Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using Q methodology in health sciences education to study subjectivity

  • Methodology
  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Q methodology is a unique, yet underutilized methodology designed specifically to scientifically study subjectivity. Q, as it is most often referred to, is an appropriate methodology whenever a researcher is interested in uncovering and describing the multiple divergent viewpoints on any topic. Such discovery of viewpoints provides insight into the subjectivities related to policies, values, priorities, judgements, opinions, and decisions. The disciplines where Q has been used for research are many, and include health sciences, education, and other social science / behavioral science fields. Because of its rather idiosyncratic place in research, however, many Q methodologists are self-taught or seek education through a few select universities that offer graduate level Q courses. The key to successfully approaching a Q study is to embrace its unique approach to studying subjectivity such that it is a powerful tool in health science education and other fields. It is common to find inconsistencies related to Q terminology, analyses, and decision making across studies. There is often an over reliance on concepts that come from purely quantitative methodologies such as R factor analysis rather than embracing the qualitative-quantitative hybridity of Q. This article is written as a primer with a focus on understanding Q at a deeper level rather than a step-by-step guide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The I4S website is www.qmethod.org; the journal website is https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/osub/index.

References

  • Banasick, S. (2019). Ken-Q Analysis (Version 1.0.6) [Software]. Available from https://shawnbanasick.github.io/ken-q-analysis/https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1300201.

  • Berkhout, J. J., Teunissen, P. W., Helmich, E., van Exel, J., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Jaarsma, D. A. (2017). Patterns in clinical students’ self-regulated learning behavior: A Q-methodology study. Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice, 22(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9687-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braswell, R. (2022). Comparative rotations and analyses of Q data: A worked example. In J. Rhoads, D. Thomas, & S. Ramlo (Eds.), Cultivating Q methodology: Essays honoring Steven R. Brown, (pp. 145–181). International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity.

  • Brown, S. R. (1972). A fundamental incommensurability between objectivity and subjectivity. In S. R. Brown, & D. J. Brenner (Eds.), Science, psychology, and communication: Essays honoring William Stephenson, (pp. 58–94). Teachers College Press.

  • Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.

  • Brown, S. R. (1986). Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In W. D. Berry, & M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New tools for social scientist: Advances and applications in research methods (pp. 57–76). Sage Publications.

  • Brown, S. R. (2008). Q methodology. In M. Lisa, & Given (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, (pp. 699–702). Sage.

  • Brown, S. R. (2010). Q methodology. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design, (pp. 1149–1155). Sage.

  • Brown, S. R., Baltrinic, E., & Jencius, M. (2020). From Concourse to Q Sample to Testing Theory. Operant Subjectivity, 41, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2019.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R., Danielson, S., & van Exel, J. (2015). Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect: A reply to Kampen and Tamás. Quality and Quantity, 49, 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0007-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, C. L. (1941). The factors of the mind; an introduction to factor-analysis in psychology. The Macmillan Company.

  • Burt, C., & Stephenson, W. (1939). Alternative views on correlations between persons. Psychometrika, 4, 269–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. C., Xiao, X., Nkambule, N., et al. (2021). Exploring emergency physicians’ professional identities: A Q-method study. Advances in Health Science Education, 26, 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-09973-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jonge, L.P.J.W.M., Timmerman, A.A., Govaerts, M.J.B., Muris, J.W.M., Muijtjens, A.M.M., Kramer, A.W.M., & van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2017) Stakeholder perspectives on workplace-based performance assessment: Towards a better understanding of assessor behaviour. Advances in Health Science Educucation, 22, 1213–1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9760-7

  • Good, J. M. M. (2000). William Stephenson and the Post World War II bifurcation of british psychology. Operant Subjectivity, 23(3), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2000.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, G. W. K. (2017). Examining perceptions and attitudes: A review of likert-type scales versus Q-Methodology. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(5), 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916661302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampen, J. K., & Tamás, P. (2014). Overly ambitious: Contributions and current status of Q methodology. Quality & Quantity, 48, 3109–3126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9944-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, B., & Gravina, V. (2004). Theoretical rotation as a Tool for identifying points of leverage in people’s perspectives for Program Improvement. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal for Q Methodology, 27(3), 125–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B. (2001). Loss of meaning in likert scaling: A note on the Q methodological alternative. Operant Subjectivity, 24, 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (2013). Q methodology. Sage.

  • Newman, I. & Ramlo, S. (2010). Using Q Methodology and Q Factor Analysis in Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (Second ed., pp. 505–530). Sage.

  • Ramlo, S. (2015). Theoretical significance in Q methodology: A qualitative approach to a mixed method. Research in the Schools, 22(1), 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2016a). Centroid and theoretical rotation: Justification for their use in Q methodology research. Midwestern Researcher, 28(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815610998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2016b). Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10, 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815610998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2017). The preferences of Q methodologists at the factor-analytic stage: An examination of practice. Research in the Schools, 24(2), 40–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2020). Divergent viewpoints about the statistical stage of a mixed method: Qualitative versus quantitative orientations. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1626365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2021a). Q methodology as mixed analysis. In A. Onwuegbuzie, & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge reviewer’s guide for mixed methods Research Analysis, (pp. 199–208). Routledge.

  • Ramlo, S. (2021b). Promoting conceptual understanding of Q methodology using insights from science education. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 12(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v12n3a3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2022a). Conceptualizing Q methodology as an Integrated Analysis. In A. Onwuegbuzie, & J. Hitchcock (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research, (pp. 324–340). Routledge.

  • Ramlo, S. (2022b). Mixed methods research and quantum theory: Q methodology as an exemplar for complementarity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211019497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. E. (2022c). Higher education during COVID-19: Q methodology studies online. In SAGE Research Methods Cases. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529603453

  • Ridenour, C. S., & Newman, I. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the interactive continuum. Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Stephenson, W. (1935). Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136, 297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.

  • Stephenson, W. (1961). Scientific creed, 1961: Philosophical credo. Abductory principles. The centrality of self. The Psychological Record, 11, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1980). Consciring: A general theory for subjective communicability. Annals of the International Communication Association, 4, 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1980.11923791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1986). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: II–Pragmatics of a thought. Psychological Record, 36, 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1987). How to make a good cup of tea. Operant Subjectivity, 10(2), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1988). The quantumization of psychological events. Operant Subjectivity, 12(1/2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1988.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1990a). Fifty years of exclusionary psychometrics: I. Q technique. Operant Subjectivity, 13(3), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1990.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1990b). Fifty years of exclusionary psychometrics: II. Developments. Operant Subjectivity, 13(4), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1990.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (2007). Consciring: A General Theory for Subjective Communicability. Operant Subjectivity, 30(3/4). Retrieved from https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/osub/article/view/8838

  • Thomas, D. D., & Baas, L. R. (1992). The issue of generalization in Q methodology: “Reliable Schematics” revisited. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1992.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D., Rhoads, J., & Ramlo, S. (2022). Introduction. In J. Rhoads, D. Thomas, & S. Ramlo (Eds.), Cultivating Q methodology: Essays honoring Steven R. Brown, (pp. 3–17). International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity.

  • van Exel, J., Baker, R., Mason, H., Donaldson, C., & Brouwer, W. (2015). Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a european cross-country study using Q methodology. Social Science & Medicine, 126, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Akron & SueZ Q, LLC, 3189 Middleton Rd, 44236, Hudson, OH, USA

    Susan E. Ramlo

Authors
  1. Susan E. Ramlo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.R. wrote the main manuscript text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan E. Ramlo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramlo, S.E. Using Q methodology in health sciences education to study subjectivity. Adv in Health Sci Educ 28, 1711–1722 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10214-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10214-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation