Volume 14, Issue 1 (10-2023)
Social Problems of Iran 2023, 14(1): 211-235 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shams-Ghahfarrokhi F, Askari-Nodoushan A, Eini Zeinab H, Ruhani A. (2023). The application of Q-methodology for identifying the mental patterns of the people of Isfahan city about childbearing. Social Problems of Iran. 14(1), 211-235. doi:10.61186/jspi.14.1.211
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3630-en.html
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3630-en.html
1- , aaskarin@yazd.ac.ir
Abstract: (706 Views)
Mental and attitudinal patterns represent pivotal determinants influencing a couple's childbearing preferences and behaviors. This study employs Q methodology to discern prevalent mental patterns within people of Isfahan city regarding childbearing intentions. Q methodology, designed to unveil individuals' perspectives and mental frameworks. In this study, a set of 75 statements was derived from in-depth interviews with 30 participants which encompassing both single and married participants, ensuring maximum variation in perspectives. Subsequently, another 48 participants were asked to rate the Q statements in a normal distribution on a scale of -7 to +7. In the ultimate analysis, four distinct common mental patterns emerged within the surveyed society, comprising economic-oriented fertility mental patterns, welfare-oriented fertility mental patterns, pro-natalist mental patterns, and anti-natalist mental patterns. These patterns provide valuable insights for policymakers and planners to design more effective and acceptable childbearing policies. This research is an initial exploratory study in this field and more research is needed to apply obtained typology in larger surveys.
Type of Article: Original Research |
Subject:
Health
Received: 2023/04/28 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/10/9
Received: 2023/04/28 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/10/9
References
1. Aassve, A., Sironi, M., & Bassi, V. (2013). Explaining attitudes towards demographic behaviour. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 316-333. [DOI:10.1093/esr/jcr069]
2. Abbasi‐Shavazi, M. J., Philip Morgan, S., Hossein‐Chavoshi, M., & McDonald, P. (2009). Family change and continuity in Iran: Birth control use before first pregnancy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1309-1324. [DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00670.x]
3. Abbasi-Shavazi, M.J., McDonald, P., and Hosseini-Chavoshi, M. (2009). The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction, Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-3198-3]
4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179-211. [DOI:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T]
5. Baudin, T. (2015). Religion and fertility: The French connection. Demographic Research, 32, 397-420. [DOI:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.13]
6. Becker, G. S. (1960). Underinvestment in college education?, The American Economic Review, 50(2), 346-354.
7. Becker, G. (1991). A Treatise on the Family, Enlarged Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
8. Becker, G. S., & Lewis, H. G. (1973). On the Interaction between the Quantity and Quality of Children. Journal of political Economy, 81(2, Part 2), S279-S288. [DOI:10.1086/260166]
9. Bellani, D., Arpino, B., & Vignoli, D. (2021). Time preferences and fertility. Demographic Research, 44, 1185-1228. [DOI:10.4054/DemRes.2021.44.50]
10. Brown, S. (1980). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
11. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138. [DOI:10.22488/okstate.93.100504]
12. Brown, S. R. (2005). Applying Q methodology to empowerment. Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, 197-215. [DOI:10.1037/e597202012-010]
13. Butz, W. P., & Ward, M. P. (1979). Will US fertility remain low? A new economic interpretation. Population and Development Review, 663-688. [DOI:10.2307/1971976]
14. Caldwell, J. C. (2004). Fertility control in the classical world: Was there an ancient fertility transition?. Journal of Population Research, 21(1), 1-17. [DOI:10.1007/BF03032208]
15. Dommermuth, L., Klobas, J., & Lappegård, T. (2015). Realization of fertility intentions by different time frames. Advances in Life Course Research, 24, 34-46. [DOI:10.1016/j.alcr.2015.02.001]
16. DeWeese, B. H. (2012). Defining the constructs of expert coaching: A Q-methodological Study of Olympic Sport Coaches. North Carolina State University.
17. Giuntella, O., Rotunno, L., & Stella, L. (2022). Globalization, Fertility and Marital Behavior in a Lowest-Low Fertility Setting (No. w30119). National Bureau of Economic Research. [DOI:10.3386/w30119]
18. Gozgor, G., Bilgin, M. H., & Rangazas, P. (2021). Economic uncertainty and fertility. Journal of Human Capital, 15(3), 373-399. [DOI:10.1086/715020]
19. Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 84-117. [DOI:10.1086/261808]
20. Hayford, S. R., & Morgan, S. P. (2008). Religiosity and fertility in the United States: The role of fertility intentions. Social Forces, 86(3), 1163-1188. [DOI:10.1353/sof.0.0000]
21. Hofmann, B., & Hohmeyer, K. (2013). Perceived economic uncertainty and fertility: Evidence from a labor market reform. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 503-521. [DOI:10.1111/jomf.12011]
22. Keskin, F., & Çavlin, A. (2022). Cohort fertility heterogeneity during the fertility decline period in Turkey. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1-16. [DOI:10.1017/S0021932022000268]
23. Kreyenfeld, M. (2016). Economic uncertainty and fertility. In Social demography forschung an der schnittstelle von soziologie und demografie (pp. 59-80). Springer VS, Wiesbaden. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-658-11490-9_4]
24. Kreyenfeld, M. (2021). Causal Modelling in Fertility Research: A Review of the Literature and an Application to a Parental Leave Policy Reform. Comparative Population Studies, 46. [DOI:10.12765/CPoS-2021-10]
25. Le Moglie, M., Mencarini, L., & Rapallini, C. (2015). Is it just a matter of personality? On the role of subjective well-being in childbearing behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 117, 453-475. [DOI:10.1016/j.jebo.2015.07.006]
26. Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), 211-251. [DOI:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00328.x]
27. Lesthaeghe, R. (2020). "The Second Demographic Transition, 1986-2020: Sub-Replacement Fertility and Rising Cohabitation-a Global Update." Genus 76: 10. [DOI:10.1186/s41118-020-00077-4]
28. Lesthaeghe, R., & Surkyn, J. (2012). When History moves on: Foundations and Diffusion of a Second Demographic Transition, In: Jayakody, R. Thorton, A., & Axinn, W. (eds): International Family Change: Ideational Perspectives, (pp. 81-118), Springer.
29. Mahmood, N. (2005). Assessment of fertility behaviour change in the sociocultural context of Pakistan: Implications for the population programme. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 20(1), 13-36. [DOI:10.18356/461279e9-en]
30. McDonald, P. (2000). Low fertility in Australia: evidence, causes and policy responses. People and Place, 8(2), 6-21.
31. Mincer, J. (1963). Market prices, opportunity costs, and income effects. Measurement in Economics, 67-82.
32. Morita, M. (2018). Demographic studies enhance the understanding of evolutionarily (mal) adaptive behaviors and phenomena in humans: a review on fertility decline and an integrated model. Population Ecology, 60(1), 143-154. [DOI:10.1007/s10144-017-0597-y]
33. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [DOI:10.4135/9781412985772]
34. Ramlo, S. E., & Newman, I. (2011). Q-methodology and its position in the mixed methods continuum. Operant Subjectivity, 34(3), 172-191. [DOI:10.22488/okstate.11.100594]
35. Schoen, R., Astone, N.M., Kim, Y.J., Nathanson, C.A., & Fields, J.M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior?, Journal of Marriage and the Family 61, 790-799. [DOI:10.2307/353578]
36. Söderberg, M., Lundgren, I., Christensson, K., & Hildingsson, I. (2013). Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing scale: an assessment of a new instrument for women who are not yet mothers in Sweden. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13(1), 1-8. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-13-197]
37. Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2008). Q methodology. In: Carla Willig & Wendy Stainton Rogers (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, (pp: 215-239), SAGE Publications Ltd. [DOI:10.4135/9781848607927.n13]
38. Van de Kaa, D.J. (2001). Postmodern fertility preferences: from changing value orientation to new behavior, Global Fertility Transition, Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement), 290-331.
39. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe's second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1-59.
40. Van de Kaa, D. J. (2002). The idea of a second demographic transition in industrialized countries. Birth, 35, 45.
41. Van Exel J, de Graaf G. (2005). Q methodology: a sneak preview. Available from http://qmethod.org/articles/vanExel.pdf (accessed January 15, 2023).
42. Willis, M., & Jeffares, S. (2012). Four viewpoints of whole area public partnerships. Local Government Studies, 38(5), 539-556. [DOI:10.1080/03003930.2011.615836]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
