































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 1, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Jessica R. Spence, ICTAS Doctoral Scholar, Virginia Tech, 214 Litton-Reaves Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, 

jessicaraespence@vt.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-3477  
2. Tobin Redwine, Executive Director, Montgomery Country Fair Association, 9201 Airport Road Conroe, TX 77303, 

tobin@mcfa.org,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9975-8169  
69 

 

Factoring Food Security: A Q Methodology Study with 
Ghanaian Educators 

 
J. Spence1, T. Redwine2 

 
 

Article History 
Received: September 14, 2024 
Accepted: February 18, 2025 
Published: February 28, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
agricultural development; agricultural 
education; Ghana; SDG 2: Zero 
Hunger; SDG 4: Quality Education   

Abstract 
Food security remains a pressing issue across sub-Saharan Africa, 
including Ghana. In response, education reform is essential for the 
country’s progress. This study unveils the perspectives of Ghanaian 
educators, recognizing their vital role in shaping the development, 
mindset, and actions of Ghanaian youth and contributing to SDGs 4 and 
2, Quality Education and Zero Hunger. We employed Q methodology with 
the research aim of discovering the priorities and viewpoints of teachers 
regarding food insecurity. A sample of 31 Ghanaian educators, who 
previously or currently engaged with youth agricultural programming, 
participated in the Q-sort, sorting statements related to food insecurity. 
The analysis yielded four factor groups: Quality Over Quantity, Waste 
Not, Sustainable Sisters, and Futurists, each representing unique 
perspectives on addressing food security challenges. The findings affirm 
the importance of aligning education strategies with educators’ 
perspectives. We recommend tailored professional development 
opportunities to enhance awareness and effectiveness in addressing food 
insecurity issues. The study calls for further exploration of educator 
groups in Ghana, and the region, including qualitative investigations to 
inform targeted interventions and support the holistic development of 
youth engagement in addressing food security in Ghana.  

 

mailto:jessicaraespence@vt.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-3477
mailto:tobin@mcfa.org
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9975-8169


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   70 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Food insecurity is identified as “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and 
safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire food in socially acceptable ways” (Hamilton 
et al., 1997, p. 50) remains an issue both globally and locally (Asare-Nuamah et al., 2023). 
Despite relentless global growth in economic, technological, and cultural factors (Asia Society, 
2018), 795 million people worldwide are unsure of where their next meal is coming from (FAO, 
IFAD, & WFP, 2015). In sub-Saharan Africa, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture 
Organization reported the population of undernourished people and people experiencing food 
insecurity has increased, even more so in West Africa, with Ghana grappling with its own share 
of these issues (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO, 2024; Mohammed, 2021).  
 
For Ghana’s economy to move forward and prosper, education reform needs to occur (Iddrisu, 
2018; Mensah-Aggrey et al., 2022; Osei, 2006). To effectively mitigate food insecurity globally, it 
is necessary to promote productive practices and develop a workforce equipped with the skills 
needed to address local, national, and global food security challenges (FAO, IFAD, & WFP, 
2015). Holistic education reform of any kind involves understanding relevant issues and 
educator beliefs towards those issues (Newcomb et al., 2004). Student motivation can be 
leveraged through authenticity of those beliefs (Mendes, 2003; Schraw & Olafson, 2015). For 
education to drive such motivation and change, it is critical to understand educator beliefs and 
priorities as their perspectives shape the development and mindset of their students who will 
inevitably inherit these challenges. Yet, the problem remains that despite the local need for 
students equipped to tackle challenges like food insecurity, many secondary educators struggle 
to integrate global competencies into their curricula (Diano et al., 2023; Tudball, 2005). 
Therefore, the study team assessed teachers’ perspectives on food insecurity issues to better 
understand the population that is directly engaged with the Ghanaian youth who have the 
potential to improve the economic and food insecurity status of the country.  
 

