Stentor Danielson | Slippery Rock University (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Stentor Danielson

Research paper thumbnail of Military Cartography’s Influence on Tolkien’s Maps of Middle-earth

Research paper thumbnail of To trees all Men are Orcs": The Environmental Ethic of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The New Shadow

Research paper thumbnail of Assessing Discourses of Environmental Justice in the University Classroom

Environmental Justice

Teaching environmental justice (EJ) in the university classroom requires an extensive focus on di... more Teaching environmental justice (EJ) in the university classroom requires an extensive focus on discourses about justice. Students must be familiarized with the various discourses that shape EJ conflicts, and given the tools to analyze these discourses to discern where justice lies. Effective teaching and learning can benefit from assessment of students' own preferred discourses about the topic. This article reports on the results of using Q method-an increasingly popular approach to discourse analysis that straddles the qualitative-quantitative divide-to examine student discourses about EJ in two EJ classes at a predominantly white mid-size public university. I examine both the process of integrating formal discourse analysis into the classroom and the benefits for teaching and learning that it provides.

Research paper thumbnail of Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research

Research paper thumbnail of Participatory Approaches in Environmental Management

Sarkar/An Integrated Approach to Environmental Management, 2015

Recent decades have seen a rise in the use of participatory approaches in environmental managemen... more Recent decades have seen a rise in the use of participatory approaches in environmental management, which seek to give a broad set of stakeholders more of a say in decision-making. Proponents of this participatory shift argue that participation produces higher-quality decisions, is more morally justified, and encourages more public acceptance than decisions made in a top-down or authoritarian way. Critics charge that participation can be undemocratic, dysfunctional, and culturally biased. The design of an effective participation process must answer questions such as who will participate? How will they interact? How will scientific and non-scientific knowledge be integrated? And how much authority will each participant have over the final decision?

Research paper thumbnail of How the Public Thinks About Bushfires in the Sydney Suburbs

Discussions of bushfire management in Australia are usually framed as polarized. The polarization... more Discussions of bushfire management in Australia are usually framed as polarized. The polarization frame holds that there is a deep divide between a "localist" position calling for a traditional management regime of frequent controlled burning carried out by local people, and an "environmentalist" position calling for limits on human interference with nature. The research reported in this article examines whether that polarization accurately characterizes the views of a broad crosssection of people in one fire-prone region: the outer suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales. A Q method analysis showed that rather than a localist-environmentalist polarization, there were at least four main viewpoints-Traditionalists, Responsible Residents, Expert Authorities, and Green Democrats-which had significant areas of commonality among them. A mail survey examined the prevalence of these views. The results of the research suggests that for the general public, the bushfire issue is "detached," that is, not central enough to people's way of life to be shaped into detailed and actionrelevant discourses. The polarization noted by other authors may be as much a product of the social context of public policy debate as it is an expression of pre-existing ideological positions.

Research paper thumbnail of Ecology

Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide, 2011

Research paper thumbnail of Utilitarianism

Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide, 2011

Research paper thumbnail of Recognizing Common Ground: A Reply to Steven R. Brown

Research paper thumbnail of Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R

Field Methods, 2009

This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional surv... more This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional survey. Q method is an effective way of identifying the various shared per-spectives that people may hold about a given topic. The ability to measure those viewpoints in a later survey ...

Research paper thumbnail of Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R

Field Methods, 2009

This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional surv... more This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional survey. Q method is an effective way of identifying the various shared per-spectives that people may hold about a given topic. The ability to measure those viewpoints in a later survey ...

Research paper thumbnail of Many Versions of a Single Story: Wildfire Management in New Jersey

Middle States Geographer, 2013

Much has been written about environmental management issues that occasion heated controversy, inc... more Much has been written about environmental management issues that occasion heated controversy, including cases of conflicts over wildfire management. This research examines a case study in which little such controversy is apparent despite the existence of a similar environmental issue: wildfire management in the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey. Two methodologies commonly used in high-conflict cases were applied: qualitative discourse analysis and Q method. Discourse analysis of interviews with "key players" in Pine Barrens fire management revealed a largely consensual viewpoint stressing the naturalness of fire, the unpreparedness of many at-risk residents (especially newcomers to the area), and the importance of individual homeowner fire safety actions. Q method confirmed the existence of this consensual perspective, but also revealed two distinct areas of emphasis among "key players": one set of people tended to focus on the importance of members of the public taking responsibility for their own safety, while the other emphasized the frustrations encountered by people in official managerial positions. This research demonstrates the importance of examining low-conflict case studies as a counterpoint to high-conflict ones and shows the usefulness of research approaches from the latter when applied to the former.

