Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 131–147 | Cite as

Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry

Article
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Controversies in food and agriculture abound, with many portrayed as conflicts between polarized viewpoints. Framing such controversies as dichotomies, however, can at times obscure what might be a plurality of views and potential common ground on the subject. We used Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views about pesticide safety, agricultural worker exposure, and human health concerns in the tree fruit industry of central Washington State. Using a purposive sample of English and Spanish-speaking agricultural workers, industry representatives, state agencies, educators, and advocates (n = 41), participants sorted 45 statements on pesticide use and perceived human safety risks in the tree fruit industry in 2011. We used PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program to identify viewpoints, based on differences between how participants sorted the statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints among 38 sorters that explained 52 percent of the variance. The viewpoints included the: (1) skeptics (n = 22) who expressed concern over the environmental and human health impacts of pesticide use; (2) acceptors (n = 10) who acknowledged inherent risks for using pesticides but saw the risks as known, small and manageable; and (3) incrementalists (n = 6) who prioritized opportunities to introduce human capital and technological improvements to increase agricultural worker safety. We then brought representatives with these different viewpoints together to analyze the results of the Q study, and to brainstorm mutually acceptable improvements to health and safety in tree fruit orchards. In describing and analyzing this case study, we argue that Q methodology can serve as one potentially effective tool for collaborative work, in this case facilitating a process of orchard safety improvements despite perceived stakeholder polarization.

Keywords

Q methodology Pesticide safety Polarization Stakeholders 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to Maureen Gullen for assistance in data analysis and representation for this study, to Diane Montgomery for assistance in identifying the most appropriate factor solution, to Jerry Shannon, Diane Montgomery, and Alice Julier for comments on an earlier draft of this paper, to four anonymous reviewers for invaluable feedback, and to the pesticide safety stakeholder working group for comments on the pesticide Q study results and analysis. This study was funded by CDC/NIOSH Award 5 U54 OH007544 to the University of Washington Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (with subcontract to Washington State University).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aerni, P. 2005. Attitudes in the public debates on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. The African technology development forum.Google Scholar
  2. Aerni, P., and T. Bernauer. 2006. Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: The issue of public trust. World Development 34 (3): 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alavanja, M.C., M. Dosemeci, C. Samanic, J. Lubin, C.F. Lynch, C. Knott, J. Barker, J.A. Hoppin, D.P. Sandler, J. Coble, K. Thomas, and A. Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology 160: 876–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelopulo, G. 2009. Q methodology and the measurement of subjectivity in corporate brand perception. South African Journal of Business Management 40(3): 21–33.Google Scholar
  5. Arcury, T.A., S.A. Quandt, and G.B. Russell. 2002. Pesticide safety among farmworkers: Perceived risk and perceived control as factors reflecting environmental justice. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(S2): 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashley, B., J. Hollows, S. Jones, and B. Taylor. 2004. Food and cultural studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  9. Best, J. 2012. Social problems. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  10. Biltekoff, C. 2013. Eating right in America: The cultural politics of food and health. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, S.R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bryson, J.M., and B.C. Crosby. 1992. Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Cabrera, N.L., and J.O. Leckie. 2009. Pesticide risk communication, risk perception, and self-protective behaviors among farmworkers in California’s Salinas Valley. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 31 (2): 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carney, R.E., ed. 1971. Risk taking behavior: Concepts, methods, and applications to smoking and drug abuse. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  15. CDC. 1999. Framework for program evaluation in public health. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, Centers for Disease Control 48 (RR-11).Google Scholar
  16. Davis, C.H., and C. Michelle. 2011. Q methodology in audience research: Bridging the qualitative/quantitative ‘divide’? Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 8(2): 559–593.Google Scholar
  17. Eden, S., A. Donaldson, and G. Walker. 2005. Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 37(4): 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EPA n.d. Worker protection standard. 40CFR170. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/40cfr170_10.html. Accessed 24 Jan 2011.
  19. Evans, J.H. 2003. Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized?: An update. Social Science Quarterly 81(1): 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, G., and A. Need. 2002. Explaining ethnic polarization over attitudes towards minority rights in Eastern Europe: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research 31: 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. EWG. 2015. EWG’s 2015 shopper’s guide to pesticides in produce. Environmental Working Group. http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php. Accessed 8 April 2015.
