Q-methodology as a research and design tool for HCI

O'Leary, Kathleen; Wobbrock, Jacob O.; Riskin, Eve A.

doi:10.1145/2470654.2466256

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the ideal sorts (Brown, 1980;Barry and Proops, 1999;O'Leary et al, 2013). We analysed separately the two sorts reflecting the decision-makers' personal and perceived collective views as follows.…”

Section: Q-study Design and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value-and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, valuesintrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connectionas well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-makingutilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decisionmaking experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decisionmaking, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.

show abstract

Section: Q-study Design and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We adopted HCI-Q methodology [12] for this purpose as it aligns closely with our study requirements. HCI-Q is a discount version of Qmethodology for HCI to explore the significance to users of positive and negative implications of ideas and design artifacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Centralized Payment System Using Social Networks Account

Beikverdi

Kim

Song

2014

2014 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Big Data and Cloud Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An adaptation of Q-methodology for HCI, called HCI-Q [17], was tailored for the specific purpose of empowering stakeholders to critically reflect on designers’ assumptions about desirable and undesirable features of a design. The topic of the statements for HCI-Q studies is the designer’s a priori hypotheses about the implications and uses of a design idea that are likely to be significant to stakeholders.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Design Tradeoffs for Health Technologies

O’Leary

Eschler

Kendall

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce a mixed-methods approach for determining how people weigh tradeoffs in values related to health and technologies for health self-management. Our approach combines interviews with Q-methodology, a method from psychology uniquely suited to quantifying opinions. We derive the framework for structured data collection and analysis for the Q-methodology from theories of self-management of chronic illness and technology adoption. To illustrate the power of this new approach, we used it in a field study of nine older adults with type 2 diabetes, and nine mothers of children with asthma. Our mixed-methods approach provides three key advantages for health design science in HCI: (1) it provides a structured health sciences theoretical framework to guide data collection and analysis; (2) it enhances the coding of unstructured data with statistical patterns of polarizing and consensus views; and (3) it empowers participants to actively weigh competing values that are most personally significant to them.

show abstract

Q-methodology as a research and design tool for HCI

Cited by 25 publications

References 13 publications

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

Centralized Payment System Using Social Networks Account

Understanding Design Tradeoffs for Health Technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About