Conceptual Framework 
 
Researchers anchored this study’s conceptual foundations from the concourse––a structured 
set of statements that encapsulate facets of an idea or issue (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Within Q 
Methodology, the concourse is central to the study as it frames participant engagement and 
guides viewpoint prioritization on the issue: food insecurity. This study adopts the Spence et al. 
(2023) concourse as a conceptual framework for capturing viewpoints and perspectives of food 
insecurity. Although Spence et al. (2023) characterized viewpoints of food insecurity with 
educators primarily in the U.S., the concourse draws upon global literature, the Feed the Future 
Learning Agenda, Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, UN Goals for Sustainable, USAID 
Global Food Security Research Agenda, and was reviewed by international food security.  
 
Given the concourse’s expansive global lens and its foundation within universally applicable 
principles of food insecurity, it was appropriate to apply within a Ghanian context. This 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   71 
 

framework allowed for the exploration of Ghanaian educator perspectives while also 
maintaining connections to global and local food security challenges.  
 

Purpose and Objectives 
 
The purpose of the study was to explain Ghanaian teacher’s viewpoints in global food security 
issues by understanding their priorities via Q methodology. The research objectives included:  
1. Analyze Ghanaian educator perspectives on food security, and; 
2. Evaluate the alignment of educator priorities with global competency dimensions. 
 

Methods 
 
Texas A&M University’s Institutional Review Board approved this research (#129757). 
Researchers collected and analyzed this data in the spring of 2022. We employed Q-method 
design to (Watts & Stenner, 2012) characterize educator priorities within food security. Q-
method uses operant subjectivity to characterize viewpoints, perceptions, and opinions 
developed from individuals’ personal experiences (Brown, 1996; Leggette & Redwine, 2016; 
Parrella et al., 2021; Watts, 2011). Therefore, Q method is an appropriate tool to characterize 
experiences and perceptions shaping teachers’ views about food security issues in Ghana.  
 
The Concourse and Q-Set 
The concourse is a set of ideas that are sorted on the Q-sort board. The Q-set is a subset of the 
concourse and consists of statements that are sorted by the participants (Watts & Stenner, 
2012). Statements are identified by condensing material from the concourse. This resulted in 36 
items represented as the Q-Set related to the intersection of global learning, food security, and 
education, as shown in Table 1 (Spence et al., 2023). 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   72 
 

Table 1 
 
Q-Set Items 
No. Statement 
1  Access to nutritious  
2  More hygienic household and communality environments   
3  Direct nutrition specific interventions and  
4  Relationships between policy systems and food  
5  Identifying the determinants of  
6  Identifying the determinants of stunting                   
7  Using sound ag water management tech and practices               
8  Stakeholder incentives, constraints, capacity, preference     
9  Reducing reliance upon emergency food assistance           
10  Effective approaches to measuring nutritional gains       
11  Improved resilience of vulnerable populations             
12  Improved nutrition and dietary quality                    
13  Improved research and development                         
14  Improved agricultural productivity                        
15  Collaboration between water users in a community          
16  Food systems being sustainable                            
17  Zero loss of waste of food                                
18  Zero children being stunted under the age of two          
19  Sustainably increasing agricultural production             
20  Access to safe food                                       
21  Improved gender integration and women’s empowerment        
22  Increasing scarcity of viable farmland                   
23  Inadequate intakes of micronutrients by mothers and inf    
24  Ending rural poverty                                      
25  Empowering small farmers                                  
26  Increase in smallholder productivity and income           
27  Promoting natural resource conservation                   
28  Implementation of drought resistant crops in arid area    
29  Improved irrigation systems and water storage technology    
30  Restoration of degraded farmlands                        
31  Invest in long term research for food security innovation    
32  Promotion of diet diversification                         
33  Education of populations about global food security       
34  Adding post-harvest value to agricultural products        
35  Increasing genetic yield of crops fish and livestock      
36  Reduce and manage impacts of abiotic and biotic stress    
 
The P-Set 
The P-set are participants in a Q-method study (Watts & Stenner, 2012). We used a 
convenience sample to select Ghanaian teachers involved with 4-H Ghana due to their existing 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   73 
 

involvement in direct food security related programs within 4-H. The participants consisted of 
college degree holding Ghanaian teachers (n = 31; 18 male and 13 female) ranging in age from 
22 to 45 in the Eastern and Central regions of Ghana. They teach from primary-secondary 
students, and one or more subjects including: English, Ghanaian Language, science, 
mathematics, and arts. Due to their involvement in 4H–an after-school program for youth 
based on agricultural education–the P-set had an interest in agriculture, and agricultural 
education.  
 
In the Q-study, the primary form of data collection is the Q-sort, in which participants (the P-
set) sort items (the Q-set) to articulate their preferences within the P-set (Leggette & Redwine, 
2016). Therefore, the participants in this study sorted the Q-set statements from least 
important to most important, to them, on a board (Leggette & Redwine, 2016). We then 
analyzed the data using PQ Method software to determine emerging, statistically significant 
factor groups that determine personas defining groups of thought amongst the participants. In 
order to do this, we used varimax factor rotation to apply a non-orthogonal rotation to 
highlight similarities and differences between viewpoints (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Each factor 
represented a distinct viewpoint, and by analyzing how individuals sorted the Q set, we 
identified the best fit for each viewpoint. Z scores determined statistically significant items, or 
distinguishing statements (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Distinguishing statements are statements 
that participants within the factor group ranked significantly differently compared to others 
(Watts & Stenner, 2012). Therefore, the statement reflects a unique or defining viewpoint for a 
specific group within the study, highlighting the divergence in perspectives between different 
factor groups. 
 
Validity and Reliability of Q Method 
It is critical to note Q methodology does not fit paradigms of qualitative or quantitative 
research, therefore validity and reliability are appropriate psychometric properties, therefore Q 
method studies are assessed differently (Ramlo & Newman, 2011; Wratten et al., 2019). Q sorts 
are recognized as valid representations of participants’ viewpoints, and, in Q methodology, 
generalizations are based on theoretical implications and the validity of identified perspectives 
or concepts (Valenta & Wigger, 1997; Wratten et al., 2019). To ensure the validity of research 
themes in the Q set, investigator triangulation and intercoder reliability were employed, 
allowing for a level of generalization in the findings. However, rather than extrapolating from a 
sample to a broader population, Q methodology emphasizes the transfer of perspectives on an 
idea (Leggette & Redwine, 2016). As a result, generalization is not always the primary aim of a 
Q method study (Wratten et al., 2019). For reliability in Q methodology, the composite 
reliability of each factor should exceed 0.80 (Watts & Stenner, 2012). The four factors we 
examined met this threshold, confirming the study's reliability. 
 

Findings 
 
This study resulted in four factor groups that explain 50% of the variance of the total population 
of the study. The four factor groups are primarily defined by their distinguishing statements. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   74 
 

 
Factor One: Quality Over Quantity 
The Quality Over Quantity factor group explains 17% of the variance and demonstrates a high 
composite reliability of 0.97, indicating a strong and consistent viewpoint among its members. 
This factor group places significant emphasis on “Access to nutritious food” and “More hygienic 
household and community environments,” as shown in Table 2, highlighting the importance of 
ensuring basic nutritional needs and improving sanitation as foundational to addressing food 
insecurity. Conversely, members of this group rated “Zero loss of waste of food” and 
“Identifying the determinants of waste” as less important, suggesting a preference for 
addressing immediate and direct needs over long-term waste management strategies. 
 
This group is comprised of ten participants, equally divided between male and female teachers, 
representing a diverse range of subject areas. Their collective focus on fundamental aspects of 
food security reflects a pragmatic approach to addressing urgent needs and improving overall 
quality of life in the community. 
 
