Q Methodology

Lisa Lazard

Overview

Q Methodology: history & theoretical assumptions

How to do Q

Q Practical

Analysis: an example

What is Q Methodology?

Q is both a quantitative and qualitative technique which is used to study subjective experience

It has been widely used to study subjective and debatable issues e.g. Kitzinger, 1987 (sexuality); Senn, 1996 (pornography); Capdevila & Stainton Rogers, 2000 (political protest). It has been used particularly successfully in health related research, for example, by Stainton Rogers, 1991 (understandings of health & illness), Eccleston, Williams & Stainton Rogers, 1997 (chronic pain); and Stenner, Dancey & Watts, 2000, (IBS).

William Stephenson (1902-1989)

History & Theoretical Assumptions (1)

William Stephenson first introduced Q methodology in the 1930s

“The hallmark of sound scientific procedure nowadays, it seems, is to assert hypotheses and to confirm predictions...There is need, however, for care and discernment in these matters...Psychology, it seems to us, has by no means achieved a sophisticated theoretical status, with ideal constructs such as physics has fashioned for itself. The situations in psychology, therefore, call for an attitude of curiosity, as well as one of hypothetico-deductive logic...We should be making discoveries rather than testing our reasoning” (1953: 151).

Operant Subjectivity (observable through concrete behaviour)

Q: Theory & Practice (1)

Q involves sorting a set of statements to represent a perspective or viewpoint (the process of making subjectivity operant)

Focuses on viewpoints shared by particular groups of participants

By-person factor analysis identifies groups of Q sorts that have been completed in a similar way and can be clearly distinguished from other groups that emerge

Factors called perspectives or narratives

Q: Theory & Practice (2)

Q methodology can be seen to be a para-quantitative (Capdevila & Stainton Rogers, 2000) or qualiquantological (Stenner & Stainton Rogers, 2004)

The aim of Q methodology is not to ‘test’ its participants nor does it impose a priori meanings. Instead, participants are asked to decide for themselves what is ‘meaningful’

Q does not presuppose polarised viewpoints – allows emergence of multiple perspectives

Q: Practicalities

Q involves 4 main stages:

1. Development of the Q pack (materials)

2. Q sorting (participants)

3. Statistical analysis

4. Factor interpretation (qualitative analysis)

Developing the Q pack (1)

What are we talking about?DEFINITIONS

How should it be construed?UNDERSTANDINGS

What is to be done?POLICIES

The research question and subsequent statements need to focus on one of these areas

Developing the Q pack (2)

Collect a large sample of statements (e.g. 200)

Statements collects via cultural analysis

Piloting the statements

Agree Disagree Uncertain Unclear/Inappropriat

e

1. Enjoys taking risks. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

1. Cannot be trusted. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

1. Is really able to put themselves in another persons shoes [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Developing the Q pack (3)

Statements Piloted for:

Balance

Clarity

Coverage

Q Sorting

(8)

(7) (7)

(6) (6)

(5) (5)

(4) (4)

(3) (3)

(1) (1)

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

Statistical Analysis

Traditional factor analysis called R analysis

Variables measured on many individuals look for an association among variables

Q analysis is a pattern analysis that looks at relationships between people

Example of Rank Ordering

Descriptions ranked from: 1 most descriptive to 8 least descriptive

A B C D E F

Shy 8 4 6 1 3 5

Talkative 5 5 2 7 1 4

Cautious 7 6 3 4 2 1

Relaxed 4 1 8 6 7 6

Volatile 2 2 7 3 4 2

Suspicious 6 8 1 2 5 3

Easy-going 3 7 4 5 8 8

Thoughtful 1 3 5 8 6 7

Factor Interpretation: An Example

Selected Items F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4

Has many legs +5 0 0 -4

Hairy +5 +2 +2 -4

Carnivorous +4 -5 +5 -2

Large -4 +4 +3 0

Intelligent -3 0 +2 +5

Found in the home +4 -5 -5 +5

Factor 1: Middle Class Youth

11. Mature love

10. Inner harmony3. A sense of accomplish-ment

15. Self-respect

14. Salvation16. Social recognition

6. Equality 8. Freedom 13. Pleasure 17. True friendship 9. Happi-ness

5. A world of beauty12. National security

4. A world at peace 18. Wisdom 2. An exciting life 1. A comfortable life 7. Family security

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Factor 2: The humanist

8. Freedom

1. A comfortable life

13. Pleasure 17. True friendship

12. National security

16. Social recognition

2. An exciting life 6. Equality 7. Family security3. A sense of accomplish-ment

10. Inner harmony

14. Salvation5. A world of beauty

4. A world at peace 18. Wisdom 11. Mature love 15. Self-respect 9. Happi-ness

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Factor 3: Stability

1. A comfortable life

10. Inner harmony 14. Salvation 17. True friendship

16. Social recognition

13. Pleasure 11. Mature love12. National security

8. Freedom 15. Self-respect 7. Family security

2. An exciting life 4. A world at peace5. A world of beauty

6. Equality 18. Wisdom 9. Happi-ness3. A sense of accomplish-ment

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Factor 4: Self-Defined Adventurer

4. A world at peace

12. National security

6. Equality 18. Wisdom

13. Pleasure1. A comfortable life

5. A world of beauty

11. Mature love 9. Happi-ness 7. Family security 17. True friendship

14. Salvation 10. Inner harmony16. Social recognition

3. A sense of accomplish-ment

2. An exciting life 8. Freedom 15. Self-respect

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Summary

Multiple perspectives rather than polarisation

Focus on relations/patterns in narratives rather than simple corrections of variables

Useful References & Links

Brown, S.R. (1980). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

(also available on line from http://www.qmethod.org/News/politicalsubjectivity.htm)

 

Capdevila, R. & Stainton Rogers, R. (2000) If You Go Down to the Woods Today…Narratives of Newbury. In Addams, H. & Proops, J. (eds.) Social Discourse and Environmental Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

 

Corr, S., Phillips, C.J. & Capdevila, R. (2003) Using Q Methodology to Evaluate a Day Service for Younger Adult Stroke Survivors. Operant Subjectivity: Journal of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity 27(1), 1-23.

 

Curt, B. (1994). Textuality and Tectonics: troubling social and psychological science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

 

Jordon, K., Capdevila, R. & Johnson, S. (2005) Baby or Beauty: A Q study into Post Pregnancy Body Image’. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 23(1), 1-13. ISSN: 0264-6838.

 

 

Useful References & Links

Kitzinger, C. (1986). Introducing and developing Q as a feminist methodology: a study of accounts of lesbianism. In Wilkinson, S. (ed.) Feminist Social Psychology: Developing Theory and Practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

 Senn, C.Y. (1996). Q-methodology as feminist methodology: Women’s views and experiences of pornography. In

Wilkinson, S. (ed.) Feminist Social Psychologies: International Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press. Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q Methodology. In Smith J.A., Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (eds.) Rethinking Methods in

Psychology. London: Sage. Stainton Rogers, R., Stenner, P., Gleeson, K. & Stainton Rogers, W. (1995). Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda

Cambridge: Polity Press. Stainton Rogers, W. (1991). Explaining Health and Illness. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Stenner, P. & Marshall, H. (1995). ‘A Q-Methodological Study of Rebelliousness’. European Journal of Social Psychology.

25: 621-636. Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2005) Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in

Psychology 2: 67-91 Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2005) The subjective experience of partnership love: A Q Methodological study. British Journal of

Social Psychology 44(1): 85-107.  You might also have a look at these Q web sites:http://www.qmethod.orghttp://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/