Data Collection (Q Sort)

3.6.5.1. The Q sort

The ‘Q sort’ refers to the process by which participants rank-order items in the Q set from their individual point of view, according to some preference or judgement (van Exel & de Graaf, 2005).

There are a number of aspects of this process that warrant further explanation. These are: the condition of instruction; the fixed distribution grid; the instructions provided for participants; and the information obtained upon completion of the Q sorting exercise. Each will be defined in turn with reference to the materials and procedures utilised in the present study.

3.6.5.2. The condition of instruction

The ‘condition of instruction’ is informed by the research question and is presented to participants during the Q sorting process to ensure that they are all answering the same question (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Brown (1993) describes the condition of instruction as a rule according to which the participants are asked to consider the statements. In the present study, the condition of instruction was:

“What helped you to settle in to your current school after being somewhere else for a while?”

The terminology was considered carefully to ensure that the instruction was child- friendly and inoffensive. For example, the word ‘reintegration’ was not included as it was deemed to be incomprehensible to younger children and the word ‘excluded’

was avoided as this arguably contains negative connotations, which was inconsistent with the positive psychological underpinning of the research.

3.6.5.3. The fixed distribution grid

Participants engaging in a Q sort are provided with an appropriate sorting distribution in which they sort the items in a Q set (Watts & Stenner, 2012). A fixed normal distribution grid (Figure 3) was used to facilitate a more simple analytic process. Watts and Stenner (2012) assert that the choice of distribution is irrelevant to the factors that emerge from the study as it is the pattern within the distribution that matters and thus any standardised distribution can appropriately capture participants’ views.

A grid containing nine columns was created for the present study, in accordance with Brown’s (1980) advice that a nine-point distribution is appropriate for Q sets of 40 items or less. Column headings were numbered from -4 to +4 and the numbers were printed on laminated cards and placed above the corresponding columns of the grid during the Q sort. The kurtosis (the degree of flatness or steepness) of the distribution was also considered. Brown (1980) recommended a steeper distribution for topics of greater complexity. A steeper distribution is also said to involve fewer decisions and less potential anxiety for participants (Watts & Stenner, 2012). This motivated the decision to create a slightly steeper distribution (where only two items could be placed in the most extreme columns, as displayed in Figure 3).

Participants in a Q study are asked to sort the items along a face-valid dimension. In the present study, this was ‘most helpful’ to ‘most unhelpful’, which was selected in

conjunction with the research question and condition of instruction. These dimensions were placed at the opposing poles of the Q grid (i.e. most helpful above the +4 column and most unhelpful above the -4 column). Watts and Stenner (2012) highlight the importance of representing both poles with the prefix ‘most’ as the two ends of the grid are designed to capture strong feelings, whether positive or negative.

Participants place the items into the columns on the grid to display their relative rating of the items according to the condition of instruction. The prefix of each statement (“it helped me when”) was displayed on a laminated card at the top of the Q grid to remind participants of the purpose of the sorting process. The ratings are relative to other items in the Q set, for example an item placed in the furthest right column (+4) is being ranked as more helpful than one in the adjacent column (+3). It is important to clarify that this is a relevant judgement between the items and participants may view both as helpful or unhelpful. Watts and Stenner (2012) emphasise the holistic nature of the Q sorting procedure and state that the whole viewpoint (as opposed to the specific position of single items) is the primary concern. To expand upon this point further, assigning an item a negative ranking does not necessarily indicate that the participant perceives this item to be ‘unhelpful’. Rather, this is an indication that they find the item slightly less helpful than the ones ranked immediately above it and slightly more helpful than the items ranked immediately below it. Consequently, the Q sort must be interpreted holistically as a total response and must be treated as a “single, holistic and gestalt entity” (Watts & Stenner, 2012, p. 16).

It is also important to note that where in a column an item is placed is unimportant, but moving an item to the left or right exemplifies the degree to which the participant perceives the item to be more helpful/unhelpful (Hughes, 2016). Thus, the items are arranged on the grid so that they spread out from the middle column to the left and right outermost columns with increasing salience.

Figure 3. The fixed normal distribution grid used in the present study.

3.6.5.4. Q sorting instructions

Participants were provided with written, step-by-step instructions (see Appendix N), however these were clarified verbally with each participant during Q sorting, which was completed individually. Participants were assured that there were no right or wrong ways to complete the Q sort, and were asked to consult the researcher if there were any words contained within the statements that they could not read or understand. In addition, the researcher was mindful that some of the statements

Name: Date:

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Not helpful, not unhelpful Most helpful most unhelpful

concerning factors that support a successful reintegration might not have been applicable to all participants. Participants were therefore instructed to imagine how helpful the strategy would have been, if they had not directly experienced it.

The 37 statements were presented to participants in the form of a deck of cards (one statement per card). The statements (Appendix O) were typed in bold black ink, randomly numbered, printed onto thick white card, and laminated. The size of the cards was approximately 5x2cm, as recommended by Watts and Stenner (2012) to ensure sufficient space to complete the Q sort.

Participants were firstly instructed to read through all of the statements to gain an impression of the range of opinion at issue (Brown, 1993). Participants were then asked to begin the sorting process by initially dividing the statements into three piles according to whether they perceived them to be ‘helpful’, ‘unhelpful’ or ‘not helpful, not unhelpful’. Participants were made aware that the number of statements in each pile did not have to be equal. A laminated sheet containing three boxes in which participants could place the cards was provided to aid this process (Appendix P).

After sorting the statements into three piles, participants were presented with the Q grid (Figure 4) and were asked to sort the cards according to personal significance based on their experience. At this point, participants were reminded of the shape of the distribution and it was reiterated that each card must be allocated a place in the distribution relative to one another (only two cards could be ranked +4, three could be ranked +3 and so forth).

Figure 4. Image of the Q grid used in the present study.

Beginning with the ‘helpful’ pile, participants were asked to spread out the cards so that they could see them all at once, and to select the number of statements required to complete the most extreme column (i.e. two of the cards in the +4 column). Participants were asked to continue placing the statements on the grid according to the ‘helpfulness’ of the statement, working towards the other end of the grid until all of the ‘helpful’ statements were depleted. The same principle was then applied to those that they regarded ‘unhelpful’, and participants placed these items at the opposite end of the grid, beginning with ‘most unhelpful’ under the column -4. The spaces that remained were those in which the neutral statements (‘not helpful, not unhelpful’) were placed. A note was made of where each category of items ended on the grid, in order to aid the interpretation process at a later stage. An illustration of a participant completing a Q sort is displayed in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Illustration of a participant completing a Q sort.

Participants were given the opportunity to look over their configuration and change any items before declaring it final. Once all statements had been placed on the Q grid and participants reported that they were happy with their sorting, this became known as their ‘Q sort’, which reflected their perspective on the topic. The researcher recorded the numbers of the Q set statements on a blank distribution grid for each participant, in order to impose some quality control (Watts & Stenner, 2012). An image of a completed Q sort is displayed in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Image of a completed Q sort.

3.6.5.5. Post-sort information

Following completion of the Q sort, each participant was provided with a short questionnaire containing five questions (Appendix Q). This enabled participants to give feedback on the Q sort, as well as to provide further qualitative information to help clarify the findings. In addition, participants were asked verbally to provide information regarding the statements they had placed at the extreme left and right hand side of the Q grid (i.e. why these items were viewed most helpful or unhelpful). Participants’ responses to these questions were recorded in note form and field notes were taken throughout the Q sort. This information was used when interpreting the accounts shared by participants.