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 inter- pretation; 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 qualitative qualitative and a very critical method. The methods are equally capable of such ana- surprise, perhaps, is that it achieves its lyses and repertory grid studies provide critical stance through the embrace (rather further serious competition in the domain than the rejection) of many natural scienti- of the personal construct (Smith, 1995). The fic assumptions. Indeed, having gained case-study approach is, however, not a doctorates in both physics and psychology, typical application of Q methodology, espe- Stephenson actually based his ‘challenge’ to cially as it has come to be employed within the Newtonian tradition in psychology on (primarily British and social) psychology epistemological and ontological presump- (see Stainton Rogers et al., 1995). In this tions (as well as mathematics) that were guise, Q methodology ordinarily adopts a more familiarly associated with the multiple-participant format and is most quantum mechanics of physics (see Watts often deployed in order to explore (and to and Stenner, 2003a; Stephenson, 1936a,b, make sense of) highly complex and socially 1988/89 for a full discussion of these contested concepts and subject matters issues). Q methodology duly lends support from the point of view of the group of to Harre´’s (2004: 4) recent assertion that it is participants involved (Stainton Rogers, ‘the qualitative techniques and the meta- 1995; Watts and Stenner, 2003a). It does physical presumptions which back them not do this in a thematic fashion, nor does it that come much closer to meeting the ideals focus on the viewpoints of specific indivi- of the natural sciences’. duals. It should be no surprise, therefore, to Neither should one mistakenly believe find that this typical form of Q methodology that Q methodology does the same job as disappoints when themes and/or indivi- any of the other textual methods available duals are the primary research targets. to the psychologist. Of course, one must To properly appreciate Q methodology, immediately acknowledge that this is true we need instead to recognize that it is of all the textual methods, which having different emphases necessarily perform sub- essentially a gestalt procedure (Good, tly different tasks. It is apparent, for exam- 2000). This gestalt emphasis means it can ple, that some of these methods prefer a never ‘break-up’ its subject matter into a ‘paradigmatic’ (or thematic) form of analy- series of constituent themes (which imme- sis, whilst others take a more holistic or diately distinguishes Q from various forms ‘narrative’ approach (see Polkinghorne, of discursive or interpretative phenomeno- 1995). In the vast majority of cases, how- logical analyses). What it can do, however, ever, it is the machinations of everyday talk, is show us the primary ways in which these the specific situation or person, and the themes are being interconnected or other- generation (and explication) of individual wise related by a group of participants. In viewpoints which constitute the primary other words, it can show us the particular research targets. None of this is ordinarily combinations or configurations of themes true of Q methodology. which are preferred by the participant This is not to deny that Q method- group. This openly holistic approach ology can be, and has been, effectively suggests that Q methodology is most closely employed as a powerful technique for single related to Crossley’s (2000) ‘narrative case studies of various kinds (Smith, 2001; analysis’. Q methodology 71

