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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q methodology; Sampling; Validity; Systematic review;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.