Research paper thumbnail of Re-reading the Map of Middle-earth: Fan Cartography's Engagement with Tolkien's Legendarium

Journal of Tolkien Research, 2018

J.R.R. Tolkien provided an elaborate textual history for his writings about Middle-earth, but did... more J.R.R. Tolkien provided an elaborate textual history for his writings about Middle-earth, but did not do so for his now-iconic maps. This paper examines how this difference, in concert with the general tendency of readers to treat maps as objective records of geography, has manifested in Tolkien's work and fan works based upon it. An examination of fan cartography shows a strong tendency to treat the published maps as records of geographical fact rather than historical documents from within Middle-earth.

Research paper thumbnail of Who Wants to Participate? Public Views of Wildfire Management in the New

In recent years, there has been a push for more community involvement in wildfire management. Inv... more In recent years, there has been a push for more community involvement in wildfire management. Involvement can occur at the first level of individual action to make one's home more fire safe, or it can occur at a second level of participating in democratic planning for community-wide fire management. This paper uses Q method and a mail survey to examine

Research paper thumbnail of SELECTING THE RIGHT TOOL FOR EVALUATIONS: GUIDANCE FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PRACTITIONERS

Research paper thumbnail of Using Q Method for the Formative Evaluation of Public Participation Processes

Society & Natural Resources, 2009

Public participation can benefit from formative evaluation to learn from experience and recommend... more Public participation can benefit from formative evaluation to learn from experience and recommend improvements to the participation process as it is happening. Q method is a promising tool for conducting formative evaluations. It specifies the different perspectives held by participants about the process and clarifies the sources of their agreement and disagreement. Further advantages are that the technique relies on a minimal number of research participants and can be very efficient. Shortcomings are that Q method does not permit generalization to a population and requires considerable expertise to carry out. Results can also be sensitive to the particular individuals selected to participate.

Research paper thumbnail of Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect: a reply to Kampen and Tamás

Quality & Quantity, 2014

The critical audit of Q methodology by Kampen and Tamás contains many errors of fact and understa... more The critical audit of Q methodology by Kampen and Tamás contains many errors of fact and understanding––indeed, a resistance to understanding that is compared to the Medicis’ stance toward Galileo. Following a brief historical summary of similar ill-advised critiques of Q methodology in the 80 years since its introduction, responses are presented to various of the points raised: on the nature of subjectivity, the universe of subjective communicability (concourse) and samples drawn from it, the role of factor analysis and factor interpretation, the forced Q-sort distribution, the ratio between the number of participants and the number of statements in the Q sample, and sources of researcher bias.

Research paper thumbnail of RESEARCH ARTICLE: Three Tools for Evaluating Participation: Focus Groups, Q Method, and Surveys

Environmental Practice, 2012

To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to... more To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to know what works, but evaluation of proposed and existing processes is often lacking. We tested three tools for evaluation-focus groups, Q method, and surveys-at two contaminated sites with extensive public participation. Each tool is evaluated based on its requirements for implementation, the information it produces, and its acceptability to stakeholders. Which tool is most appropriate depends heavily on the available resources, what is happening at the site, and the evaluator's goals.

Research paper thumbnail of Building and breaking a bridge of trust in a Superfund site remediation

International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 2008

Trust is widely recognised as a key variable in perceptions and decision-making about environment... more Trust is widely recognised as a key variable in perceptions and decision-making about environmental risks. However, most considerations of trust treat it as a simple two-agent relationship. Based on an analysis of a contaminated site cleanup in New Jersey, we identify a more complex construction of trust formed between multiple stakeholders. We refer to this construction as 'bridging'. In the

Research paper thumbnail of Three Tools for Evaluating Participation: Focus Groups, Q Method, and Surveys

Environmental Practice, Jun 1, 2012

To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to... more To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to know what works, but evaluation of proposed and existing processes is often lacking. We tested three tools for evaluation-focus groups, Q method, and surveys-at two contaminated sites with extensive public participation. Each tool is evaluated based on its requirements for implementation, the information it produces, and its acceptability to stakeholders. Which tool is most appropriate depends heavily on the available resources, what is happening at the site, and the evaluator's goals.

Research paper thumbnail of Military Cartography’s Influence on Tolkien’s Maps of Middle-earth

Research paper thumbnail of To trees all Men are Orcs": The Environmental Ethic of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The New Shadow

Research paper thumbnail of Assessing Discourses of Environmental Justice in the University Classroom

Environmental Justice

Teaching environmental justice (EJ) in the university classroom requires an extensive focus on di... more Teaching environmental justice (EJ) in the university classroom requires an extensive focus on discourses about justice. Students must be familiarized with the various discourses that shape EJ conflicts, and given the tools to analyze these discourses to discern where justice lies. Effective teaching and learning can benefit from assessment of students' own preferred discourses about the topic. This article reports on the results of using Q method-an increasingly popular approach to discourse analysis that straddles the qualitative-quantitative divide-to examine student discourses about EJ in two EJ classes at a predominantly white mid-size public university. I examine both the process of integrating formal discourse analysis into the classroom and the benefits for teaching and learning that it provides.

Research paper thumbnail of Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research

Research paper thumbnail of Participatory Approaches in Environmental Management

Sarkar/An Integrated Approach to Environmental Management, 2015

Recent decades have seen a rise in the use of participatory approaches in environmental managemen... more Recent decades have seen a rise in the use of participatory approaches in environmental management, which seek to give a broad set of stakeholders more of a say in decision-making. Proponents of this participatory shift argue that participation produces higher-quality decisions, is more morally justified, and encourages more public acceptance than decisions made in a top-down or authoritarian way. Critics charge that participation can be undemocratic, dysfunctional, and culturally biased. The design of an effective participation process must answer questions such as who will participate? How will they interact? How will scientific and non-scientific knowledge be integrated? And how much authority will each participant have over the final decision?

Research paper thumbnail of How the Public Thinks About Bushfires in the Sydney Suburbs

Discussions of bushfire management in Australia are usually framed as polarized. The polarization... more Discussions of bushfire management in Australia are usually framed as polarized. The polarization frame holds that there is a deep divide between a "localist" position calling for a traditional management regime of frequent controlled burning carried out by local people, and an "environmentalist" position calling for limits on human interference with nature. The research reported in this article examines whether that polarization accurately characterizes the views of a broad crosssection of people in one fire-prone region: the outer suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales. A Q method analysis showed that rather than a localist-environmentalist polarization, there were at least four main viewpoints-Traditionalists, Responsible Residents, Expert Authorities, and Green Democrats-which had significant areas of commonality among them. A mail survey examined the prevalence of these views. The results of the research suggests that for the general public, the bushfire issue is "detached," that is, not central enough to people's way of life to be shaped into detailed and actionrelevant discourses. The polarization noted by other authors may be as much a product of the social context of public policy debate as it is an expression of pre-existing ideological positions.

Research paper thumbnail of Ecology

Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide, 2011

Research paper thumbnail of Utilitarianism

Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide, 2011

Research paper thumbnail of Recognizing Common Ground: A Reply to Steven R. Brown

Research paper thumbnail of Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R

Field Methods, 2009

This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional surv... more This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional survey. Q method is an effective way of identifying the various shared per-spectives that people may hold about a given topic. The ability to measure those viewpoints in a later survey ...

Research paper thumbnail of Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R

Field Methods, 2009

This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional surv... more This article describes three techniques for combining a Q method analysis with a traditional survey. Q method is an effective way of identifying the various shared per-spectives that people may hold about a given topic. The ability to measure those viewpoints in a later survey ...

Research paper thumbnail of Many Versions of a Single Story: Wildfire Management in New Jersey

Middle States Geographer, 2013

Much has been written about environmental management issues that occasion heated controversy, inc... more Much has been written about environmental management issues that occasion heated controversy, including cases of conflicts over wildfire management. This research examines a case study in which little such controversy is apparent despite the existence of a similar environmental issue: wildfire management in the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey. Two methodologies commonly used in high-conflict cases were applied: qualitative discourse analysis and Q method. Discourse analysis of interviews with "key players" in Pine Barrens fire management revealed a largely consensual viewpoint stressing the naturalness of fire, the unpreparedness of many at-risk residents (especially newcomers to the area), and the importance of individual homeowner fire safety actions. Q method confirmed the existence of this consensual perspective, but also revealed two distinct areas of emphasis among "key players": one set of people tended to focus on the importance of members of the public taking responsibility for their own safety, while the other emphasized the frustrations encountered by people in official managerial positions. This research demonstrates the importance of examining low-conflict case studies as a counterpoint to high-conflict ones and shows the usefulness of research approaches from the latter when applied to the former.

Research paper thumbnail of Re-reading the Map of Middle-earth: Fan Cartography's Engagement with Tolkien's Legendarium

Journal of Tolkien Research, 2018

J.R.R. Tolkien provided an elaborate textual history for his writings about Middle-earth, but did... more J.R.R. Tolkien provided an elaborate textual history for his writings about Middle-earth, but did not do so for his now-iconic maps. This paper examines how this difference, in concert with the general tendency of readers to treat maps as objective records of geography, has manifested in Tolkien's work and fan works based upon it. An examination of fan cartography shows a strong tendency to treat the published maps as records of geographical fact rather than historical documents from within Middle-earth.

Research paper thumbnail of Who Wants to Participate? Public Views of Wildfire Management in the New

In recent years, there has been a push for more community involvement in wildfire management. Inv... more In recent years, there has been a push for more community involvement in wildfire management. Involvement can occur at the first level of individual action to make one's home more fire safe, or it can occur at a second level of participating in democratic planning for community-wide fire management. This paper uses Q method and a mail survey to examine

Research paper thumbnail of SELECTING THE RIGHT TOOL FOR EVALUATIONS: GUIDANCE FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PRACTITIONERS

Research paper thumbnail of Using Q Method for the Formative Evaluation of Public Participation Processes

Society & Natural Resources, 2009

Public participation can benefit from formative evaluation to learn from experience and recommend... more Public participation can benefit from formative evaluation to learn from experience and recommend improvements to the participation process as it is happening. Q method is a promising tool for conducting formative evaluations. It specifies the different perspectives held by participants about the process and clarifies the sources of their agreement and disagreement. Further advantages are that the technique relies on a minimal number of research participants and can be very efficient. Shortcomings are that Q method does not permit generalization to a population and requires considerable expertise to carry out. Results can also be sensitive to the particular individuals selected to participate.

Research paper thumbnail of Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect: a reply to Kampen and Tamás

Quality & Quantity, 2014

The critical audit of Q methodology by Kampen and Tamás contains many errors of fact and understa... more The critical audit of Q methodology by Kampen and Tamás contains many errors of fact and understanding––indeed, a resistance to understanding that is compared to the Medicis’ stance toward Galileo. Following a brief historical summary of similar ill-advised critiques of Q methodology in the 80 years since its introduction, responses are presented to various of the points raised: on the nature of subjectivity, the universe of subjective communicability (concourse) and samples drawn from it, the role of factor analysis and factor interpretation, the forced Q-sort distribution, the ratio between the number of participants and the number of statements in the Q sample, and sources of researcher bias.

Research paper thumbnail of RESEARCH ARTICLE: Three Tools for Evaluating Participation: Focus Groups, Q Method, and Surveys

Environmental Practice, 2012

To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to... more To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to know what works, but evaluation of proposed and existing processes is often lacking. We tested three tools for evaluation-focus groups, Q method, and surveys-at two contaminated sites with extensive public participation. Each tool is evaluated based on its requirements for implementation, the information it produces, and its acceptability to stakeholders. Which tool is most appropriate depends heavily on the available resources, what is happening at the site, and the evaluator's goals.

Research paper thumbnail of Building and breaking a bridge of trust in a Superfund site remediation

International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 2008

Trust is widely recognised as a key variable in perceptions and decision-making about environment... more Trust is widely recognised as a key variable in perceptions and decision-making about environmental risks. However, most considerations of trust treat it as a simple two-agent relationship. Based on an analysis of a contaminated site cleanup in New Jersey, we identify a more complex construction of trust formed between multiple stakeholders. We refer to this construction as 'bridging'. In the

Research paper thumbnail of Three Tools for Evaluating Participation: Focus Groups, Q Method, and Surveys

Environmental Practice, Jun 1, 2012

To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to... more To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to know what works, but evaluation of proposed and existing processes is often lacking. We tested three tools for evaluation-focus groups, Q method, and surveys-at two contaminated sites with extensive public participation. Each tool is evaluated based on its requirements for implementation, the information it produces, and its acceptability to stakeholders. Which tool is most appropriate depends heavily on the available resources, what is happening at the site, and the evaluator's goals.