  22. Fairweather, J.R., and S.R. Swaffield. 2002. Visitors’ and locals’ experiences of Rotorua, New Zealand: An interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. The International Journal of Tourism Research 4(4): 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiorina, M.P. 2010. Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (3rd edition). Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and C.K. Mertz. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 14(6): 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Globalwise and Belrose Inc. 2014. The Washington apple industry: updated evaluation of contributions to the state economy and the important role of exports. http://fruitgrowersnews.com/downloads/2012/WAC_Econ_ImpactReport_Final_082912.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2014.
  27. Guthman, J. 2011. Weighing in: Obesity, food justice, and the limits of capitalism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gwartney-Gibbs, P.A., and D.H. Lach. 1991. Sex differences in attitudes toward nuclear war. Journal of Peace Research 28: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halfacre-Hitchcock, A., D. McCarthy, T. Burkett, and A. Carvajal. 2006. Latino migrant farmworkers in lowcountry South Carolina: A demographic profile and an examination of pesticide risk perception and protection in two pilot case studies. Human Organization 65(1): 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen, H. 2014. Talking about pesticides: Responding to myths, rumors, and fears. Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. http://www.wafriends.org/. Accessed 13 April 2016.
  31. Hofmann, J.N., J. Crowe, J. Postma, V. Ybarra, and M.C. Keifer. 2009. Perceptions of environmental and occupational health hazards among agricultural workers in Washington State. American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal 57 (9): 359–371.Google Scholar
  32. Hohn, E. 2010. Survey of residents of northwest orchard community shows high levels of perceived pesticide risk and lack of pesticide training. MCN Streamline 16 (4): 4–5.Google Scholar
  33. Huggins, T.J., R. Peace, S.R. Hill, D.M. Johnston, and A.C. Muñiz. 2015. Politics of practical and academic knowledge: A Q-method analysis of gauging community disaster resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 23(4): 246–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunter, W.C. 2013. Understanding resident subjectivities toward tourism using Q method: Orchid Island, Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(2): 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, B.B., and L. Waishwell. 2014. Q method can identify diverse perspectives on ‘helpful’ information on cancer clusters and inform risk communication generally. Journal of Risk Research 17(9): 1125–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Julier, A. 2008. The political economy of obesity: The fat pay all. In Food and culture: A reader (2nd edition), ed C. Counihan and P. Van Esterik, 482–499. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Kaltenthaler, K., and W.J. Miller. 2012. The polarized American: Views on humanity and the sources of hyper-partisanship. American Behavioral Scientist 56(12): 1718–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kandel, W.A., and K.M. Donato. 2009. Does unauthorized status reduce exposure to pesticides? Evidence from the national agricultural workers survey. Work and Occupations 36 (4): 367–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karcher, B.C., J.O. Balswick, and I.E. Robinson. 1981. Empiricism, symbolic realism, and the mystique of the extreme. The Sociological Quarterly 22(1): 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keifer, M., M.K. Salazar, and C. Connon. 2009. An exploration of Hispanic workers’ perspectives about risks and hazards associated with orchard work. Family and Community Health 32(1): 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kramer, B., P. de Hegedus, and V. Gravidus. 2003. Evaluating a dairy herd improvement project in Uruguay to test and explain Q methodology. AIAEE Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference. https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/1205/Kramer341.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  42. Liebman, A.K., and W. Augustave. 2010. Agricultural health and safety: Incorporating the worker perspective. Journal of Agromedicine 15(3): 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liebman, A.K., P.M. Juarez, C. Leyva, and A. Corona. 2007. A pilot program using promotoras de salud to educate farmworker families about the risks from pesticide exposure. Journal of Agromedicine 12(2): 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marquez, E.C., and K.S. Schafer (with G. Aldern and K. VanderMolen). 2016. Kids on the frontline: How pesticides are undermining the health of rural children. Oakland: Pesticide Action Network of North America. http://www.panna.org/resources/kids-frontline. Accessed 30 May 2016.
