Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Q methodology in learning, design, and technology: an introduction

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An important element of good design, instructional or otherwise, is awareness of and being empathetic to the needs, wants, interests, values, and opinions of the intended audience. Typical approaches to learning about the subjective viewpoints of a particular audience have included survey instruments based on Likert-type items and open-ended questions, interviews, and focus groups. This article presents an overview of another approach using Q methodology. Q methodology is specifically designed to reveal and study subjectivity within a group of people in a systematic way using both quantitative and qualitative data. Q methodology offers designers with the means to identify a small number of profiles representing distinct points of view among the intended audience on a given topic. After presenting an overview of the historical and theoretical underpinnings of Q, several examples are provided to illustrate Q’s potential to improve design within the field of learning, design, and technology. Critiques of Q methodology are also described.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Stephenson’s use of the term “Q-technique” here is equivalent to Cattell’s Qs technique. Stephenson had been using “Q-technique” as his preferred term long before his exchange with Cattell and he objected to Cattell’s misappropriation of it.

References

  • Akhtar-Danesh, N., & Mirza, N. (2017). Relation between manual rotation and abductive reasoning in Q-methodology. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 198–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banasick, S. (2019). KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(36), 1360. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, C., Angle, J., & Montgomery, D. (2015). Teachers describe epistemologies of science instruction through Q methodology. School Science and Mathematics, 115(3), 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. M. (2017). Instructional design models and the expertise required to practice true instructional design. In A. C.-C. G. Rowland (Ed.), Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary dialogues. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R. (2009). Q technique, method, and methodology: Comments on Stentor Danielson’s article. Field Methods, 21(3), 238–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X09332080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R. (2019a). From concourse to Q sample to testing theory. Operant Subjectivity, 41, 1–17.

    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 & Quantity, 49, 523–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. (2019b). Guiding the path: Identified skills for educating the next generation of workers. Journal of Education for Business, 94, 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1541854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, C. (1939). The unit of hierarchy and its properties. Psychometrika, 3, 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, D., Stone, T. E., Petrini, M. A., & McMillan, M. (2016). An exploration of the health beliefs of Chinese nurses’ and nurse academics’ health beliefs: A Q-methodology study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 18(1), 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1951). On the disuse and misuse of P, Q, Qs and O techniques in clinical psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7, 203–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, J. J. (2017). Structuring hydrosocial relations in urban water governance. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(5), 1144–1161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. J., & Torrance, E. P. (1965). How favorable are the values of art educators to the creative person? National Art Education Association, 6(2), 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, S., Donaldson, A., & Walker, G. (2005). Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area, 37(4), 413–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irie, K., Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2018). Using Q methodology to investigate pre-service EFL teachers’ mindsets about teaching competences. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 575–598. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, V., & Green, A. (2020). Appraisal of the curricular assessment process. Research and Practice in Assessment, 14(1), 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampen, J. K., & Tamás, P. (2014). Overly ambitious: Contributions and current status of Q methodology. Quality & Quantity, 48, 3109–3126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.-Y. (2015). A study of perceptional typologies on computer based assessment (CBA): Instructor and student perspectives. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 80–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha, T. J., Rieber, L. P., & Walker, B. (2016). Understanding university faculty perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 945–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladan, M. A., Wharrad, H., & Windle, R. (2018). Towards understanding healthcare professionals’ adoption and use of technologies in clinical practice: Using Q-methodology and models of technology acceptance. Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, 25(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v25i1.965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it. Higher Education, 69(3), 435–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, A. (2019). Teachers’ viewpoints about an educational reform concerning multilingualism in German-speaking Switzerland. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (2013). Q methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesci, G., & Cobern, W. (2020). Middle school science teachers’ understanding of nature of science: A Q-method study. Elementary Education Online, 19(1), 118–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J., Yu, D., Poon, S. K., Lam, M., Hines, M., Brunner, M., ... Leanne, T. (2017). E-health readiness for teams: A comprehensive conceptual model. In L. K. S. Angela Ryan, & Sue Whetton (Eds.), Integrating and connecting care: Selected papers from the 25th Australian National Health Informatics Conference (Vol. 239, pp. 119–125). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

