Abstract
IIn this study, we describe and present an evaluation of how the Q Method was used to engage members of local communities, to examine how those living in former metal mining landscapes value their heritage and understand their preferences for the long-term management of mine waste. The evaluation focused on the participants’ experiences, thoughts, and views of the Q Method, as a method of collecting individual preferences. The Q Method is for discourse analysis, allowing a systematic analysis of the subjective perspectives of participants. This paper presents a small-scale evaluation of the Q Method. The results indicate that although this method is time-consuming (both for the researchers and for the participants) and demanding, it is a suitable and successful engagement strategy. The Q Method helped the participants feel that their opinion was being sought and valued, and allowed them to express their views on mining heritage in the context of their lives. The method was also a valuable tool in challenging the participants’ views and it reinforced the complexity of the decision-making process.
Highlights
Policy decisions often require an assessment of competing values
The results from the Q Method can be found in Sinnett and Sardo (2020), but briefly we identified five perspectives of local residents: those who valued the cultural heritage and wanted the sites left as they are, those who prioritised restoring the sites for nature conservation, reducing pollution or enhancing the appearance of the mines, and those focused on the local economy who were the most receptive to reworking the mines (Sinnett and Sardo, 2020)
We describe and present an evaluation of the Q Method, focusing on exploring how participants experienced the method
Summary
Policy decisions often require an assessment of competing values. One of the goals of engaging publics is to ensure that there is public input into the decision-making process (House of Commons, 2013). Researchers use engagement tools to ensure the public have an opportunity to input into policy decisions (Institute of Medicine, 2013). Members of the public may not have the expertise to contribute or comment on technical issues but are more than qualified to reflect on the values underlying public policy decisions. Reflection necessarily involves dialogue: engaging with publics provides an opportunity to collect people’s views, values and opinions on difficult issues, as well as to share information about sensitive policy decisions. Policymakers can draw on publics’ reflections to inform policy, or at the least ensure that they have been considered (Institute of Medicine, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