Table 2  
 
Distinguishing Statements for Factor One 
Q-sort value Statement 

+ 5 Access to nutritious food  
+ 3 More hygienic household and community environments 
+ 1 Investing in sustained, long-term research 
-1 Understanding and addressing stakeholder incentives 
-2 Zero loss of waste of food 
-5 Identifying the determinants of waste 

 
Factor Two: Waste Not 
The Waste Not factor group accounts for 9% of the variance with a composite reliability of 0.88. 
This group places high importance on “Zero loss of waste of food” and “Understanding and 
addressing stakeholder incentives, constraints, capacity, and preferences,” as shown in table 3. 
These priorities reflect a focus on reducing food waste and addressing the broader systemic 
factors that influence food security. In contrast, “Implementing sound agriculture water 
management technologies” and “Education of populations about global food security” were 
deemed less critical by this group, suggesting a preference for more immediate and practical 
interventions over broader educational or technological solutions. 
 
This factor group is defined by two male participants who are math and science teachers, 
indicating a potential correlation between their subject expertise and their prioritization of 
waste reduction and stakeholder engagement. 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   75 
 

 
Table 3  
 
Distinguishing Statements for Factor Two 
Q-sort value Statement 

+ 5 Zero loss of waste of food  
+ 1 Understanding and addressing stakeholder incentives 
0 Increasing scarcity of viable farm land  
-2 Access to nutritious food  
-3 Education of populations about global food security  
-4 Implementing sound agriculture water management technologies 

 
Factor Three: Sustainable Sisters 
The Sustainable Sisters factor explains 14% of the variance and has a composite reliability of 
0.92. This group prioritizes “Improved nutrition and dietary quality” and “Food systems being 
sustainable,” reflecting a commitment to enhancing overall nutritional standards and ensuring 
the sustainability of food systems. They rated “Restoration of degraded farmlands” and 
“Relationships between policy systems and food security,” as shown in Table 4, as less 
significant, indicating a focus on direct improvements in nutrition and sustainability over policy-
related aspects. 
 
This group consists of three female English teachers from different schools, whose perspectives 
emphasize the integration of sustainable practices and improved nutrition as critical to 
addressing food security challenges. 
 
Table 4 
 
Distinguishing Statements for Factor Three 
Q-sort value Statement 

+ 5 Improved nutrition and dietary quality  
+ 3 Food systems being sustainable  
+ 2 Inadequate intake of micronutrients by mothers and infant 
+ 1 Implementation of drought-resistant crops in arid areas 
0 Identifying the determinants of stunting  
0 Restoration of degraded farm lands  
-4 Relationships between policy systems and food security 

 
Factor Four: Futurists 
The Futurists factor group represents 10% of the variance with a composite reliability of 0.92. 
This group emphasizes “Promoting natural resource conservation” and “Investing in sustained, 
long-term research (towards food security innovations)” as key priorities, as shown in table 5. 
They view these factors as essential for long-term progress in food security. On the other hand, 
“Adding post-harvest value to agricultural products” and “Ending rural poverty” were 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   76 
 

considered less critical, suggesting a focus on resource conservation and research over 
immediate economic improvements. 
 
This factor group includes three male participants who are math and economics teachers from 
different schools, indicating a preference for future-oriented strategies and innovations in 
addressing food security. 
 
Table 5 
 
Distinguishing Statements for Factor Four 
Q-sort value Statement 

+ 5 Promoting natural resource conservation  
+ 4 Investing in sustained, long-term research  
+ 3 Implementation of drought-resistant crops in arid areas  
-2 Identifying the determinants of waste  
-2 Ending rural poverty  
-4 Adding post-harvest value to agricultural products  

 
Consensus  
The analysis of consensus statements reveals areas of agreement among the participants. 
Notably, “Improved irrigation systems and water storage technologies” was rated as highly 
important with a Q-sort value of +2.5, indicating a shared recognition of the need for better 
irrigation and water management practices. Conversely, statements such as “Reducing and 
managing the impacts of abiotic and biotic stress” and “Direct, nutrition-specific interventions 
and services” received lower Q-sort values, as shown in table 6, reflecting less emphasis on 
these aspects across the educator population. 
 
Table 6 
 
Consensus Statements 
Average Q-
sort value Statement 

-1.5 Reducing and managing the impacts of abiotic and biotic 
-1.25 Direct, nutrition-specific interventions and services  
+ 2.5 Improved irrigation systems and water storage technologies 

-1 Sustainably increasing agricultural production  
 
 

Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations 
 
Ghanaian educators prioritized global food security issues through four perspectives: Quality 
Over Quantity, Waste Not, Sustainable Sisters, and Futurists. These perspectives reflect the 
diverse priorities of Ghanaian educators’ viewpoints on food security issues. The results can 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   77 
 

guide further interventions within agricultural development, education, and further efforts to 
eliminate food security.  
 
Understanding these perspectives is crucial for stakeholders involved in global and agricultural 
education. Individuals and organizations involved in educational development should use this 
awareness of perspectives to enhance training and professional development offerings in global 
education that align with these perspectives. For instance, the emphasis on Quality Over 
Quantity illustrated the importance of basic nutritional needs and sanitation. In Ghana, 
nutrition security has increased since the implementation of the UNSDGs in 2023, but it is still 
far from global averages––particularly in the Northern region of the country (Koryo-Dabrah et 
al., 2022). Food sanitation in Ghana remains an issue, particularly with food vendors, and lack of 
education is a contributor to the problem (Akparibo et al., 2021; Christiana Cudjoe et al., 2022). 
The Waste Not factor highlighted the need for practical interventions focused on food waste 
reduction. This issue remains pertinent in the region where roughly 37% of food is wasted post-
harvest (Boon & Anuga, 2020). These perspectives offer valuable insights on issues currently 
impacting Ghana for practitioners to craft more effective educational programs that resonate 
with local priorities.  
 
The consensus statements identified within this study highlight critical implications for 
advancing food security in the country. We recommend implementers consider these priority 
areas when developing training or educational programs and materials. For example, the 
emphasis on irrigation system improvement highlights the need to consider and incorporate 
water management, storing, or sourcing strategies within agricultural education. This topic’s 
importance is paramount considering climate change in Ghana that continues to alter weather 
cycles and elongate dry seasons proving challenging for the rainwater-reliant agricultural 
system (Antwi et al., 2024; Armah et al., 2010; Balana et al., 2020). 
 
By aligning educational efforts with these priorities, educators can foster a generation of 
learners equipped to implement innovative, context-specific solutions to food security 
challenges. Ghanaian educators should be aware of their perspectives and tailor instructional 
methods accordingly to address potential gaps in education strategies, thereby equipping 
students to make an impact on Ghana’s food insecurity issues. In addition to personal 
awareness, groups such as PeaceCorps, The USDA-FAS International Agricultural Education 
Fellowship Program, or USAID Farmer-to-Farmer should curate specific professional 
development opportunities to complement these perspectives.  
 
We recommend further investigation into other educator groups that also play a role in youth 
engagement in food security. We recommend qualitative studies focused on collecting 
contextualized and rich data on both challenges unique to specific regions and successful 
strategies being implemented currently to help frame future work with youth. Finally, we 
recommend following up with participating Ghanaian educators to understand how enhanced 
awareness supports their teaching strategies and scales up application to other educators. 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   78 
 

 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Authorship Contributions: J. Spence - Conceptualization, investigation, formal analysis, writing; 
T. Redwine - Conceptualization, formal analysis, editing  
 

References 
 
Akparibo, R., Aryeetey, R. N. O., Asamane, E. A., Osei-Kwasi, H. A., Ioannou, E., Infield Solar, G., 

Cormie, V., Pereko, K. K., Amagloh, F. K., Caton, S. J., & Cecil, J. E. (2021). Food security 
in Ghanaian urban cities: A scoping review of the literature. Nutrients, 13(10), 3615. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13103615 

 
Antwi, D. M. B., Amankwaa, I. K., Johannes, A., Agyekum, E., Amaniampong, D., Agyekum, T. O., 