  45. Martin, B. and E. Richards. 1995. Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision making. In Handbook of science and technology studies, eds. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 506–526. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Mattson, D.J., S.G. Clark, K.L. Byrd, S.R. Brown, and B. Robinson. 2011. Leaders’ perspectives in the Yellowstone to Yukon conservation initiative. Policy Sciences 4: 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayer, B., J. Flocks, and P. Monaghan. 2010. The role of employers and supervisors in promoting pesticide safety behavior among Florida farmworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 53: 814–824.Google Scholar
  48. Murphy-Greene, C., and L.A. Leip. 2006. Assessing the effectiveness of executive order 12898: Environmental justice for all? Public Administration Review 62(6): 679–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. NASS. 1998. Agricultural chemical usage—1997 fruits summary. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Ag Ch 1(98), July 1998.Google Scholar
  50. NASS. 2008. Agricultural chemical usage—2007 field crop summary. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Ag Ch 1(08). May 2008.Google Scholar
  51. NASS. 2012. Table 35: Specified fruits and nuts by acres: 2012 and 2007. 2012 Census of Agriculture. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Washington/st53_1_039_039.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2014.
  52. Nisbet, M.C. 2005. The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nisbet, M.C., and R.K. Goidel. 2007. Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic survey research design. Public Understanding of Science 16: 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oekel, B.K. 2009. Q methodology and modern marketing research: Part I: fundamentals of the science of subjectivity. Davis Brand Capital.Google Scholar
  55. Olofsson, A., and S. Rashid. 2011. The white (male) effect and risk perception: Can equality make a difference? Risk Analysis 31(6): 1016–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Previte, J., B. Pini, and F. Haslam-McKenzie. 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis 47(2): 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Quandt, S.A., T.A. Arcury, C.K. Austin, and R.M. Saavedra. 1998. Farmworker and farmer perceptions of farmworker agricultural chemical exposure in North Carolina. Human Organization 57(3): 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robbins, P., and R. Krueger. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Professional Geographer 52 (4): 636–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roberts, N. 2000. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review 1(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  60. Rohlman, D. 2010. Neurobehavioral assessment of pesticide exposure in children. Unpublished data from pesticide survey. Hood River: Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  61. Rozalia, G.M. 2008. Q factor analysis (Q-methodology) as data analysis technique. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series 17 (4): 871–876.Google Scholar
  62. Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  63. Savage, I. 1993. Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis 13(4): 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmolck, P. 2013. PQ method software (2.33). General Public License, Munich. http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/. Accessed 15 Oct 2013.
  65. Sjoberg, L., and B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg. 1993. Attitudes toward nuclear waste. Rhizikon research report no. 12. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.Google Scholar
  66. Slovic, P. 1997. Public perception of risk. Journal of Environmental Health 59(9): 22–24.Google Scholar
  67. Slovic, P., Kraus, N. N., Lappe, H., Letzel, H., and Malmfors, T. 1989. Risk perception of prescription drugs: Report on a survey in Sweden. Pharm Med 4: 43–65.Google Scholar
  68. Snyder, K. 2004. Risk perception and resource security for female agricultural workers. Research in Economic Anthropology 23: 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steelman, T.A., and L.A. Maguire. 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(3): 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Stroud, N.J. 2010. Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication 60: 556–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tesser, A., and M.C. Conlee. 1975. Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31(2): 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thompson, B., G. Coronado, K. Puschel, and E. Allen. 2001. Identifying constituents to participate in a project to control pesticide exposure in children of farmworkers. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(S3): 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. UW PNASH. 2010. Unpublished data from expert working group. Seattle: University of Washington Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health center.Google Scholar
  75. Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. 2013. Mission. http://www.wafriends.org/. Accessed 30 May 2016.
  76. Washington State Farmworker Housing Trust. 2008. Key facts: Washington’s farmworkers. http://www.farmworkerhousingtrust.org/needs_fact2.html. Accessed 19 Jan 2011.
  77. Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. WSU. 2010. Unpublished data from pesticide recertification classes. Washington State University-Tree Fruit Research and Education Center. http://pmtp.wsu.edu/downloads/TurningPoint_Nov-Mar.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2011.
  79. Zhang, P., H. Lingard, N. Blismas, R. Wakefield, and B. Kleiner. 2015. Work-health and safety-risk perceptions of construction-industry stakeholders using photograph-based Q methodology. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 141(5): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Food Studies, Falk School of Sustainability and the EnvironmentChatham UniversityGibsoniaUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations