p. 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
Titre : | Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: a bibliometric analysis and systematic review (2021) |
Auteurs : | G. Sneegas ; S. Beckner ; C. Brannstrom ; W. Jepson ; K. Lee ; L. Seghezzo |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | Ecological Economics (vol. 180, February 2021) |
Article en page(s) : | p. 1-14 |
Langues : | Anglais |
Langues du résumé : | Anglais |
Catégories : |
Catégories principales 07 - ENVIRONNEMENT ; 7.1 - Généralités. Situation EnvironnementaleThésaurus IAMM ENVIRONNEMENT ; DURABILITE ; RECHERCHE ; METHODE ; ANALYSE QUALITATIVE ; ANALYSE QUANTITATIVE ; GOUVERNANCE |
Mots-clés: | METHODE Q |
Résumé : | Q-methodology is a mixed qualitative-quantitative method used to measure social perspectives on issues relating to sustainability and environmental governance in a systematic, replicable manner. Although its use grown over the past two decades, to date there has not been a comprehensive review of the environmental sustainability Q-methodology literature. Using bibliometric analysis and systematic review, this paper examines the rapid growth in published Q-methodology research on sustainable natural resource management and environmental governance. We analysed and iteratively coded 277 empirical Q-studies published between 2000-2018 to establish research trends, shared gaps, and best practices among environmental social science Q-researchers. We also conducted co-authorship and co-citation analyses to identify research clusters using Q-methodology. We find that, while Q-methodology uses a relatively standardized protocol, considerable heterogeneity persists across such domains as study design, p-set identification, concourse and Q-set development, analysis and interpretation. Further, we identify major reporting gaps among Q-methodology publications where researchers do not fully describe or justify subjective decision-making throughout the research process. The paper ends with recommendations for improving research reporting and increasing the circulation and uptake of up-to-date Q-methodology practices and innovations. |
Cote : | Réservé lecteur CIHEAM |
URL / DOI : | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864 |