Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Q Methodology and Q-Perspectives® Online: Innovative Research Methodology and Instructional Technology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Q methodology is an underutilized research methodology in the fields of education, instructional design and instructional technology, yet is well suited to research on perceptions of learning, efficacy of design, technology adoption and other issues within those fields. One reason for its lack of widespread use is the somewhat cumbersome nature of the research process, including the lack of readily available mainstream tools to conduct data collection and analysis. The authors introduce Q methodology, discuss its relevance in educational and instructional technology research and introduce their design of a new tool, Q-Perspectives® Online (Walker et al. 2017). The authors provide examples of the how Q-Perspectives® Online makes Q methodology more accessible as an instructional tool, and provide examples of use in face-to-face, flipped and online classrooms. The authors also describe how the methodology and real-time analysis tool provide an opportunity to bridge the research/practitioner divide by creating an explicit merger of the learning and research environments.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bansick, S. (2016) KenQ. https://shawnbanasick.github.io/ken-q-analysis/

  • 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, 22(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • dit Dariel, O. P., Wharrad, H., & Windle, R. (2010). Developing Q methodology to explore staff views toward the use of technology in nurse education. Nurse Researcher, 18(1), 58–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, J. M. M. (2010). Introduction to William Stephenson’s quest for a science of subjectivity. Psychoanalysis and History, 12, 211–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hock, T. T., Tarmizi, R. A., Yunus, A. S. M., & Ayub, A. F. (2015). Understanding the primary school students’ van Hiele levels of geometry thinking in learning shapes and spaces: A Q-methodology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(4), 793–802.

  • Kopcha, T. J., Rieber, L. P., & Walker, B. B. (2016). Understanding university faculty perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 945–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, K. E., Sanders, M. R., Schroeter, B., Troy, V., & Wiseman, K. (2016). Acceptability and feasibility of peer assisted supervision and support for intervention practitioners: A Q-methodology evaluation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 720–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E., & Wagner, W. (2017). Exploring faculty perspectives on community engaged scholarship: The case for Q methodology. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1).

  • 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 (2nd ed., pp. 505–530). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paige, J. B., & Morin, K. H. (2015). Using Q-methodology to reveal nurse educators’ perspectives about simulation design. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(1), 11–19.

  • Pruslow, J. T., & Owl, R. R. (2012). Demonstrating the application of Q methodology for fieldwork reporting in experiential education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 35(2), 375–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramlo, S. (2016). Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 28–45.

  • Rieber, L. (2016, November). Adapting the Q sort research methodology for instructional purposes. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 222–227). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Roberts, R., & Montgomery, D. (2017). Using epistemological positions and orientations to instruction to explore school-based, agricultural Educators' perceptual identities: A Q-sort study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1).

  • Schmolck, P., & Atkinson, J. (2014). PQMethod software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenner, P. (2011). Q methodology as qualiquantology: Comment on “Q methodology and its position in the mixed methods continuum.” Operant. Subjectivity, 34(3), 192–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1935). Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136, 297. https://doi.org/10.1038/136297b0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B. B., & Lin, Y. (2017). .

  • Walker, B. B., & McCline, R. M. (2015). Q-perspectives®: Leadership Edition. University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.

  • Walker, B. B., & Tamin, S. (2017). Identifying philosophies of curriculum leadership using Q-perspectives® online. International Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT), Jacksonville, FL.

  • Walker, B. B., Lin, Y. & McCline, R. M. (2017). Q-Perspectives® Online. University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Retrieved from https://app.qperspectives.com

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. M., & Shepardson, D. P. (2018). Using Q methodology to investigate undergraduate students’ attitudes toward the geosciences. Science Education, 102(1), 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabala, A. (2014). Qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(2), 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, 1240 S. Lumpkin Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Brandy Brown Walker & Richard M. McCline

  2. University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Yuhan Lin

Authors
  1. Brandy Brown Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuhan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard M. McCline
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandy Brown Walker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Brandy Brown Walker declares she has no conflict of interest. Yuhan Lin declares he has no conflict of interest. Richard M. McCline declares he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walker, B.B., Lin, Y. & McCline, R.M. Q Methodology and Q-Perspectives® Online: Innovative Research Methodology and Instructional Technology. TechTrends 62, 450–461 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0314-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0314-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation