IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v48y2014i6p3109-3126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This essay offers a small description of recent contributions and status of Q methodology by means of a review of suggested best practices, a systematic review of practice, and a methodological audit. Both theoretical and empirical study suggest that Q methodology neither delivers its promised insight into human subjectivity nor accounts adequately for threats to the validity of the claims it can legitimately make. These concerns in turn, render the method inappropriate for its declared purpose, the scientific study of subjectivity, and suspect for the full range of ontological perspectives, from (neo) positivist to constructivist. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Jarl Kampen & Peter Tamás, 2014. "Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3109-3126, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:6:p:3109-3126
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-013-9944-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-013-9944-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-013-9944-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    2. David L. Weimer, 1999. "Comment: Q-method and the isms," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 426-429.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adrian Lundberg & Nicola Fraschini & Renata Aliani, 2023. "What is subjectivity? Scholarly perspectives on the elephant in the room," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4509-4529, October.
    2. Boilson, Andrew & Gauttier, Stéphanie & Connolly, Regina & Davis, Paul & Connolly, Justin & Weston, Dale & Staines, Anthony, 2019. "Q-Method Evaluation of a European Health Data Analytic End User Framework," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2019), Rovinj, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 12-14 September 2019, pages 219-231, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    3. Peter Nijkamp & Karima Kourtit & Henk Scholten & Esmeralda Willemsen, 2023. "Citizen Participation and Knowledge Support in Urban Public Energy Transition—A Quadruple Helix Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Isyaku, Usman, 2021. "What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    7. Pinillos, Daniel & Poccard-Chapuis, René & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A. & Corbeels, Marc & Timler, Carl J. & Tittonell, Pablo & R. Ballester, Maria Victoria & Schulte, Rogier P., 2021. "Landholders' perceptions on legal reserves and agricultural intensification: Diversity and implications for forest conservation in the eastern Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    8. Chung-Chu Liu & Jason C. H. Chen & Che-Cheong Poon, 2019. "Perception Types Of Home Buyers By Q Methodology: A Comparative Study Of Hong Kong, Taiwan, And The Usa," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(01), pages 235-257, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    3. Antonio Lopolito & Edgardo Sica, 2022. "Designing Policy Mixes to Address the World’s Worst Devastation of a Rural Landscape Caused by Xylella Epidemic," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    5. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Jin-Myong Lee & Hyo-Jung Kim & Jong-Youn Rha, 2017. "Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Marleen Kraaij-Dirkzwager & Joost Van der Ree & Erik Lebret, 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Stakeholder Concerns about Public Health. An Introduction to a Fast and Inexpensive Approach Applied on Health Concerns about Intensive Animal Production Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Venus, Terese E. & Strauss, Felix & Venus, Thomas J. & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "Understanding stakeholder preferences for future biogas development in Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    9. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    11. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    12. N C B Nath, 2008. "Suggesting Effective Policy Frames for Chronic Poverty Alleviation in India," Working Papers id:1804, eSocialSciences.
    13. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    14. Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Carodenuto, Sophia, 2023. "Stakeholder perspectives on cocoa’s living income differential and sustainability trade-offs in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    15. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    16. Richard Taylor & John Forrester & Lydia Pedoth & David Zeitlyn, 2022. "Structured output methods and environmental issues: perspectives on co-created bottom-up and ‘sideways’ science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. van Dam, J. & Junginger, M., 2011. "Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4051-4066, July.
    20. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:6:p:3109-3126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.