We accept as axiomatic that participants pursue values through institutions within a resource environment (Lasswell & McDougal, 1992, p. 336), and that part of this pursuit consists of making choices from among diverse possibilities. How those choices are made depends in part on the array of choices available, on the participant=s capacity to discern when choice is possible, on the participant=s decisional history, on the contingencies of the moment, and on the medium through which the participant is brought into contact with options. Borrowing from Kantor=s (1959, pp. 15-16) notation for a psychological event, we can specify the main features of a decisional event as DE = C (k, cf, df, h, s, m), where cf is the choice function, i.e., those features of the situation which might admit of judgment, whether or not the participant can discern these possibilities; df is the participant=s decision function, or capacity to choose; h is the participant=s history of past decisional interactions; s is the immediate setting; and m is the medium (e.g., a council meeting) which brings deciders and decisional possibilities together. k denotes the uniqueness of each decision-making situation; C indicates that each aspect of DE interacts with all others.

In the study to follow, attention will focus mainly on the ways in which participants= experiences (h) impinge on problem selection (cf) within the context of all other interacting features of DE. In this connection, Lasswell (1930) once remarked that Apolitical science without biography is a form of taxidermy@ (p. 1), and that the task of the hour was Ato discover what developmental experiences are significant for the political traits and interests [of those] who play on the public stage@ (p. 8). By incorporating Freud=s methods into the social observer=s armamentarium, Lasswell led the advance Atoward the intensive study of the individual=s account of himself@ (p. 9), and in the process amassed impressive evidence concerning Athe prime importance of hitherto-neglected motives in the determination of political traits and beliefs@ (p. 173). Dollard (1935) promptly seconded Lasswell=s initiative by noting that Aas soon as we take the post of observer on the cultural level the individual is lost in a crowd and our concepts never lead us back to him@ (p. 5), which Dollard regarded as justification for zooming-in on the individual life so as to clarify what, from the more distant vantagepoint, was ambiguous and indistinct. (For an even more explicit pin-pointing of political lives, see Davies, 1967.) The study below seeks to complement the biographical approach by incorporating the participant=s own story, not as relayed by an intermediary, but autobiographically from within the participant=s own frame of reference.

 The results to be presented emanated from a senior seminar on the policy sciences in which prominence was given to major tenets of the ANew Haven School@ (Lasswell & McDougal, 1992). The centerpiece of the seminar involved members selecting a problem for semester-long examination, culminating in a term paper and oral presentation. As an illustration of principles introduced through reading and discussion, students were asked not only to select a problem, but also eventually to defend their choice (goal clarification) and to reflect on those events in their past which had led them to this particular interest (trend analysis).

Before turning to specifics, it is important to acknowledge that an academic focus such as this pales next to the rough-and-tumble of such real-world policy problems as health, hunger, and war, but the difference is more one of scale and practical implication than principle. From a scientific standpoint, the role of personal interest in problem selection is of general importance, and much can be learned about it in laboratory settings that can then be carried over into contexts of graver consequence. Moreover, the choices which the students made in this instance were not without practical consequences in terms of the time and energy commitments of student life. The illustration is therefore weightier than an experiment if of lesser scope than a prototype (Lasswell, 1963, pp. 95-122).
 
 

The process in this particular instance began in a modified nominal group setting in which each of 23 seminar participants jotted down topics which he or she might be interested in pursuing during the course of the seminar. The problems nominated ran the gamut and eventually included the 27 shown in Table 1, each of which is of substantial social import. In typical Q-technique fashion², each of the possible research topics was typed on a slip of paper, and a pack of all N=27 (referred to as a Q sample) was returned to each seminar member for prioritization (Q sorting). Specifically, participants were instructed to rank the topics from those which they would be most interested in studying (+4) down to those in which they would have least interest (-4). The n=23 Q sorts were then correlated (resulting in a 23H23 correlation matrix) and factor analyzed, and the four principal axis factors which resulted were rotated by varimax criteria to a position in simple structure. Factor scores (from +4 to -4) were then estimated for each of the 27 statements in each of the m=4 factors. Each Q sort was accompanied by a Apolicy-related autobiography@ in which the student reflected on his or her life history and provided a narrative of those events which had been influential in the development of personal interest in the topics assigned a score of +4.

Before proceeding to an interpretation of the four factors, it is useful to take stock of what they represent. Each participant, confronted with an array of possible projects on which to expend time and energy, selects certain ones of them for special regard and places them in a preferential order, and both the selecting and preferencing are driven by a priori interests; i.e., those project topics are given prominence which the participant ostensibly values. (As Lynd [1939, p. 184] long ago asserted, AValues are always present in the initial selection of a problem.@) The measurement procedure involved is inescapably subjective in that the choices made are one=s own, and no one person=s preferences can be judged as in any sense superior to some other person=s preferences, and this is as true in the war room or board room as in the class room. As Ascher (1987) has said, subjectivity is important in the policy process because it is subjectivity which presides over choice. Subjectivity is not equivalent to idiosyncracy, however, for whereas it is true that no two Q sorts are ever identical in all respects, it is likewise true that they tend to fall into a limited number of classes which their factor analysis reveals. In the instant case, analysis has revealed four such factors, which indicates at minimum that there are four classes of interest. It remains to elucidate the character of these interests through examination of the factor scores, and then to reveal the context of these interests through examination of participants= autobiographical essays.
  

 Table 2 shows the significant loadings for factors A and B, the latter to be discussed subsequently. Factor A is bipolar, i.e., the loadings for persons 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 are opposite of persons 17 and 23, which means that the latter two=s interests were the reverse of the others= and that the two subgroups sorted the items in reverse order, the one group (A+) assigning scores of +4 to those items that the other group (A-) assigned scores of -4, and vice versa. Access is initially gained into the positions represented by A+ and A- by examining those items in which each expressed most interest, viz.:

pole of the factor being concerned with such significant domestic issues as health care, poverty, Social Security reform, and the environment, and those defining the negative pole with strategic defense and international matters such as Bosnia, the former USSR, Latin American drug traffic, the future of the U.N., and the space program.

Factor B implicates individuals 10, 11, and 21 (see Table 2), who, like factor A-, have international interests, but also, like A+, have interest in major domestic issues:

Table 3 displays the final two factors, C and D, the former (like factor A) also being bipolar in nature. As shown in the topics which factors C+ and C- regard as most important, this factor coalesces around issues of social control vs. change:

Table 3 also shows unipolar factor D to be defined by only two individuals, nos. 6 and 18, who at first blush are unlikely factor mates due to the fact that the one is a conservative female, the other a leftist male. Their interests nevertheless converge, as follows:

The above factors do not exhaust the patterned responses of these 23 young policy scientists. Some of their responses were hybrid (e.g., significantly associated with both factors A and D) and others were sufficiently idiosyncratic as to relate substantially to no one else in the group. Moreover, the factors are sufficiently ambiguous as to require closer scrutiny.

Respondent 16, who will be referred to as Curtis, eventually wrote his term paper on changes in the Central Intelligence Agency, and in his autobiography he acknowledged that AI have always been interested in this type of work since I was young.@ He then went on to relate that his interest in the CIA was fostered by his father, to whom he referred glowingly as Amy mentor, because he has been there to give me guidance, not only as a parent and teacher, but as a friend; I have had teachers and professors I liked and respected, but none as valuable.@ Prior to retirement, Curtis= father had been a military and civilian police officer with occasional close ties to employees in the old Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA=s predecessor, and at the time of his writing Curtis himself was in the early stages of applying for career employment in the Agency. Like father like son, Curtis was interested in events, processes, and institutions that defend society and hold it together rather than challenge it.

Respondent 5 (Mike) eventually went on to write a joint paper on the effects of deregulation on the telecommunications industry (which was actually the interest of a classmate friend of his), but at the outset he stated a particular interest in health care and gun control. Mike=s avowed reason for being interested in health care stemmed from the medical situation of a family member who holds three jobs and in the process Amakes too much money to get any aid from the government, but not enough money to afford his own insurance.@ Mike was irritated by a system that was about to force his relative to go on welfare, but what really rankled him was another family member Awho does nothing, is on welfare, and lives off the government,@ and who continues to have Achildren for profit@ as a kind of business to keep the welfare checks flowing. Mike also expressed interest in the topic of gun control, and in his autobiography related experiences of campaigning for a congressional candidate opposed to gun control, concluding his essay with the view that Aif someone breaks into your house with a gun and plans to hurt you or your family, then you as a home owner should have the right to have a weapon and protect yourself.@

In terms of the decisional event (DE) defined at the outset, those individuals clustering together around the positive pole of factor C relate tales about social order and about the ills of social decay, and they have apparently had experiences (h) upon which they now can draw in explaining their interest in these matters. Their memories inform their problem choices (df), and the convergence is both dynamic (C) and to some extent unique (k).

Unlike Curtis and Mike=s concern with social control, the individuals defining the negative pole of factor C (Table 3) were preoccupied with social change.

Respondent 20 (Cindy) eventually wrote her term paper on AThe Impact of Gender on the Policy Process,@ and she served notice of her position in the first line of her autobiography: AFirst of all, I am a woman who comes from a family of very strong and independent women.@ Reared by a working single parent, assisted by equally strong-willed aunts and grandmothers, Cindy expressed the view that her mother Ahas given me the strength to be able to deal with all the harassment I will endure for being a woman in a powerful job.@ In addition to policies affecting women, Cindy also expressed interest in the issue of deadbeat dads and in those state laws that make it possible for irresponsible fathers to Abe brought up on charges and taken to court.@ Her interest in animal rights she attributed to a female high school teacher (Amy favorite teacher@), who was an active opponent to the use of animals in experimental tests. Cindy ended her essay with the wish that Aone day I want to be powerful and change people=s views on what women can and cannot do in this world.@

Respondent 9 (John) eventually wrote about the intelligence community and its excesses, but he initially expressed interest in the role of the military in aiding the disadvantaged and in societal changes attributable to women=s employment. Having served four years in the Navy, John saw a use for the military Athat goes beyond the defense of the state.@ With the U.S. role in Somalia fresh on the nation=s mind, John wrote of a project he witnessed in which members of the Seabee Corps assisted in constructing housing for those without shelter, and he had visions of extending this to include immunization, sick calls, and other health-related roles for the military. Reared, like Cindy, in a household in which the mother had to work, John asserted what he characterized as the Apolitically-incorrect@ view that the mother should be able to remain home to care for children, and that fathers should be more responsible and help Areinvent@ the wife=s role as mother. Also like Cindy, therefore, John is committed to making changes in the status quo.

Bipolar factor C draws a line between maintaining or altering existing operations, and Curtis and Mike=s membership in the maintenance stream has led them to seek in-class projects that extend those interests. By way of contrast, Cindy and John have contrary imaginations that take the form of interest in topics, the knowledge of which would better equip them to alter society in desired directions.

Factor B was previously characterized as opaque, especially in relation to factor A: The latter was more obviously influenced by national vs. international interests, but B displayed interest in both. Consider, for example, the interest scores assigned the following policy areas by factors A+ (national), factor A- (international) and factor B, respectively:

+4     -4     +3     (3) Poverty and hunger

+4     -4     +3     (6) Welfare system

-4     +4     +4     (7) Public opinion in the EU and the effect on Bosnia policy

-4     +4     +4     (2) U.S. policy toward the former USSR and East European countries

-2     +2     +4     (24) Future role of the U.N.

Factor B=s interests are an unusual mix, and one of the advantages of the autobiographical narratives in instances such as this is that they provide not only verification for the interests at issue, but also help to clarify the initially hazy motivations that seem to have influenced problem selection. Three persons defined factor B (Table 2): All were women with similar stories, and these stories help account for what, at first blush, appear to be their anomalous policy interests.

Respondent 21 (Becky) eventually withdrew from the seminar due to an overextension in obligations, but she was initially scheduled to write and report on inner city school reform. In her autobiography, Becky related that her parents divorced when she was quite young, and that her mother then had to Astruggle through a court system and a job market that was blatantly geared to the advantage of men.@ The family=s deprivations ended and Becky=s social status changed for the better when the mother remarried, and the new father had a positive impact on her due to his social conscience and political involvement. Also influential was a high school teacher who introduced her to Marx, but also drew in the importance of religion and economic incentives. She became actively involved in an urban social welfare organization that helped the economically disadvantaged and has focused her college studies in directions that would help make a difference in others= lives: AI am not naive enough to believe that I can change the world,@ she admits, Abut I do think that I can at least make a positive contribution.@

Respondent 10 (Michelle), like Becky, was heavily influenced by a high school teacher who opened the world of politics to her through a world history class and by involving her in a Model U.N. group (which she also joined because her boyfriend belonged). She elected to represent Germany since her father had served there during his Army service; later, her family hosted two German foreign exchange students, both males. She flirted briefly with becoming a marine biologist, but finally settled on political science due to her interest in international matters. Her seminar topic turned out to be the Bosnian situation.

Respondent 11 (Arlene) was also strongly influenced by a male high school teacher who introduced her to politics through courses on civil liberties and extracurricular activities such as Model U.N. and Model Congress. What Arlene=s teacher gave to her was Aa sense that I could do and be anything that I wanted to.... I owe my interest in politics and policy issues to this man.@ Like Becky, Arlene was reared in a single-parent home which had to struggle economically due to a father who refused to provide support. This has influenced her to go into law, and it is her desire Ato be an attorney for the ACLU.@ She feels wronged by the criminal justice system, and intends to set things right: AI am very interested in revamping the juvenile criminal justice system.@ This seminar gave Arlene the opportunity to zero-in on her personal interest in deadbeat dads.

The narratives introduce light into the opacity of factor B, which can now be seen to be the home of various commonalities: The three defining Q sorts all come from women; all three were strongly influenced by males mainly outside the family; two of the three experienced harsh lives (due primarily to irresponsible fathers) that made them aware of defects in domestic institutions (criminal justice, welfare); and all three were introduced to world politics by teachers.³

A psychoanalyst would have a field day with case studies such as these: Abandoned young women, unfulfilled desires for an absent father, salvation by a father-substitute who introduces them to the Realpolitik among nations, the accompanying eroticization of this knowledge and subsequent pursuit of a degree in political science or international relations, all of which would serve as fodder for a reconsideration of Allport=s (1937) theory of the functional autonomy of motives, i.e., of whether motives are functionally or only historically related to the antecedents of a person=s current pursuits. However, it is unnecessary to plow too deeply in order to see how factor B=s strange policy interests are explicable once the narrative record is examined. Factor B=s interest in domestic affairs has arisen primarily from real-life experiencesCof economic insecurity (born of divided homes), of economic irresponsibility (of fathers in these specific cases), and of unresponsive social agencies (social and legal services). Interest in international matters, by way of contrast, has been mainly an intellectual import and one that has been sponsored primarily by a male (or males) from outside the family (step-fathers, teachers). The policy-related autobiographical narratives, in short, are important for revealing the life-history context within which interests have naturally developed, and for showing how vectors of experience have entered into the selection of policy problems as documented by the Q factor analysis.

The results of this small-scale classroom experiment brings into prominence the importance of perspective in decision-making and serves to validate Brewer and deLeon=s (1983) assertion that Ahuman values are the crux of the policy sciences@ (p. 6). It also serves to validate once again that subjectivity is the crux of Q methodology. Due perhaps to Lasswell=s detailed understanding of psychoanalysis, the policy sciences are more attentive than other intellectual initiatives to the impact of personal history on current outlooks and intentions for the future. And more than other intellectual enterprises, the policy sciences have given sustained thought not only to the existence of values, but also to methods and conceptual frameworks designed to transform value analysis into a tool for enhancing enlightenment (e.g., Brown, 1994; Lasswell, 1958; McDougal, 1952, 1974). As has been suggested in previous occasions, there is an affinity between the conceptual apparatus of the policy sciences and the technical achievements of Q methodology, which touches all aspects of human endeavor, from the most private of self reflections to the most public of political pronouncements and policy decisions. As shown above, Q is capable of revealing the tributaries of thought and sentiment surrounding problem identification and selection, as well as the image-maps which impinge on the clarification of goal commitments. Its applications in policy-related fields have included examination of organizational climate and roles, strategic planning, public involvement in policy initiatives, work motivation, agenda-setting, budgetary decisions, program evaluation, bureaucracy, personnel selection, public relations, and many other domains. Enterprises, of course, have their formal, and in this sense Aobjective@ sides, but alongside objective conditions are the subjective perspectives of individuals within those conditions, and to the extent such perspectives are salient factors in the policy process, Q methodology is equipped to elucidate their main contours and in this way to provide more leverage to the policy scientist.