  • Pruslow, J. T., & Red Owl, R. H. (2012). Demonstrating the application of Q methodology for fieldwork reporting in experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(2), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.5193/JEE35.2.375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2015). Student views about a flipped physics course: A tool for program evaluation and improvement. Research in the Schools, 22(1), 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2017). Student views regarding online freshmen physics courses. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1353961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, B. H., Kaufman, S. E., & Cropp, F. (2000). Assessing Q-assessor: A validation study of computer-based Q sorts versus paper sorts. Operant Subjectivity, 23(4), 192–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, J. (Ed.) (2017). Special issue: Q methodology and the single case (Vol. 39): Operant Subjectivity.

  • Rhoads, J., & Aleprete, M. (2019). Q methodology and the study of political opinion: The case of President Trump’s foreign policy toward North Korea. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (2020). Building a software tool to explore subjectivity in the classroom: a design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11, 140–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond Bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodl, J. E., Cruz, R. A., & Knollman, G. A. (2020). Applying Q methodology to teacher evaluation research. Studies in Educational Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, K. S., & Montgomery, D. (2013). Using identity indicators to describe graduate students’ views of statistics courses in the context of major-specific courses. Operant Subjectivity, 36(4), 320–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serfass, D. G., & Sherman, R. A. (2013). A methodological note on ordered Q-Sort ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 853–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shemmings, D. (2006). Quantifying qualitative data: An illustrative example of the use of Q methodology in psychological research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneegas, G. (2020). Making the case for critical Q methodology. The Professional Geographer, 72(1), 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1952). A note on Professor R.B. Cattell’s methodological adumbrations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8, 206–207.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1978). Concourse theory of communication. Communication, 3, 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1986a). Protoconcursus: The concourse theory of communication. Operant Subjectivity, 9(3), 73–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1986b). Protoconcursus: The concourse theory of communication: I. Operant Subjectivity, 9(2), 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. (2010). Q-Technique factor analysis techniques in the study of giftedness. In B. Thompson & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness (pp. 33–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Steen, S., Geveke, C. H., Steenbakkers, A. T., & Steenbeek, H. W. (2020). Teaching students with Autism Spectrum Disorders: What are the needs of educational professionals? Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 90

  • Walker, B. B., Lin, Y., & McCline, R. M. (2018). Q methodology and Q-perspectives® online: Innovative research methodology and instructional technology. TechTrends, 62, 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0314-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittinborn, J. R. (1961). Contributions and current status of Q methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 58(2), 132–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, C. E. (2011). Using Q methodology to explore leadership: The role of the school business manager. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2010.507877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., & Montgomery, D. (2013). Gaps or bridges in multicultural teacher education: A Q study of attitudes toward student diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 30, 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the reviewers of this paper for their excellent comments and suggestions. Special thanks also go to Tong Li for his assistance and conversations about Q over the past five years. Finally, the author expresses his gratitude to all of the students who participated in his inaugural Q methodology course at UGA for their insightful questions and comments: Mariano Dossou, Cory Gleasman, Jon Hallemeier, Jill Jinks, Artisha Johnson, Christina Lee, Melinda Pethel, Beth Pitman, Melissa Ray, Enid Truong, Duygu Umutlu, David Weisberger, Haotian Yang, Xigui Yang, Cigdem Yurekli, and Si Zhang.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Career and Information Studies, The University of Georgia, 850 College Station Road, 203 River’s Crossing, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Lloyd P. Rieber

Authors
  1. Lloyd P. Rieber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lloyd P. Rieber.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rieber, L.P. Q methodology in learning, design, and technology: an introduction. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2529–2549 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09777-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09777-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation