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