Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology
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
Volume (Year): 48 (2014)
Issue (Month): 6 (November)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.