Search results

Geen angst, maar onbehagen. Resultaten van een Q-studie naar subjectieve sociale onveiligheid

Het is common knowledge dat feitelijke onveiligheid en onveiligheidsbeleving niet zonder meer hetzelfde zijn. In de beleving van onveiligheid spelen allerlei factoren een rol die verder gaan dan de concrete problemen van criminaliteit, overlast en antisociaal gedrag. Dat maakt het een lastig te duiden fenomeen, voor de wetenschap, maar ook voor de politiek. En dat terwijl onveiligheidsbeleving een grote rol speelt in het maatschappelijk debat. Politici zijn doodsbenauwd onvoldoende gehoor te geven aan de roep om veiligheid. Ook in overheidsbeleid is men meer gaan koersen op de maatschappelijke onveiligheidsbeleving (Van den Herrewegen 2011). Het valt echter te betwijfelen of men deze gemakkelijk kan beïnvloeden (Terpstra en van der Vijver 2005). De culturele dimensies van onveiligheid, zoals”angsten, wantrouwen, emoties, behoefte aan vertrouwen en bescherming” (Terpstra 2009, p. 123) verander je niet zo snel. Onveiligheidsbeleving lijkt met andere woorden een referentiepunt zonder vaste coördinaten, en dat maakt het koersen erop tot een hachelijke zaak. In het wetenschappelijk onderzoek zijn tal van factoren in kaart gebracht die een rol spelen in de beleving van onveiligheid, zoals eerdere slachtofferervaringen, omgevingsfactoren en persoonlijkheidstrekken (bijvoorbeeld Hale 1996). Er is echter kritiek op deze voornamelijk kwantitatieve onderzoekstraditie omdat zich deze “hult in conceptuele onduidelijkheid en uitblinkt in ad-hoc operationaliseringen” (Pleysier 2010, p. 33). Het multi-dimensionale karakter van onveiligheidsbeleving maakt operationalisatie tot een complexe aangelegenheid. Ondanks de grote wetenschappelijke aandacht,“surprisingly little can be said conclusively about the fear of crime”(Ditton en Farrall 2000, p. xxi). Men zou vooral repeterend in plaats van cumulatief te werk zijn gegaan, waardoor veel lacunes in de wetenschap zijn achtergebleven (Pleysier 2010).

Introducing and discussing the virtual special issue on using Q methodology in higher education

This is the editorial paper for the virtual special issue “Using Q methodology in higher education: Opportunities and challenges”, consisting of nine original research studies from different international contexts. In addition to presenting novel findings, contributors were invited to discuss the following two questions at the center of the special issue call: In what sense has Q methodology served as a fitting approach to investigate subjectivity in higher education? What methodological opportunities and challenges arise with Q methodology in higher education settings? This editorial provides an overview and discussion of the various justifications mentioned for Q methodology. Furthermore, it collates the opportunities and challenges contributors discuss in relation to their studies using this almost 90-year-old methodological approach. The editorial paper concludes with recommendations for future Q methodological studies in higher education and beyond.

Understanding the Metaverse with the Q-method.

Understanding the Metaverse with the Q-method.

Models, simulations and games for water management: a comparative Q-method study in The Netherlands and China

How do policy analysts perceive the various roles that Models, Simulations and Games (MSG) have, or can have in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)? Fifty-five policy analysts in water management in The Netherlands and China were interviewed, following the procedure of the Q-method. Comparative analysis of the combined quantitative and qualitative data show that: (1) The debate on the role of MSG for IWRM is structured around five frames in The Netherlands and three frames in China. (2) The frames in The Netherlands and China are significantly different. (3) In China, there is a predominant frame that perceives MSG for IWRM as data driven simulation technology for rationalization of water management, which is less significant in The Netherlands. (4) The reverse is true with regard to MSG for stakeholder interaction, learning and integrated assessment, which are significant frames in The Netherlands, but not in China. The conclusion is that frame differences can easily confuse professional and academic debate about MSG for water management; within the same institutional and cultural context, but even more so in Netherlands-China co-operation projects. Frames are also relevant when designing, using or evaluating innovative methods for integrated water resources management.

The ‘Living Q’ an interactive method for actor engagement in transnational marine spatial planning

The interaction of stakeholders is regarded key in modern environmental and spatial planning. Marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP) is an emerging marine policy domain, which is of great interest worldwide. MSP practices are characterized by diverse approaches and a lack of transnational cooperation. Actors with various backgrounds have to identify mismatches and synergies to jointly aim towards coherent and coordinated practices. The ‘Living Q’ is a communication method to make actors aware systematically about their viewpoints in an interactive, communicative and playful environment, while it draws on results of a proceeding ‘Q Methodology’ study. Results from ‘Living Q’ exercises with international expert’s groups from European Sea basins show that the method is capable to foster communication and interaction among actors participating in ‘Living Q’ exercises, while having the potential to generate added value to planning processes by actor interaction in a collaborative setting.