Q methodology

greenspun.com : LUSENET : History & Theory of Psychology : One Thread

I am trying to find references to the use of Q methodology in psychology later than 1993, in particular Stephenson's Operant Subjectivity. I seem to be able to find examples of its use in almost all the social sciences, however, the application does not seem to be of much interest to psychology. I find this rather surprising, Q methodology appears simple to the point of elegance, statistically valid, and grounded in modern philosophical and scientific principles. A technique that allows the objective measurement of subjectivity seems to be neglected by psychology.

-- Barry Poole (bazzap@hotmail.com), November 20, 2002

Answers

I do not know what "Q methodology" is (being a psychologist, no doubt). Perhaps you could explain. If you want to find references, start with PsycInfo.

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), November 24, 2002.

I am considering doing PhD research with children diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome. I am seeking some method that may help in understanding the world from the children’s perspective; however, I also want to be able to apply some sort of statistical analysis to the data. Q methodology does appear to hold promise to be able to fulfil my requirements. I think it is referred to Q methodology in contrast to the group means approach sometimes referred to R methodology (being based on the Pearson product-moment correlation designated by ‘r’). I am only investigating the approach at this stage, and the following are statements I have copied from people more versed in the approach than I. What is currently referred to as "Q methodology" was introduced by psychologist/physicist William Stephenson (1902-1989) in a letter to ‘Nature’ in 1935, and spelled out in more detail in "Correlating Persons Instead of Tests" (1935), "Foundations of Psychometry: Four Factor Systems" (1936), and in a celebrated paper with Sir Cyril Burt ("Alternative Views on Correlations Between Persons," 1939) in which the two laid out their contrasting views. His major statement is “The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and Its Methodology” (1953).

Fundamentally, Q methodology provides a foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity, and it is this central feature that recommends it to persons interested in qualitative aspects of human behaviour. Most typically, a person is presented with a set of statements about some topic, and is asked to rank-order them (usually from "agree" to "disagree"), an operation referred to as "Q sorting." The statements are matters of opinion only (not fact), and the fact that the Q sorter is ranking the statements from his or her own point of view is what brings subjectivity into the picture. There is obviously no right or wrong way to provide "my point of view" about anything. Yet the rankings are subject to factor analysis, and the resulting factors, inasmuch as they have arisen from individual subjectivities, indicate segments of subjectivity that exist. And since the interest of Q methodology is in the nature of the segments and the extent to which they are similar or dissimilar, the issue of large numbers, so fundamental to most social research, is rendered relatively unimportant. In principle as well as practice, single cases can be the focus of significant research.

Q methodology has begun to be featured at special panels and symposia in various fields and clusters of self-designated Q methodologists are beginning to appear in various locales - e.g., in the psychology departments at several universities (UK and USA); in the political science departments at Kent State (USA) and Melbourne (Australia); in medical schools at Maryland and Illinois-Chicago; in departments and schools of communication at Missouri, Nebraska, Syracuse, and Iowa (USA) and in Windsor (Canada).

-- Barry Poole (bazzap@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.


Thanks for the fuller description. I have heard of "Q-sort" before. I had just not heard it called "Q-methodology" (my error). It has been used by psychologists, though not nearly to the degree that the "standard" methods are. PsycInfo lists 919 articles containing "Q sort" in the abstract. The "California Q-Sort" is particularly popular, of course, but there are others as well.

Explain something to me, if you would. How does ranking statements capture "subjectivity" any more than rating statements on a Likert scale (e.g., 1 through 7, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree")?

-- Christopher Green (cgreen@chass.utoronto.ca), November 25, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