Belief Structures, Common Policy Space and Health Care Reform: A Q Methodology Study
- 1
Abstract
Debate on the merits of health care reform continues even after passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Poll results confirm a split along political party and associated ideological lines with democrats more supportive and republicans generally opposed to the law. As parts of the law are now subject to increasing scrutiny, it may be instructive to question whether a party-centered or surrogate liberal/conservative dichotomy is the best representation of positions in the health care debate. Q Methodology reveals a more complex set of belief structures, suggesting that a simple dichotomy is misleading in terms of the values that underlie the role of health care in society. Five distinct belief structures were found, each with different concerns as to the purpose and potential benefits of various health care initiatives. In addition, Q Methodology allows for the formation of a common policy space within which all belief structures are independently in agreement in four specific areas. It is argued that this empirically derived consensus can serve as a basis for effective political engagement and policy implementation.
- Albaek, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policy making. Policy Sciences, 28, 79-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01000821
- Brown, Steven R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91-138.
- Brown, S. R. (1986). Q technique and method. In W. D. Berry and M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New Tools for Social Scientists (pp. 57-76). Beverly Hills: Sage.
- Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Cook, T.J., Scioli, F. P. and Brown, S.R. (1975). Experimental design and Q methodology: Improving the analysis of attitude change, Political Methodology, 2:1, 51-69.
- Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Durning, D. (1999). The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 389–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:3 3.0.CO;2-S
- Durning, D and Osuna, W. (1994). Policy analysts’ roles and value orientations: An empirical investigation using Q methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(4), 629-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3325491
- Fiske, S. and Taylor S. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.
- Hampton, G. (2009). Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making. Policy Sciences, 42, 227-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9087-1
- Hurd, R. C. and Brown, S. R. (2004/2005). The future of the Q methodology movement. Operant Subjectivity. Journal of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, October, Volume 28, 1/2, 58-75.
- Kaiser Health Tracking Poll (July 2011).
- URL (last checked 17 October 2011) http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8209.cfm
- McKeown, B. B., Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology -Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.
- Medicare Beneficiary Savings and the Affordable Care Act (2011).
- URL (last checked 17 October 2011) http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/affordablecareact.html