& Boateng, H. K. (2024). A survey on the need to incorporate rainwater harvesting 
systems as an alternative domestic water source in Ghana. Journal of Applied Science, 
Engineering, Technology and Management, 2(2), 15–24. 
https://doi.org/10.61779/jasetm.v2i2.3 

 
Armah, F. A., Odoi, J. O., Yengoh, G. T., Obiri, S., Yawson, D. O., & Afrifa, E. K. A. (2010). Food 

security and climate change in drought-sensitive savanna zones of Ghana. Mitigation 
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(3), 291–306. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9263-9  

 
Asare-Nuamah, P., Amoah, A., & Asongu, S. A. (2023). Achieving food security in Ghana: Does 

governance matter? Politics & Policy, 51(4), 614–635. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12540  

  
Asia Society. (2018). Teaching for global competence in a rapidly changing world. Asia Society. 

https://asiasociety.org/education/teaching-global-competence-rapidly-changing-world  
 
Balana, B. B., Bizimana, J.-C., Richardson, J. W., Lefore, N., Adimassu, Z., & Herbst, B. K. (2020). 

Economic and food security effects of small-scale irrigation technologies in northern 
Ghana. Water Resources and Economics, 29, 100141. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2019.03.001  

 
Boon, E. K., & Anuga, S. W. (2020). Circular economy and its relevance for improving food and 

nutrition security in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Ghana. Materials Circular Economy, 
2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-020-00005-z 

 
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 

561-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13103615
https://doi.org/10.61779/jasetm.v2i2.3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9263-9
https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12540
https://asiasociety.org/education/teaching-global-competence-rapidly-changing-world
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2019.03.001
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-020-00005-z
https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   79 
 

 
 
Christiana Cudjoe, D., Balali, G. I., Titus, O. O., Osafo, R., & Taufiq, M. (2022). Food safety in Sub-

Sahara Africa, an insight into Ghana and Nigeria. Environmental Health Insights, 16, 
11786302221142484. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221142484 

 
Diano, Jr, F., Kilag, O. K., Malbas, M., Catacutan, A., Tiongzon, B., & Abendan, C. F. (2023). 

Towards global competence: Innovations in the Philippine curriculum for addressing 
international challenges. Excellencia: International Multi-disciplinary Journal of 
Education, 1(4), 295-307. 

 
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. (2024). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 

2024 – Financing to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms. Rome. 
https://doi.org/10.4060/cd1254en 

 
FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2015). The state of food insecurity in the world 2015. Meeting the 2015 

international hunger targets: Taking stock of uneven progress. Rome. 
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf 

 
Hamilton, W. L., Thompson, W. W., Buron, L. F., Frongillo Jr, E. A., Olson, C. M., & Wehler, C. A. 

(1997). Household food security in the United States in 1995: Summary report of the 
food security measurement project. Prepared for USDA, Food and Consumer Service. 
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.338958  

 
Iddrisu, I. (2018). Improving school feeding through participation: should the teacher be actively 

involved? International Journal of Educational Management, 32(1), 141–154. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2017-0013  

 
Koryo-Dabrah, A., Ansong, R. S., Setorglo, J., & Steiner-Asiedu, M. (2022). Food and nutrition 

security situation in Ghana: Nutrition implications for national development. African 
Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 21(5), 18005–18018. 
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajfand/article/view/231696  

 
Leggette, H. R., & Redwine, T. (2016). Using Q methodology in agricultural communications 

research: A philosophical study. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(3), 57–67. 
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1230 

 
Mendes, E. (2003). Building classroom relationships: What empathy can do. Education 

Leadership, 61, 56-59. https://ascd.org/el/articles/what-empathy-can-do  
 
Mensah-Aggrey, D., Ofori-Dankwa, J., Akowuah, N. K., & Okyere-Fosu, D. C. (2022). COVID-19, 

poverty, education, and technology in Ghana: Challenges and resolutions. In N. W. 
Gleason & E. S. Hagerman (Eds.), Contemporary issues in multicultural and global 
education (pp. 217–239). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7404-1.ch012 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545
https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221142484
https://doi.org/10.4060/cd1254en
https://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.338958
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2017-0013
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajfand/article/view/231696
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1230
https://ascd.org/el/articles/what-empathy-can-do
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7404-1.ch012


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   80 
 

 
Mohammed, A. R. (2021). Austerity is impeding children’s education: A qualitative study of the 

associations of food insecurity and school engagement in Ghana. Global Studies of 
Childhood, 13(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/20436106211027351  

 
Newcomb L. H., McCracken, J. D., Warmbrod, J. R., & Whittington, M. S. (2004). Methods of 

teaching agriculture (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. 
 
Osei, G. M. (2006). Teachers in Ghana: Issues of training, remuneration and effectiveness. 

International Journal of Educational Development, 26(1), 38-51. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.07.015  

 
Parrella, J. A., Spence, J. R., Redwine, T., & Leggette, H. R. (2021). Characterizing viewpoints of 

scholars in agricultural communications as they relate to research themes in the journal 
of applied communications: A Q methodological study. Journal of Applied 
Communications, 105(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2389  

 
Ramlo, S. E., & Newman, I. (2011). Q methodology and its position in the mixed methods 

continuum. The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(3), 172–191. 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan-
Ramlo/publication/257942977_Q_Methodology_and_Its_Position_in_the_Mixed-
_Methods_Continuum/links/0046352668cc7f3329000000/Q-Methodology-and-Its-
Position-in-the-Mixed-Methods-Continuum.pdf   

 
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2015). Assessing teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), 

International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 87–105). Routledge. 
 
Spence, J. R., Letot, C., Foster, D., Redwine, T., McCubbins, O., & Miller-Foster, M. (2023). 

Global guides: Defining teachers’ viewpoints about global food insecurity using Q 
methodology. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(4), 127-143. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i4.151  

 
Tudball, L. (2005). Grappling with Internationalisation of the Curriculum at the secondary school 

level: Issues and tensions for educators. Australian Journal of Education, 49(1), 10–27. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410504900106  

 
Valenta, A. L., & Wigger, U. (1997). Q-methodology: Definition and application in health care 

informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(6), 501–510. 
https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1997.0040501  

 
Watts, S. (2011). Subjectivity as an operant: A conceptual exploration and discussion. The 

International Journal of Q Methodology, 35(1), 37–47. 
https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/osub/article/view/8793 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545
https://doi.org/10.1177/20436106211027351
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.07.015
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2389
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan-Ramlo/publication/257942977_Q_Methodology_and_Its_Position_in_the_Mixed-_Methods_Continuum/links/0046352668cc7f3329000000/Q-Methodology-and-Its-Position-in-the-Mixed-Methods-Continuum.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan-Ramlo/publication/257942977_Q_Methodology_and_Its_Position_in_the_Mixed-_Methods_Continuum/links/0046352668cc7f3329000000/Q-Methodology-and-Its-Position-in-the-Mixed-Methods-Continuum.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan-Ramlo/publication/257942977_Q_Methodology_and_Its_Position_in_the_Mixed-_Methods_Continuum/links/0046352668cc7f3329000000/Q-Methodology-and-Its-Position-in-the-Mixed-Methods-Continuum.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan-Ramlo/publication/257942977_Q_Methodology_and_Its_Position_in_the_Mixed-_Methods_Continuum/links/0046352668cc7f3329000000/Q-Methodology-and-Its-Position-in-the-Mixed-Methods-Continuum.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i4.151
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410504900106
https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1997.0040501
https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/osub/article/view/8793


Spence and Redwine   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545   81 
 

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & 
interpretation. Sage. 

 
Wratten, S., Eccleston, C., & Keogh, E. (2019). Perceptions of gendered and ungendered pain 

relief norms and stereotypes using Q-methodology. Pain, 160(2), 395–406. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001409  

 
 
 
© 2025 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.545
https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001409