Nevertheless, it differs from narrative sues constructions and representations of a analysis in at least three ways. First, and social kind (Moscovici, 1981). most obviously, it does not deal with parti- These differences allow Q methodology cipants’ own discourse as such, but invites to offer the psychologist a quite unique form participants to engage in the unusual task of of qualitative analysis. Indeed, in accenting relating (in a complex and in-depth way) the group and their shared viewpoints, this with a set of prepared items. This ‘unusual form of analysis provides an ideal (and task’ evidently violates the cherished prin- noticeably more macroscopic) complement ciple of ‘naturalism’. One can counter this to qualitative approaches which highlight argument, however, inasmuch as the very the ‘theme’ and/or ‘the individual’ in psy- idea of ‘naturally occurring discourse’ is chology. In the remainder of this paper, we highly problematic (Potter, 1997). There is want to demonstrate this complementarity also no a priori reason to assume that at work. In so doing, we hope also to allow unfamiliar activities cannot yield useful the interested reader to carry out effective Q insights. Of course, qualitative researchers methodological studies. should never underestimate the impact of research context on findings. Neither should they ‘leap’ from findings to unwar- History, theory and statistics: ranted knowledge claims. Yet it would be ‘inverting’ the tradition equally wrong were they to misrecognize ‘naturalism’ (or any method or methodolo- Q methodology was originally established gical rule) as some kind of absolute standard via a simple adaptation of the quantitative (Watts, 2000). technique known as factor analysis. This Secondly, Q methodology is not well adaptation was first introduced by William suited to dealing with the unfolding tem- Stephenson in 1935. In this introduction porality of narratives. Narrative analysis and subsequent papers, Stephenson indi- actively pursues this temporality and then cated that the conventional factor analytic examines the resultant stories in terms of procedure could also be ‘inverted’: their temporal structure (e.g., beginning, Factor analysis ...is concerned with a selected middle, end) and function. Q methodology population of n individuals each of whom has forsakes this important form of analysis in been measured in m tests. The (m)(m/1)/2 order to pursue a ‘snap shot’ or temporally intercorrelations for these m variables are sub- frozen image of a connected series of subject jected to ...factor analysis. The technique, how- ever, can also be inverted. We begin with a positions (or ‘view-points’). It then exam- population of n different tests (or essays, pic- ines these (methodologically frozen) posi- tures, traits or other measurable material), each tions in terms of their overall structure, of which is ...scaled by m individuals. The function and implications. And thirdly, (m)(m/1)/2 intercorrelations are then factorised whereas a narrative analysis focuses on the in the usual way (Stephenson, 1936b: 344Á/45). narrative of specific individuals, Q metho- Such an inversion may appear mundane, dology typically focuses on the range of but it actually initiates a series of quite viewpoints that are favoured (or which are dramatic methodological departures from otherwise ‘shared’) by specific groups of the psychological tradition (Stephenson, participants. In other words, the typical Q 1936b). First, it is the ‘n different tests or methodological study very deliberately pur- measurable materials’, not the participant 72 S Watts and P Stenner group, that become the study sample. Sec- psychology based upon ‘individual differ- ondly, the ‘variables’ are no longer tests ences in type’ (Stephenson, 1936a: 205), or hypothesized traits, but the various per- Stephenson never truly managed to estab- sons who take part in the study. In other lish his Q technique within British psychol- words, persons become the variables of ogy. Meeting strong resistance to theoretical interest in an inverted (or ‘Q’) study. Such change and having failed to claim a Chair at studies actively explore ‘correlations be- Oxford, Stephenson departed for the USA tween persons or whole aspects of persons’ (and posts outside psychology) in 1947. (Stephenson, 1936b: 345). As a consequence In recent years, however, similar concerns of these changes, it is also persons (not tests, have again been expressed within psychol- traits or other types of variables) that load ogy by a growing band of qualitative and onto the emergent factors of an inverted critical researchers (see, for example, Harre´ factor analytic study. and Gillett, 1994). Like Stephenson, propo- These methodological changes are highly nents of a qualitative psychology tend to significant, then, in the sense that they value curiosity and to promote discovery distinguish Q methodology from almost and understanding in preference to the logic every other popular psychometric techni- of testing. They have also questioned the que used in psychology (these are known very existence of the unobservable entities collectively as ‘R’ methodologies). They are that psychological tests invariably set out to also indicative of possible theoretical de- 1 measure and have duly rejected the subse- partures from the psychological tradition. quent employment of these entities as ex- Stephenson was indeed very concerned planatory devices (see Potter and Wetherell, about the unremitting dominance of hy- 1987). The ideal constructs of psycho- pothetico-deductive methods within psy- logy are, indeed, less than ideal. Couple chology and the concomitant neglect of these conclusions with the centrality what he considered to be its proper subject that Stephenson’s inverted technique matter: subjectivity. The following quote is affords to persons (in their ‘whole aspect’), one of a number that might have been used as well as its stated intention to pursue for illustrative purposes: ‘empirical discoveries of a qualitative kind’ The hallmark of sound scientific procedure (Stephenson, 1936a: 205), and one is once nowadays, it seems, is to assert hypotheses and again reminded of the close relationship to confirm predictions ...There is need, how- that connects Stephenson’s method with the ever, for care and discernment in these matters ... Psychology ...has by no means modern qualitative tradition in psychology achieved a sophisticated theoretical status, with (Harre´, 1999; Watts and Stenner, 2003a,b). ideal constructs such as physics has fashioned It should be no surprise, therefore, to find for itself. The situations in psychology, therefore, that Q methodology has somewhat belat- call for an attitude of curiosity, as well as one of edly found a ‘psychological’ home for itself hypothetico-deductive logic ...We should be making discoveries rather than testing our rea- within that qualitative tradition. It has soning (Stephenson, 1953: 151). informed social constructionist studies (see, for example, Kitzinger, 1987; Stenner Sadly, Stephenson’s warnings went largely and Marshall, 1995; 1999), been adopted by unheeded. Despite initial optimism and his feminist researchers (Kitzinger, 1986; Senn, belief that the inverted factor technique 1996), and has even spawned its own would allow the development of a new theoretical or ‘critical polytextualist’ take Q methodology 73 on social psychology (Curt, 1994; Stenner (along a standardized ranking distribution and Eccleston, 1994). Q methodology or continuum) by a group of participants. has now been successfully applied to They were to do this according to their own many diverse psychological topics like, for likes and dislikes and hence as a function of example, child abuse (Stainton Rogers and the personal value they assigned to each Stainton Rogers, 1992), jealousy (Stenner item. The items would thus be ranked and Stainton Rogers, 1998), I.B.S. (Stenner according to (what Stephenson called) their et al., 2000), attitudes to environmental ‘psychological significance’ for any given issues (Capdevila and Stainton Rogers, participant (see Burt and Stephenson, 2000) and love (Stenner and Watts, 1998). 1939). Those items of great psychological In so doing, it has more than demonstrated significance would evidently be ‘ranked or its ‘sense-making’ capacity and ability to scored highly, whilst those of little relative find qualitative ‘order’ even in domains significance ...[would be] ranked or scored where variability and disparity seem initi- lowly’ (Stephenson, 1936a: 347). The gen- ally to have prevailed (see, for example, eral idea was to render a formerly hetero- Watts and Stenner, forthcoming). geneous set of items ‘homogeneous with Of course, Stephenson had no such track respect to ...[a particular] individual’ record or qualitative tradition on which to (p. 346), such that a single and gestalt rely as he developed Q methodology. configuration of items emerged. Neither would the discipline allow him As we have already implied, this sort of the luxury Á/ now afforded to many qualita- ranking procedure has some drawbacks for tive psychologists Á/ of turning to various a method which now claims itself as a critical philosophers as a means of securing qualitative ‘alternative’, insofar as it can theoretical support (Brown and Stenner, make Q methodology look too much like 2001; Stenner, 1993; 1996; 1998). It is the tests, scales and questionnaires it pur- perhaps understandable in such circum- ports to challenge. Yet the role of the stances, to find that Stephenson instead participants in Q methodology, the nature turned to Freud for theoretical sustenance, of the gathered data, and the way in which especially given that psychoanalytic no- those data are subsequently interpreted, tions still permeate and influence a deal of could not be more different from contexts qualitative work in psychology (for exam- in which testing and measurement are ple, Billig, 1997; Parker, 1997a,b). Indeed, prioritized. It is well documented, for ex- the basic Freudian premise of pleasure/ ample, that test procedures necessitate a unpleasure lies at the very heart of the Q certain a priori imposition of meaning. methodological procedure (see Stephenson, Such meaning must effectively be ‘built

