Doing Q Methodology: Theory, Method and Interpretation

www.QualResearchPsych.com Qualitative Research in Psychology 2005; 2: 67Á/91 Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation Simon Watts1 and Paul Stenner2 1Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK; 2University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK This paper has a marked practical aspect. We wish to encourage and facilitate the use of Q methodology amongst psychologists interested in qualitative research. The paper duly answers a number of pertinent ‘how to do Q’ questions. Yet our primary intention is not to produce an exhaustive ‘how to do Q’ guide. In discussing issues of theory, method and interpretation in Q methodology, the main aim of the paper is rather to address some of the more common misunderstandings and misrepresentations that constitute obstacles to the use of one of the very ﬁrst ‘alternative’ methods to have been developed in the context of psychology. In addressing such obstacles, the paper hopes to bring ‘Why do Q?’ questions to the fore. In so doing, Q methodology will also be ‘positioned’ in relation to a number of other qualitative research methods, each of which currently enjoys a degree of prominence within the psychological discipline. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2005; 2: 67Á/91 Key words: eigenvalues; factor analysis; factor extraction; factor interpretation; factor rotation; measurement; Q methodology; Q set; Q sorting; subjectivity; William Stephenson Introduction the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the method. Yet our primary intention is not to produce an This paper has a marked practical aspect. exhaustive ‘how to do Q’ guide. In discuss- We wish to encourage and facilitate the use ing issues of theory, method and interpreta- of Q methodology amongst psychologists tion in Q methodology, our main aim is interested in qualitative research. This will rather to address some of the common inevitably involve our paying attention to misunderstandings and misrepresentations Correspondence: Simon Watts, Psychology Division, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK. E-mail: [email protected] # 2005 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd 10.1191/1478088705qp022oa 68 S Watts and P Stenner that constitute obstacles to the use of one of separation of the two fundamental aspects the very first ‘alternative’ methods to have of Q methodology: the Q sorting procedure been developed in the context of psychol- (which is an original means of collecting ogy (Stephenson, 1935). Whilst, therefore, data) and the Q pattern analysis (which is the paper will provide a deal of practical effected by means of a by-person factor information about the conduct of Q metho- analysis). As we shall see, Stephenson dological research (such that a number of designed the former precisely in order to pertinent ‘how to do Q’ questions will be enable the legitimate application of the answered), it also aims to clarify how Q latter. Indeed, it was the effective combina- methodology can be understood and posi- tion of the two aspects Á/ the Q sort and the tioned in relation to some of the other Q (as opposed to R) technique factor analy- qualitative research methods that are cur- sis Á/ that allowed Stephenson to make rently available to the psychologist. In so subjectivity his principle research focus doing, we hope to bring ‘why do Q?’ ques- (the distinction between Q and R techni- tions to the fore. ques will be clarified below). Rogers gath- To illustrate some typical misunderstand- ered data in the form of Q sorts, but did not ings of Q methodology, we turn first to a subject those sorts to a by-person factor recent volume on psychological research analysis. Cyril Burt conducted by-person methods by Haslam and McGarty (2003). factor analyses on alternative forms of data We wish to stress that these misunderstand- (see Note 1 and Burt, 1937). Yet neither was ings are exceedingly common, and hence no doing Q methodology, because each em- special criticism should be directed at these ployed only one aspect of Stephenson’s particular authors. Indeed, it is to their procedure. credit that they discuss Q methodology at These misunderstandings alone are all, given that many texts on qualitative enough to ‘muddy the waters’ of Q metho- psychology do not (for example, Smith, dology. Sadly, however, its data analytic 2003). Nonetheless, their discussion illus- trates two of the most commonly committed and data collection procedures are also errors. The first involves a misattribution of frequently misrepresented. There is, for origins: ‘In its original form participants example, a tendency for Q methodological placed 100 cards with statements about factor analysis to be erroneously (mis)iden- personal characteristics into piles ranging tified with its more familiar R methodolo- from ‘‘not characteristic of me’’ to ‘‘very gical incarnation, and hence to be viewed as characteristic of me’’’ (Smith, 2003: 364). a ‘statistical method of data reduction that But this is not Q methodology in its ‘origi- identifies and combines sets of dependent nal’ form. In fact, Haslam and McGarty are variables that are measuring similar things’ instead referring to an unorthodox and (McGarty and Haslam, 2003: 387). As we somewhat problematic application of Q shall see, however, Q methodology makes methodology, which is typically associated no such psychometric claims. The method with Carl Rogers (1954), and which emerged employs a by-person factor analysis in order nearly 20 years after William Stephenson to identify groups of participants who make had originally devised the methodology. sense of (and who hence Q ‘sort’) a pool of The second common error (which was items in comparable ways. Nothing more also committed by Rogers) involves a complicated is at issue. Q methodology 69 The Q sort itself also comes to be mis- associated hypothetico-deductive methods represented as a passive ‘response dimen- that have long since claimed the name sion’ (McGarty and Haslam, 2003: 364) ‘science’ in psychology (and in many other upon which ‘statements’ are simply ranked related disciplines). It is also easy to avoid into piles, rather than as a dynamic medium Q methodology in the belief that it offers through which subjectivity can be actively nothing that one of a number of forms expressed (Stephenson, 1953). This limited of textual analysis cannot do better and and overly passive conceptualization of the in a more straightforwardly ‘qualitative’ Q sort once again emerges from Carl Rogers’ fashion (Willig, 2001). Discourse analysis application. Rogers used a Q sort composed (Potter and Wetherell, 1987), narrative ana- of statements about personal characteristics lysis (Crossley, 2000) and interpretative as a means of providing a standard measure phenomenological analysis (Smith, 1996), of self, of ideal self, and of the distance for example, may seem to offer more pala- between them. Yet, for the dedicated Q table alternatives in this regard. methodologist, a completed Q sort indicates It would nonetheless be unfortunate were only that a set of items have been differ- any qualitative researcher to reject Q meth- entially valued by a specific participant odology for either of these reasons. It makes according to some face valid and subjective little sense, for example, as Harre´ (2004) has criterion. This is not a measurement (for recently suggested within these pages, to reasons which will become apparent). avoid all forms of mathematical and quanti- Rogers’ approach may have its own merits, tative representation (or to develop a knee- therefore, but the image it creates is none- jerk aversion to science) simply because theless unhelpful for Q methodology, inas- they have often been poorly employed by much as it thoroughly confuses the R psychologists. Qualitative methodologists methodological ambition for researcher-led have rightly challenged the currently extant objective measurements (or psychometrics) ‘scientific’ or hypothetico-deductive ap- with the Q methodological pursuit of parti- proach in psychology, but (and despite its cipant-led subjective expressions and view- quantitative content) it is important to points. recognize that Stephenson’s Q methodology Such confusions could easily be avoided was actually performing a similar function (and we hope this paper will make a long before any significant qualitative tradi- significant contribution in this regard). We tion had been established in the discipline admit, however, that they result in part (Stephenson, 1935). from the fact that Q methodology’s quanti- In fact, Q methodology was designed for tative features render it a highly unusual the very purpose of challenging the dated, qualitative research method (Curt, 1994; Newtonian logic of ‘testing’ that continues Watts and Stenner, 2003a). The method is to predominate in psychology. It also of- actually qualiquantological (see Stenner fered an early critique of the cognitive and Stainton Rogers, 2004). This fact alone assertion that people can properly be may discourage some qualitative research- divided into a series of psychological ers from engaging with Q methodology, as ‘parts’. This same critique has, of course, many will have turned to qualitative meth- subsequently become a typical feature of ods precisely in order to escape the parti- ‘constructionist’ approaches in psychology cular strand of quantitative logic and the (see, for example, Harre´, 1999). In these 70 S Watts and P Stenner ways at least, Q methodology is a typically Stephenson, 1953). Yet many

Load more