Quality & Quantity

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 523–537 | Cite as

Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect: a reply to Kampen and Tamás

  • Steven R. Brown
  • Stentor Danielson
  • Job van Exel
Article

Abstract

The critical audit of Q methodology by Kampen and Tamás contains many errors of fact and understanding—indeed, a resistance to understanding that is compared to the Medicis’ stance toward Galileo. Following a brief historical summary of similar ill-advised critiques of Q methodology in the 80 years since its introduction, responses are presented to various of the points raised: on the nature of subjectivity, the universe of subjective communicability (concourse) and samples drawn from it, the role of factor analysis and factor interpretation, the forced Q-sort distribution, the ratio between the number of participants and the number of statements in the Q sample, and sources of researcher bias.

Keywords

Q methodology R methodology Subjectivity Factor analysis 

References

  1. Baker, R., van Exel, J., Mason, H., Stricklin, M.: Connecting Q and surveys: a test of three methods to explore factor membership in a large sample. Operant. Subject. 34, 38–58 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. Baker, R., Wildman, J., Mason, H., Donaldson, C.: Q-ing for health–a new approach to eliciting the public’s views on health care resource allocation. Health Econ. 23, 283–297 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. Billard, S.: How Q methodology can be democratized. Fem. Psychol. 9, 357–366 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, J.: The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Thomas, Springfield (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, J.: The Q-Sort in Character Appraisal: Encoding Subjective Impressions of Persons Quantitatively. American Psychological Association, Washington (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolland, J.M.: The search for structure: an alternative to the forced Q-sort technique. Polit. Methodol. 11(1–2), 91–107 (1985)Google Scholar
  7. Brown, H.I.: Galileo on the telescope and the eye. J. Hist. Ideas 46, 487–501 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, S.R.: Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven (1980)Google Scholar
  9. Brown, S.R.: Q methodology and naturalistic subjectivity. In: Midgley, B.D., Morris, E.K. (eds.) Modern Perspectives on J.R. Kantor and Interbehaviorism, pp. 251–268. Context Press, Reno (2006)Google Scholar
  10. Brown, S.R., Good, J.M.M.: Q methodology. In: Salkind, N.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Research Design, vol. 3, pp. 1149–1155. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2010)Google Scholar
  11. Burt, C.L., Stephenson, W.: Alternative views on correlations between persons. Psychometrika 4, 269–281 (1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cartwright, D.S.: A computational procedure for tau correlation. Psychometrika 22, 97–104 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cattell, R.B.: On the disuse and misuse of P, Q, Qs and O techniques in clinical psychology. J. Clin. Psychol. 7, 203–214 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conover, P.J., Feldman, S.: Group identification, values, and the nature of political beliefs. Am. Polit. Q. 12, 151–175 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cragan, J.F., Shields, D.C.: The identifying characteristics of public fire safety educators: an empirical analysis. In: Cragan, J.F., Shields, D.C. (eds.) Applied Communication Research: A Dramatistic Approach, pp. 219–234. Waveland, Prospect Heights (1981)Google Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C.: Review of the study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology, by W. Stephenson. Psychometrika 19, 327–330 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M., Bergsma, E.: Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 69, 579–591 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Danielson, S.: Q method and surveys: three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods 21, 219–237 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Graaf, G., van Exel, J.: Using Q-methodology in administrative ethics. Public Integr. 11, 63–78 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrard, J., Hausman, W.: The priority sort: an empirical approach to program planning and evaluation. Am. J. Soc. Psychiatry, 5(5), 29–36 (1985). [Reprinted. In: D.S. Cordray M.W. Lipsey (eds.): Evaluation Studies Review Annual, vol. 11, pp. 279–286. Sage, Beverly Hills (1986)].Google Scholar
  21. Gould, P.: A new Q too? Operant Subject. 8, 42–53 (1985)Google Scholar
  22. Howard, L.W.: Quest-sort: a paper-and-pencil alternative to card-sorting Q samples. Operant Subject. 19, 12–22 (1995–1996)Google Scholar
  23. Iliescu, D.: Metodologia Q. Communicare.ro, Budapest (2005). [Romanian]Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, D.M., Bidwell, C.E.: A modification of Q-technique. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 19, 221–232 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jedeloo, S., van Staa, A., Latour, J.M., van Exel, N.J.A.: Preferences for health care and self-management among Dutch adolescents with chronic conditions: A Q-methodological investigation. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 47, 593–603 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, R.M.: Q analysis of large samples. J. Mark. Res. 7, 104–105 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kampen, J., Tamás, P.: Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology. Qual. Quan. (2014). doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9944-z
  28. Kanra, B.: Islam, Democracy and Dialogue in Turkey: Deliberating in Divided Societies. Ashgate, Farnham (2009)Google Scholar
  29. Khoshgooyanfard, A.R.: Q-methodology. Research Center of IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) Publication, Tehran (2008). [Persian]Google Scholar
  30. Killam, L.A., Montgomery, P., Luhanga, F.L., Adamic, P., Carter, L.M.: Views on unsafe nursing students in clinical learning. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 7(1), article 36 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. Kim, H.K.: Q Methodology: Philosophy of Science, Theories, Analysis, and Application. CommunicationBooks, Seoul (2008). [Korean]Google Scholar
  32. Kim, S.E.: Q Methodology and Social Sciences. Goldwell, Busan (2007). [Korean]Google Scholar
  33. Kitzinger, C.: The Social Construction of Lesbianism (Inquiries in Social Construction series). Sage, London (1987)Google Scholar
  34. Loevinger, J.: Person and population as psychometric concepts. Psychol. Rev. 72, 143–155 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKeown, B.F., Thomas, D.B.: Q methodology (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series), vol. 66, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar
  36. Mowrer, O.H.: “Q-technique”–description, history, and critique. In: Mowrer, O.H. (ed.) Psychotherapy, pp. 316–375. Ronald, New York (1953)Google Scholar
  37. Nahinsky, I.E.: A Q sort analysis of variance involving the dimensions of sorts, groups, and items. J. Exp. Educ. 35(3), 36–41 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neff, W.S., Cohen, J.: A method for the analysis of the structure and internal consistency of Q-sort arrays. Psychol. Bull. 68, 361–368 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peterson, R.S., Owens, P.D., Martorana, P.V.: The group dynamics Q-sort in organizational research: a new method for studying familiar problems. Organ. Res. Methods 2, 107–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R., Sullivan, J.J.: Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  41. Phillips, E.L., Raiford, A., El-Batrawi, S.: The Q sort reevaluated. J. Consult. Psychol. 29, 422–425 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prasith-rathsint, S., Sookasame, K.: Variety of Innovative Research Methods: Q Methodology: A Scientific Study of Subjectivity (Concepts, Theory and Application). Samlada, Bangkok (2007). [Thai]Google Scholar
  43. Sabini, J.B., Silver, M.: Some senses of subjective. In: Secord, P.F. (ed.) Explaining Human Behavior: Consciousness, Human Action and Social Structure, pp. 71–91. Sage, Beverly Hills (1982)Google Scholar
  44. Said, G., Stricklin, M. (eds.): In: Anais da 1\(^{o}\) conferencia internacional sobre metodologia Q: Analises qualitative e quantitative na pesquisa cientfica. EDUFPI, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil (2013)Google Scholar
  45. Smith, N.W.: Current Systems in Psychology: History, Theory, Research, and Applications. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont (2001)Google Scholar
  46. Stainton Rogers, W.: Explaining Health and Illness: An Exploration of Diversity. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Exeter (1991)Google Scholar
  47. Stenner, P. (Ed.) (2008–2009). Special Issue: Q and constructivism: Between discursive practice and subjective process. Operant Subjectivity, 32, entire issue.Google Scholar
  48. Stephenson, W.: Technique of factor analysis. Nature 136, 297 (1935a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stephenson, W.: Correlating persons instead of tests. Character Pers. 4, 17–24 (1935b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stephenson, W.: The foundations of psychometry: four factor systems. Psychometrika 1, 195–209 (1936)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stephenson, W.: A note on Professor R.B. Cattell’s methodological adumbrations. J. Clin. Psychol. 8, 206–207 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stephenson, W.: The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1953)Google Scholar
  53. Stephenson, W.: Comments on Cronbach and Gleser’s review of: The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Psychometrika 19, 331–333 (1954)Google Scholar
  54. Stephenson, W.: The Play Theory of Mass Communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1967)Google Scholar
  55. Stephenson, W.: Concourse theory of communication. Communication 3, 21–40 (1978)Google Scholar
  56. Stephenson, W.: Against interpretation. Operant Subject. 6, 73–125 (1983)Google Scholar
  57. Stephenson, W.: William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: I-Concepts. Psychol. Record 36, 519–527 (1986)Google Scholar
  58. Sundland, D.M.: The construction of Q-sorts: a criticism. Psychol. Rev. 69, 62–64 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thomas, D.B., Baas, L.R.: The issue of generalization in Q methodology: “Reliable schematics” revisited. Operant Subject. 16, 18–36 (1992–1993)Google Scholar
  60. Thompson, B., Frankiewicz, R.G., Ward, G.R.: Cross-technique validation of attitude measures. Operant Subject. 6, 37–50 (1983)Google Scholar
  61. Thorsen, A.A., Allgood, E. (eds.): [Q-Metodologi: En Velegnet Måte å utforske Subjektivitet.] Trondheim. Tapir Academic Press, Norway (2010)Google Scholar
  62. Van Exel, N.J.A., de Graaf, G., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Give me a break! Associations between informal caregivers’ attitudes toward respite care and characteristics of caregivers, care recipients and the care giving situation. Health Policy 88, 73–87 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vermaire, J.H., Hoogstraten, J., Van Loveren, C., Poorterman, J.H.G., Van Exel, N.J.A.: Attitudes towards oral health among parents of 6-year-old children at risk of developing caries. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 38, 507–520 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vogel, J., Lowham, E.: Building consensus for constructive action: a study of perspectives on natural resource management. J. For. 105, 20–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  65. Watts, S., Stenner, P.: Doing Q methodology: theory, method, and interpretation. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2, 67–91 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Watts, S., Stenner, P.: Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wittenborn, J.R.: Contributions and current status of Q methodology. Psychol. Bull. 58, 132–142 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven R. Brown
    • 1
  • Stentor Danielson
    • 2
  • Job van Exel
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Foundations, Leadership, and Administration, College of Education, Health, and Human ServicesKent State UniversityKentUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography, Geology, and the EnvironmentSlippery Rock UniversitySlippery RockUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Health Policy and Management (iBMG)Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations