Journal of Hospitality Application and Research

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Quasi-Q-Sorting Innovation: The Use of Tangible Cues in Sorting Methodology


Affiliations
1 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Q-sort is a qualitative research method that is gaining popularity outside of its traditional psychology and social sciences areas. The Quasi-Q-sort is a derivative of the Q-sort that affords more latitude in the design and administration of the process. This paper reports how the Quasi-Q-sort method was applied in an innovative way to categorise according to tangible attributes in addition to the standard semantic sorting protocol. The Sensory Quasi-Q-Sort (SQQS) was used to obtain unprompted and spontaneous respondent categorisation of 40 hotel comment cards (HCC). Respondents identified attributes that could be clustered to form a description-based classification not restricted to semantic context. This study showed divergence in categorisation indicating varying first impressions of HCCs by guests. Emergent themes identified were Question Format, Graphic Design/ Appearance, Dimension, Texture/Paper weight, Ready to mail format, Time taken to complete, Ease-of-use, Geographic/Locality, and Familiar/Expected/ Customary form/Appearance. SQQ-sorting is a valuable way of adding to the richness of qualitative research as it allows inclusion of dimensions previously ignored. As part of a mixed method approach, this is a simple cost effective, efficient and effective method to obtain valuable perspective on how objects are perceived by all the human senses. Such data can influence design and marketing concepts.

Keywords

Q-Sort, Hotel Comment Card, Tangible Attributes, Quasi-Q-Sort, Innovation.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Amin, Z. (2000). Q Methodology-A journey into the subjectivity of human mind. Singapore Medical Journal, 41(8), 410-414.

  • Borthwick, A.G. (1995). School-University-Community Collaboration: Establishing and Maintaining Partnerships for School Improvement. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, USA.

  • Brown, S.R. (1996). Q Methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567.

  • Brown, S.R., & Good, J.M.M. (2010). Q Methodology. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Double Blind Refereed Papers Quasi-Q-sorting Innovation: The use of Tangible Cues in Sorting Methodology 77

  • Cotton, M., & Devine, W. P. (2011). Discourses of energy infrastructure development: A Q-method study of electricity transmission line sitting in the UK. Environment and Planning-Part A, 43(4), 942.

  • Cross, R.M. (2005). Exploring attitudes: The case for Q methodology. Health Education Research, 20(2), 206-213.

  • Du Plessis, T.C. (2005). A theoretical framework of corporate online communication: A marketing public relations (MPR) perspective. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria.

  • Dunlap, M.S., & Hadley, B.J. (1965). Quasi-Q-Sort methodology in self-evaluation of conference leadership skill. Nursing Research, 14(2), 119-125.

  • Ekinci, Y., & Riley, M. (1999). Measuring hotel quality: Back to basics. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(6), 287-293.

  • Gabor, M.R. (2013). Q Methodology (Q factor analysis)- particularities and theoretical considerations for marketing data. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 2(4), 116-126.

  • De Graaf, G.D., & Van Exel, J.V. (2009). Using Q methodology in administrative ethics. Public Integrity, 11(1), 53-68.

  • Furnham, A. (1990). A content, co-relational, and factor analytic study of seven questionnaire measures of the Protestant work ethic. Human Relations, 43(4), 383-399.

  • GraphPad Software. (2005). Quick Calcs. Retrieved July 27, 2005, from http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/randomselect2.cfm

  • Kosslyn, S.M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (2013). Q Methodology (2nded.), Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  • Pitt, D.G., & Zube, E.H. (1979). The Q-sort method: Use in landscape assessment research and landscape planning. In G.H. Elsner, & R.C. Smardon (Eds), Our national landscape. Proceedings of a Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource. Incline Village, Nev., April 23-25, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, pp. 227-234.

  • Risdon, A., Eccleston, C., Crombez, G., & McCracken, L. (2003). How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis 78 JOHAR – Journal of Hospitality Application & Research Vol. 9 No. 1 Department of Hotel Management, BIT-Mesra, Ranchi-835215 of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain. Social Science & Medicine, 56(2), 375-386.

  • Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 636-648.

  • Shinebourne, P. (2009). Using Q method in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 93-97.

  • Smith, N.W. (2001). Current systems in psychology: History, theory, research, and application. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

  • Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Stephenson, W. (1968). Perspectives in psychology: Consciousness out - subjectivity in, Psychological Record, 18(1), 499-501.

  • Thomas, D.M., & Watson, R.T. (2002). Q-Sorting and MIS research: A primer. Communications for the Association for Information Systems, 8, 141-156.

  • Van Eeten, M. (1998). Dialogues of the deaf: Defining new agendas for environmental deadlocks. Delft: Eburon.

  • Van Exel, J., & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. Online document. Retrieved January 24, 2014 from http:// www. qmethodology.net/PDF/Q-methodology

  • Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Krueger, R.O.B. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental management, 27(3), 435-450.

  • Wilbur, P.H., Gooding, C.T., & Vincent, R.A. (1970). Adapting Q-technique to computer scoring procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 169-170.

  • Zaltman, G. (1997). Rethinking market research: Putting people back in. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(4), 424-437.

  • Zou, T.X.P. & Lee, W.B. (2007). Development of a research tool for the elicitation of consumer response. International Journal of Market Research, 49(5), 613-631.


Abstract Views: 352

PDF Views: 2




  • Quasi-Q-Sorting Innovation: The Use of Tangible Cues in Sorting Methodology

Abstract Views: 352  |  PDF Views: 2

Authors

Alfred Ogle
270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia
Stephen Fanning
270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia

Abstract


Q-sort is a qualitative research method that is gaining popularity outside of its traditional psychology and social sciences areas. The Quasi-Q-sort is a derivative of the Q-sort that affords more latitude in the design and administration of the process. This paper reports how the Quasi-Q-sort method was applied in an innovative way to categorise according to tangible attributes in addition to the standard semantic sorting protocol. The Sensory Quasi-Q-Sort (SQQS) was used to obtain unprompted and spontaneous respondent categorisation of 40 hotel comment cards (HCC). Respondents identified attributes that could be clustered to form a description-based classification not restricted to semantic context. This study showed divergence in categorisation indicating varying first impressions of HCCs by guests. Emergent themes identified were Question Format, Graphic Design/ Appearance, Dimension, Texture/Paper weight, Ready to mail format, Time taken to complete, Ease-of-use, Geographic/Locality, and Familiar/Expected/ Customary form/Appearance. SQQ-sorting is a valuable way of adding to the richness of qualitative research as it allows inclusion of dimensions previously ignored. As part of a mixed method approach, this is a simple cost effective, efficient and effective method to obtain valuable perspective on how objects are perceived by all the human senses. Such data can influence design and marketing concepts.

Keywords


Q-Sort, Hotel Comment Card, Tangible Attributes, Quasi-Q-Sort, Innovation.

References