Using Q-methodology to assess public value

There is an increasing interest in the study of public value, including how it can be measured or assessed. However, most publications have been “theoretical, conceptual, scholarly, synthetic or descriptive” and lack an... [ view full abstract ]

There is an increasing interest in the study of public value, including how it can be measured or assessed. However, most publications have been “theoretical, conceptual, scholarly, synthetic or descriptive” and lack an empirical base (Hartley et al. 2016). This is also true of policing as a public service, with one key ethnographic study (Benington and Turbitt, 2007) but otherwise little study. Yet, policing is an important site for the study of public value for several reasons. Interestingly, Moore’s (1995) original conceptualisation of public value derived in part from immersion in policing studies. This paper utilises the definition of Benington (2011) that public value is not only about what the public value but also what adds value to the public sphere. Given this context of potential tension between different aspects of public value, then policing can sometimes bring into sharp relief that what the public value (as individuals or groups) may not be the same always as what adds value to the public sphere. Tensions may arise in part because policing has regulatory and sometimes coercive elements. Professionals may hold views which are at odds with local communities and citizens. Finally, with budgetary cuts and a changing society, the police are unable to do all that is expected of them. Policing therefore is a fertile site for the exploration of public value, and in this paper, the assessment of public value. The paper reports on a study of public value in UK policing which deployed Q methodology (Stephenson, 1953; Jeffares and Skelcher, 2011) as a means to understand how public value is perceived by police leaders and their stakeholders (including the public and service partners). Through Q methodology, subjective experiences on public value were captured and then organised into common perspectives that represent how various distinct categories of leaders share similar patterns of response (Curry et al., 2013). The Q sort concourse (set of priority statements) were identified through focus groups with police officers and staff from a British police force as well as from existing public surveys and government documents. Using this concourse, a “Q Board” was created which provided a physical board task for participants to complete the Q sort. A Q Sort forces participants to prioritise elements of policing which they deem most valuable, and this paper argues this a rich means of assessing public value. The wider implications of this empirical research for assessing public value in a range of public services is outlined, with some reflections on its contribution compared with alternative ways of assessing public value.