1983) Á/ a procedure which, perhaps equally into’ the measurement instrument itself understandably, actually seems to resemble (see Maraun, 1998). Each separate item in many quantitative methods more closely a conventional attitude scale is assigned an than it does its qualitative counterparts. exact predefined meaning and is henceforth This procedure involves a heterogeneous considered to represent a partial measure of set or sample of items (ordinarily a set of the otherwise imperceptible psychological statements about a particular subject matter, construct that the scale sets out to measure. although pictures, objects, and so on, might To complete such a test is to be subjected to also be employed) being ranked or scaled measurement. The resultant data will be 74 S Watts and P Stenner treated as an independent series of absolute tions that they produce) which are measurements of you, and will be inter- exemplified and represented, not by differ- preted only in relation to the operational ent subsets of the presented items (as would definition (of the psychological construct) be the case in conventional factor analysis), that the researcher has chosen to employ. but by all the presented items configured in The possibility that differences of kind, of different but characteristic ways. The mean- meaning, interpretation or ‘quality’ may (be ing and significance of these configurations at issue or) have informed responses to the must then be ‘attributed a posteriori test is rarely considered. Indeed, qualitative through interpretation rather than through researchers rightly chastise these methods a priori postulation’ (Brown, 1980: 54). This for this lack of consideration (Potter and is the basis of the Q ‘method’. In the Wetherell, 1987). sections which follow, we shall discuss Q methodology, on the other hand, the mechanics of this procedure. neither tests its participants nor imposes meanings a priori. Instead, it asks its parti- cipants to decide what is ‘meaningful’ and The generation of a Q set or ‘item hence what does (and what does not) have sampling’ value and significance from their perspec- tive. A series of absolute measurements The Q set is the collection of ‘heterogeneous cannot result from this process. Instead, a items’ which the participants will sort. single set of essentially relative evaluations There are many possibilities in this context. (and hence a gestalt configuration of items) Stephenson (1936a), for example, per- is produced. These gestalt configurations formed early studies looking at people’s have been made by the participants, on the predilection for vases (using a Q set of basis of criteria which are personal to them vases) and the hedonic value of certain (i.e., that which they consider to be ‘psy- odours (using a Q set of bottled fragrances). chologically significant’), and it is these He also studied issues of personality by gestalt configurations which constitute the asking participants to value a population of research target of Q methodology. moods (e.g., cheerful, elated, affectionate, It would, given the rationale presented etc.) as descriptors of their own personality. above, be quite pointless (and a violation of Such single word stimuli work very well the procedure) for the Q methodologist to (see Watts, 2002). It is more usual, however, strictly predefine the meaning of the items in a qualitative and psychological context, presented to a participant, for any given for a Q set to be constituted of statements, item can evidently take on its ‘psychologi- each making a different (but nonetheless cal significance’ (and hence its meaning for recognizable) assertion about the appropri- a participant) only in the context of an ate subject matter. overall configuration. Being the intended In keeping with its rejection of hypothe- research target, it is these overall configura- tico-deductive logic, it is not surprising to tions (not test results or measures) which find that the formulation of specific hypoth- are then intercorrelated and factor analysed eses is typically inappropriate in Q metho- in a Q study (see Stephenson, 1936a). This dology. As is true of many other qualitative produces a set of factors (onto which parti- methods (and in response to its factor cipants load on the basis of the configura- analytic heritage), Q methodology is primar- Q methodology 75 ily an exploratory technique. It cannot few hours or at most weeks involved in prove hypotheses. It can, however, bring administering the Q-sort)’ (Curt, 1994: 120). a sense of coherence to research questions In practice, the final Q set can be elicited that have many, potentially complex from any number of sources: by extensive and socially contested answers (Stainton reference to the academic literature (which Rogers, 1995). generally identifies and breaks down a The research question plays a very subject matter into its key ‘themes’), from important part in any Q methodological both literary and popular texts (magazines, study. This is because it dictates the nature television programmes, etc.) from formal and structure of the Q set to be generated. interviews, informal discussions and often It will also act as a ‘condition of instruction’ via pilot studies. A complete set of test or for the participants, and will hence guide scale items can even be used to create a the actual sorting process. It is important, ready-made Q set (see, for example, Watts, therefore, that the research question (or a 2002). In the end, the exact nature of the close approximation to it) is clearly defined sampling task is of little consequence pro- before the study proper commences. The vided that the final Q set can justifiably research question must be straightforward claim to be ‘broadly representative’ of the and clearly stated (containing a single pro- relevant opinion domain, and this aim position only), and the Q set should enable might clearly be satisfied in a number of participants to respond to the question in different ways. an effective fashion. If, for example, the The exact size of the final Q set will, to a research question is ‘What is partnership great extent be dictated by the subject love?’, all the statements of the Q set must matter itself. Generally speaking, however, represent possible responses to that ques- a Q set of somewhere between 40 and 80 tion. If participants are asked to describe statements is considered satisfactory (cf. their current love relationship, then all the Curt, 1994; Stainton Rogers, 1995). Any statements must represent possible descrip- less than this and issues of adequate cover- tions of love relationships, and so on. age may be a problem. Any more and the Whatever the research question, the Q set sorting process can become unnecessarily must always be broadly representative of unwieldy. It is always best, however, to the opinion domain at issue. The generation initially generate an overly large number of of potential statements need not be theory- statements, which can then be refined and driven, however, as would be customary in reduced through processes of piloting.2 the design of a test or questionnaire. In- Even with effective piloting, however, stead, it is carried out as a sampling task. As there is a sense in which a Q set can never

Curt (1994: 128Á/9) suggests, this is ‘one really be complete (as there is always ‘some- place where Q-method is noticeably a craft’. thing else’ that might potentially be said). In common with other crafts, the Q metho- Yet this is actually of little import, for the dologist must carry out this task skilfully, procedural detail of Q methodology ensures patiently and with an appropriate applica- that a Q set only needs to contain a tion of rigour. As a result, the generation of representative condensation of information. the final Q set can often ‘take up the bulk of This is because the main concern in a Q the time and the effort involved (often methodological context is not the Q set several months of work in contrast to the itself (which is, in any event, not consid- 76 S Watts and P Stenner ered to possess any specific meaning prior It becomes very obvious, therefore, not to the sorting process), but the relative likes only that the statement ‘love is an intense and dislikes, meanings, interpretations and commitment’ contains a condensation of overall understandings which inform the potential information, but also that this participants’ engagement with the Q set. In condensation was unfolded, unpacked and practice, the qualitative detail of a Q meth- otherwise expressed in very different ways odological study actually gets filled out as as the participant group engaged with the the study proceeds (rather than being ‘can- presented items (and notice that we have celled out’ as can often happen in the completely ignored the participants who context of a test), with the subjective view- gave this statement a more lowly ranking). points of the participant group being central This unfolding of meaning can be observed to this process. across every statement of the Q set. One can An example of this principle may be appreciate, therefore, how qualitative detail useful. Watts and Stenner (forthcoming) proliferates and ‘fills out’ as a Q study used a Q set statement which suggested proceeds. that ‘love is an intense commitment to a In taking advantage of these processes of partner’. The accuracy of this ‘hypothesis’ participant engagement, Q methodology ex- is confirmed by the academic literature (see, ploits what Harvey (1997: 146Á/47) has for example, Fehr, 1988; Sternberg, 1986). called ‘one of psychology’s most basic and Yet such confirmation says little about the well established principles’, namely, our meaning of commitment, nor does it tell us desire to structure and to ascribe meaning how (or indeed ‘where’) the notion of to all ‘impinging stimuli and events’. In- commitment fits into people’s wider expec- deed, it is these very desires which ensure tations and understandings of love. the robustness of Q methodology, as a group In the study which followed, participants of participants will ultimately make vigor- generally considered this ‘commitment’ ous attempts to impose their viewpoints statement to be a very good descriptor of partnership love (such that it was frequently onto any set of statements they are given. ‘ranked highly’). It was possible to observe, In other words, even a ‘less than ideal ... however, that it was ranked highly for a [Q set], because it invites active configura- variety of quite different reasons: (a) be- tion by participants (‘effort after meaning’), cause some participants viewed partnership may still produce useful results’ (Stainton love as a long-term, practical style of com- Rogers, 1995: 183). If a Q set is at least mitment, such that ‘intensity’ implied a ‘broadly representative’ of its subject matter, thoroughgoing and enduring provision of therefore, the engagement of the participant support; (b) because partnership love was group with that Q set (and the resultant viewed as a short-term sexual and emo- configurations) will afford a general over- tional commitment, such that ‘intensity’ view of relevant viewpoints ‘on the subject’ came to imply a total immersion in passion; (which is all that is required for the pur- and even (c) because the commitment of poses of Q methodology). We will provide a love was feared, such that ‘intensity’ was practical demonstration of this process later experienced in terms of the placing of one’s in the paper using the example Q set (about self, emotions and trust in the hands of ‘young offenders and their punishments’) another person, and so on. outlined in Table 1. Q methodology 77

The ranking procedure or ‘Q sorting’ the example, two items at the /6 position, three at /5, and so on). For this reason, it is

The Q methodological ranking procedure Á/ also known as a ‘forced’ distribution. This

Q sorting Á/ is what Brown (1980: 17) calls apparent forcing (or restriction) of partici- ‘the technical means whereby data are pants may alarm some qualitative research- obtained for factoring’. In practice, it is ers. Yet such concerns are largely simply a convenient means of facilitating misplaced. It is, in fact, quite possible to the (evaluations and) rankings of the parti- employ different forms of distribution in the cipants. For reasons of simplicity and prag- context of a Q methodological study, in- matism, participants are not ordinarily cluding completely ‘free’ distributions, required to carry out a complete (1 to n) which (as the name suggests) allow partici- rank ordering of the Q set items. Instead, pants to assign any number of items to any they simply assign each item a ranking of the available ranking positions.3 position in a fixed quasi-normal distribu- Yet Brown (1980: 288Á/89) has presented tion (illustrated in Figure 1 below) and an array of statistical comparisons which ‘along a simple, face-valid dimension, for demonstrate that ‘distribution effects are example most agree to most disagree, most virtually nil’. This means that the chosen characteristic to most uncharacteristic, most distribution actually makes no noticeable attractive to most unattractive’ (Stainton contribution to the factors which emerge Rogers, 1995: 180). An 11 or a 13 point from a particular study (and this is the main scale is generally employed, possible rank- reason why a complete rank ordering of the ing values ranging from /6 or /5 for items items is also unnecessary). Contradictory as that are, say, ‘most agreeable’ in the view it may seem, therefore, a forced distribution of a particular participant, through ‘zero’, to is actually no more restrictive than a ‘free’

/5 or /6 for items that are considered distribution. If Q methodologists generally ‘most disagreeable’. prefer the forced distribution, therefore, it Figure 1 demonstrates that the distribu- is because it delimits unnecessary work tion also dictates the number of items that and because it is convenient for their can be assigned to each ranking position (in participants.

–6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

[2] [2] [3] [3] [4] [4] [5] [5] [6] [6] [6] [6] [8] –6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 Most disagree Most agree

Figure 1 Example Fixed Quasi-Normal Distribution. Ranking values range from /6, through ‘zero’, to /6. Numbers in [brackets] indicate the number of items that can be assigned to any particular rank. A total of 60 items can be accommodated in the distribution illustrated. 78 S Watts and P Stenner

We appreciate, however, that such argu- [sorting] options as there are people in the ments will not persuade those who consider world’. In other words, Q methodology any type of ranking procedure or distribu- pursues overall item configurations and its tion to be overly restrictive. Concerns are procedure renders a hyperastronomical also frequently expressed about further re- number of such configurations available to strictions imposed by the Q methodological its participants. It is difficult to see how this procedure, particularly the provision of might sensibly be construed as restrictive. a pre-designed Q set. There is, after all, As Brown (1980: 267) rightly concludes, always a finite number of items in the Q set Q methodology leaves more than ‘sufficient and it is the researcher who has provided room for individuality [to be expressed]’. those items (albeit on the basis of careful In expressing their individuality via the sampling processes). These and associated Q sorting procedure, a participant will arguments often seem to culminate in the ultimately be required to allocate all the Q belief that ‘you can only ever get back what set items an appropriate ranking position in you put in’ in a Q methodological context. the distribution provided. A clear and Once again, however, we would argue ‘gestalt’ configuration of items will duly that such objections are misplaced, for emerge. If the participant is happy with they necessarily overlook the basic aims this configuration, the various item num- and premises of the method. First, they (at bers (and hence the ‘form’ of the overall least partially) rely on the premise that a configuration) should be recorded (as they statement like ‘love is an intense commit- are in Figure 2). ment’ must have a single, predefined mean- The next task for the researcher involves ing and hence that it could only ever be the gathering of supporting information interpreted in a single way. Yet we have from the participant. Open-ended com- already shown that this (essentially R meth- ments are duly requested. This can be odological) assumption is not relevant to done via a brief post-sorting interview Q methodology. The singular ‘putting in’ of (which can then be transcribed and sub- this statement does not prevent our ‘getting jected to analysis), or simply via some form back’ multiple and qualitatively diverse of ‘response booklet’ or post-sorting ques- responses. The logic of this objection is tionnaire. Such post hoc analyses ordina- faulty. The same interview question need rily investigate: (a) how the participant has not automatically elicit the same response interpreted the items given especially high and the same is true of items in a Q set. or low rankings in their Q sort, and what Secondly, these objections fail to notice implications those items have in the context that it is overall item configurations which of their overall viewpoint; (b) if there are represent the research target of Q metho- any additional items they might have in- dology. With this in mind, Brown (1980) cluded in their own Q set (what they are, presents a series of analyses which demon- why they are important, and so on); and (c) strate (because of the factorial nature of the if there are any further items about which sorting procedure) that a study which em- the participant would like to pass comment, ployed a Q set of only 33 statements and a which they have not understood, or which quite limited (/4 to /4) ranking distribu- they simply found confusing. Such open- tion would make available to its partici- ended comments are a vital part of the Q pants ‘roughly 11 000 times as many methodological procedure, for they will aid Q methodology 79

–6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –10+1+2+3+4+5+6 41 01 39 53 23 02 34 10 35 57 05 50 29 44 31 18 43 12 30 56 03 59 09 28 40 47 16 14 60 15 45 46 11 58 22 25 52 [2] 51 21 32 36 55 13 42 04 33 [2] [3] 17 24 48 49 51 26 37 [3] [4] 06 38 08 20 19 [4] [5] 27 [5] [6] 07 [6] [6] [6] [8] –6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –10+1+2+3+4+5+6 Most disagree Most agree

Figure 2 Example Completed ‘Q Sort’ Configuration. Items 29 and 47 have been allocated rankings of /6 which suggests that they represent the ‘most agreeable’ items in the view of this participant. Moving from right to left in the configuration, the items are becoming less and less agreeable until we arrive at items 41 and 44 which (having been ranked at /6) are evidently considered to be the ‘most disagreeable’ items in the Q set. the later interpretation of the sorting con- Yet the employment of very large num- figurations (and viewpoints) captured by bers of participants in a Q methodological each of the emergent factors. context can itself be problematic. Indeed, such an approach can easily negate many of the subtle nuances, complexities, and hence The participant group many of the essential qualities contained in the data. This is obviously counterproduc- Large numbers of participants are not re- tive in the context of a qualitative techni- quired for a Q methodological study. que. Those seeking to publish in Q methodology aims to reveal (and to mainstream psychological journals will explicate) some of the main viewpoints also find that statistical arguments stand in that are favoured by a particular group of the way of studies which try to use ‘too 4 participants. It probably does this most many’ participants. In keeping to smaller effectively when the participant group numbers, therefore, an emphasis on quality contains between 40 and 60 individuals is maintained, pattern and consistency can (Stainton Rogers, 1995). This is only a ‘rule- still be detected within the data, and the of-thumb’, however, for highly effective prospects of publication are also increased. Q studies can be carried out with far fewer As is so often true, however, size is not all participants. A salient viewpoint might, of important. The exact constitution of the course, be revealed by reference to a single participant group must also be considered. participant. If, on the other hand, we want In some contexts it may be sensible to to demonstrate that this viewpoint is shared strategically sample participants, especially by several persons in ‘the group’, and hence if they seem likely to express a particularly to make sense of our subject matter (rather interesting or pivotal viewpoint. One can, than a specific individual) on the basis of for example, carry out Q methodological such a consistency, we must evidently move studies which investigate particular events beyond the single case. Á/ a specific football match perhaps Á/ in 80 S Watts and P Stenner which case one ought to ensure that Q sorts on the basis of the item configurations they are gathered from as many of the obviously have created. Hence, two participants that pertinent demographic groups as possible. load onto the same factor will have created Both sets of fans, for example, both sets of very similar item configurations. Each players, the ball boys perhaps, neutral factor duly captures a different item config- spectators, the referee and his assistants, uration which is nonetheless shared by (and members of the press, and so on. which is characteristic of) the participants Where Q studies aim to investigate parti- who load onto that factor. cular concepts, however, participants may There are now several dedicated Q meth- not divide so obviously along lines pre- odological packages available which allow scribed by demographic characteristics. In the appropriate analyses to be conducted. such cases, it is better to avoid too many PCQ for Windows is probably the best assumptions a priori, particularly where commercial product available (Stricklin these assumptions are based on precon- and Almeida, 2001). PQ Method (Schmolck, ceived demographic notions. The whole 2002), on the other hand, does the job point of Q methodology is to allow indivi- effectively and is available as a free down- duals to categorize themselves on the basis load from the internet.5 Such dedicated of the item configurations they produce packages are to be recommended. They (and hence via the viewpoints they ex- facilitate data input, automatically generate press). Its function is exploratory. In such the initial by-person correlation matrix, and circumstances, it is probably sensible to rely make processes of factor extraction, rotation on more opportunistic sampling techni- and estimation very straightforward. ques, at least in the first instance, or until Despite this automation, however, the a series of Q methodological explorations researcher still has to make some important (and their emergent factors) provide empiri- decisions as the analysis proceeds. Different cal justification for the belief that certain types of factor analysis (and hence factor viewpoints ‘belong’ exclusively to specific extraction) exist, as do different methods of demographic groups. factor rotation, and there often seems little reason for preferring one system over another. To further complicate matters, tra- Statistical analysis (factor extraction, ditional factor techniques do not automati- rotation and estimation) cally resolve themselves into a single, correct (by which we imply ‘mathematically Q methodology employs a by-person corre- superior’) solution, as would the more lation and factor analytic procedure. Hence, recently developed principal components it is the overall configurations produced by (PCA) or cluster analytic techniques. This is the participants that are intercorrelated and particularly pertinent in a Q methodological factor analysed. The initial correlation ma- context, as the very oldest of the factor trix duly reflects the relationship of each (Q techniques (known as the centroid or sort) configuration with every other (Q sort) simple summation method) is generally configuration (not the relationship of each preferred. item with every other item). To subject this For this reason, dedicated Q methodolo- matrix to factor analysis is to produce a set gical packages tend to offer the centroid of factors onto which the participants load method as their default choice (and, indeed, Q methodology 81

PCQ for Windows offers no alternative). it also makes sense for us to prefer this This method offers a potentially infinite technique. As an additional advantage from number of rotated solutions. Indeed, it is a qualitative perspective, the varimax pro- exactly this openness and indeterminacy cedure is also highly reliant ‘on the topo- which appeals to the Q methodologist, as graphical features of the correlation matrix’ it leaves them free to consider any data set (Brown, 1980: 238), which affords a wel- from a variety of perspectives, before select- come priority to the input of the participant ing the rotated solution which they consider group on the emergent factor structure. This to be the most appropriate and theoretically prioritization of participant input is of informative. Having said that, both authors course a shared feature of many qualitative have also analysed Q data using PCA research techniques in psychology (Willig, and have found the results to be equally 2001). In the end, however, the technique of satisfying. rotation employed is always going to be The accent on theoretical discretion dis- dependent ‘on the nature of the data [gath- cussed above has nonetheless led many ered] and upon the aims of the investigator’ Q methodologists to be critical of modern (Brown, 1980: 238) and there is ultimately factor rotation techniques (such as varimax) no substitute for careful consideration in which are perceived to reveal only the most the context of a particular study. mathematically (not necessarily the most The next step is then to decide which theoretically) informative solution. Such factors should be selected for interpretation. practitioners retain Stephenson’s preference A standard requirement is to select only for theoretical (judgemental or ‘by-hand’) those factors with an eigenvalue in excess of rotation techniques (see, for example, 1.00.6 This is undoubtedly a somewhat Brown and Robyn, 2003). Why, argue the arbitrary criterion in the context of Q meth- enthusiasts for hand-rotation, let a compu- odology. It is well known, for example, that ter decide which point of view to adopt on several factors with eigenvalues in excess of one’s data when an infinite number are 1.00 might be extracted even from random possible? Whilst this argument Á/ which data, as random patterns will always arise has been known to cause vertigo in those and be detected. On the other hand, it is a who hope to find certainty in statistics Á/ is generally accepted means of safeguarding undoubtedly valid, in practice many Q factor reliabilities and factors which go methodologists (like many more conven- below this minimum will ultimately serve tional factor analysts) prefer the simplicity no data-reductive purpose as they explain and reliability of the varimax procedure. less of the overall study variance than The varimax procedure is also consonant would any single Q sort.7 A second stan- with one of our typical aims in using Q dard requirement is that an interpretable methodology: namely, to reveal the range of Q methodological factor must ordinarily viewpoints that are favoured by our partici- have at least two Q sorts that load signifi- pant group. Given this aim, it makes theo- cantly upon it alone.8 Such significantly retical sense for us to pursue a rotated loading Q sorts are called ‘factor exemplars’ solution which maximizes the amount of as they exemplify the shared item pattern or variance explained by the extracted factors configuration that is characteristic of that and as the varimax procedure automatically factor. There might, in certain circum- seeks this mathematically superior solution, stances, be a theoretical justification for 82 S Watts and P Stenner accepting and interpreting factors with only factor arrays (giving a basic indication of one exemplar, but the interest in shared the relationships between the factors). A orientations nonetheless leads most Q re- wealth of other information may also be searchers to adopt the more stringent criter- included. The most important aspect of the ion outlined above. study file will nonetheless be the factor When, as is obviously typical, a factor is arrays themselves. These will be found in loaded by more than one exemplar, a factor a table, ‘Item or Factor Scores’. Table 1 is estimate is generated through a procedure of presented in a typical format. weighted averaging (this occurs automati- The data summarized in Table 1 are taken cally in programmes such as PCQ and PQ from a Q study about young offenders and Method). In effect, the Q sorts of all parti- their punishment. It was carried out by an cipants that load significantly on a given undergraduate student at University College factor are merged together to yield a single Northampton and is reproduced here with (factor exemplifying) Q sort which serves as blemishes intact. It nonetheless provides a an interpretable ‘best-estimate’ of the pat- clear example of Q methodology at work tern or item configuration which charac- and is illustrative of the method’s efficacy terizes that factor. Confounded Q sorts and effectiveness even in the hands of an (which load significantly on two or more inexperienced user. We shall demonstrate factors) are excluded from this weighted 9 this effectiveness by producing a brief inter- averaging procedure. The endpoint of the pretation of the study’s first factor (A). statistical analysis is duly reached when The interpretative task in Q methodology each of the selected factors is represented by involves the production of a series of its own best-estimate Q sort or ‘factor array’ summarizing accounts, each of which ex- (naturally, factors with a single exemplar plicates the viewpoint being expressed by a will be forced to use that individual’s own particular factor. These accounts are con- Q sort as a best-estimate). These factor structed by careful reference to the position- arrays or best-estimate Q sorts can then be ing and overall configuration of the items in subjected to interpretation. the relevant ‘best-estimate’ factor arrays. The obvious place to begin such delibera- tions is at the two ‘poles’ of the Factor A Factor interpretation configuration. Here one finds the items Factor A (or, to be exact, those participants The study files provided by dedicated Q whose Q sorts exemplify factor A) feels methodological packages can be confusing particularly strongly about. There is a strong for an uninitiated reader. They ordinarily belief, for example, that ‘young offenders provide a table which illustrates the load- have to be punished’ (as item 10 is ranked ings of all participant Q sorts on all ex- highly at the /4 position) and that they will tracted and rotated factors. Significant not ‘learn to behave properly’ unless they 10 loadings will be marked with a star (*). are (item 22 ranked at /3). Yet such punish- The eigenvalues and the percentage of the ment must ultimately be tailored to reflect study variance explained by each factor will both the seriousness of the crime (item 18 is also be provided, as will a table (normally ranked at /4) and the age of the offender entitled ‘Factor Correlations’) which indi- (item 06: /3). In keeping with this stand on cates the intercorrelations of the various age, Factor A also rejects the idea that young Q methodology 83

Table 1 Example item scores table for a study about the punishment of young offenders

Statements factors A B C D E

01 Current punishments are not severe enough to motivate change /2 /30/2 /2 02 Young offenders attend counselling for rewards not for rehabilitation /1 /1 /2 /1 /1 03 The death penalty is fair for young offenders who commit murder /40/2 /4 /4 04 It is legitimate for under 18’s to be tried as adults /3 /2 /200 05 Young offenders should be punished in other ways not prison /20/2 /20 06 Age is an important factor in the choice of a punishment type /3 /10/10 07 It is legitimate to punish parents for young offenders crimes 0 /4 /4 /3 /3 08 10 years old is the right age for criminal responsibility to begin 0 /1 /1 /3 /2 09 The age of criminal responsibility should be lower than 10 years /2 /3 /3 /20 10 Young offenders have to be punished /4 /4 /2 /4 /4 11 Young offenders should be treated less severely than adults 0 /200/2 12 Young offenders should be imprisoned with adults /4 /1 /4 /2 /4 13 Young offenders should receive attention and support /2 /3 /3 /20 14 Community service is a good way of punishing young offenders /10/1 /1 /1 15 Young offenders who commit murder should get life imprisonment /1 /4 /4 /1 /2 16 Electronic tagging is an effective way of punishing young offenders /1 /3 /1 /1 /1 17 Young offenders should repay their victim with manual work /30/1 /10 18 Punishments should reflect the seriousness of the crime /4 /1 /2 /4 /2 19 Convicted young offenders should be made to pay fines /1 /4 /1 /3 /3 20 Cautioning has no impact on the behaviour of young offenders /1 /100/3 21 Persistent young offenders should be taught a trade 0 /2 /3 /2 /1 22 If young offenders are not punished they won’t learn to behave /3 /2 /4 /3 /3 23 Punishments are not severe enough to deter young offenders 0 2 0 0 /4 24 Parents should be punished for minor crimes that their child commits /20/3 /4 /1 25 Young offenders should not have their IDs protected when they commit serious /2 /2 /1 /2 /2 crimes

This table indicates the rankings assigned to each item within each of the factor exemplifying Q sort (or item) configurations. Reading the table by column reveals the configuration (or comparative ranking) of items which characterizes a particular factor. In column A, for example, we can see that Factor A ranked item 01 at /2, item 02 at /1, and so on. Reading the table by row reveals the comparative ranking of a particular item across all the factors. In row 02, for example, we can see that item 01 was ranked at /2 by Factor A, at /3 by Factor B, and so on. offenders should be tried as adults or offenders should be punished for their imprisoned with adults (items 04 and 12 child’s crimes. This item is ranked at ‘zero’ are ranked at /3 and /4 respectively). by Factor A. Such a display of indifference Young offenders should not have to carry and seeming neutrality surely indicates that out manual work to repay their victims, nor this item is of little importance to the should the death penalty be considered viewpoint being expressed? Yet when con- for underage murderers (item 17: /3, item sideration is given to the ranking of this

03: /4). item by the other factors in the study (/4,

One can observe that a relatively clear /4, /3 and /3 respectively), the zero and unitary viewpoint is already beginning awarded by Factor A suddenly becomes to emerge from these item rankings. It is a ‘information rich’. Factor A does not think mistake to assume, however, that all ‘the parents should be punished where minor action’ is taking place at the poles of the crimes have been committed (we know this distribution. Consider item 07, for example, because item 24 is ranked at /2), but the which suggests that the parents of young ranking of item 07 suggests that ‘parental’ 84 S Watts and P Stenner punishment has not been completely dis- Factor A: A crime-related and age sensitive missed by this factor. approach to the punishment of young offenders This example demonstrates that much of significance can occur in the supposedly Demographic information: Factor A has six significantly loading participants and it explains ‘neutral’ area of the configuration. Indeed, 17% of the study variance. It has an eigenvalue of any interpretation which disregards the 5.40. Four of the loading participants are men, two are women. They have an average age of 23.84 item rankings in this area will almost years. certainly fail to capture the subtleties of the viewpoint being expressed. A concen- Factor interpretation: Young offenders must tration on too few of the items in the array definitely be punished for their crimes (10: /4). Cautioning has little impact and punishments will also prevent the holistic or ‘gestalt’ handed out are generally not severe enough nature of the viewpoint being communi- (20: /1; 01: /2). As participant 17 confirms, cated. This represents a serious interpreta- without suitable punishments young offenders ‘will not learn what is and [what] isn’t acceptable tive failure given the stated research target behaviour’ (22: /3). It is nonetheless important of Q methodology. One can safeguard that the chosen punishment reflects both the age against these problems, however, by check- of the offender and the type of crime they have committed (06: /3; 18: /4). Under 18’s should ing the qualitative comments gathered from certainly not be tried as adults, nor should they be participants who have loaded significantly imprisoned with adults (04: /3; 12: /4). They should have their identities protected in the on the factor being interpreted. These com- context of serious crimes and the death penalty ments can help to verify initial interpreta- should not be considered Á/ even in cases of tions of specific item rankings. Participant murder (25: /2; 03: /4). After all, young offenders may well have committed their crime 17, for example, tells us that without sui- without having a full ‘understanding of the law’ table punishments young offenders ‘will not (participant 26 comment). Life imprisonment learn what is and isn’t acceptable beha- is questionable for the same reason (15: /1). Given this situation, it would be quite wrong to viour’. This reinforces the ranking of item further lower the age of criminal responsibility 22 at /3. Perhaps more importantly, how- (09: /2). Prison sentences are probably not the right way to punish young offenders (05: /2), nor ever, participant 26 confirms the salience of should they be made to do manual work as a this factor’s relatively positive ranking of means of repaying their victims (17: /3). We need item 07 when he suggests that ‘parents are to take a more constructive approach to punishment, offering attention and support where accountable ...(for they have been) ...in the appropriate (13: /2). Electronic tagging devices best position to exert influence’ over their and community service open up a range of child. possibilities in this regard (16: /1; 14: /1). Neither should we completely dismiss the idea of If this process is carried to its conclusion, punishing the parents of young offenders if a such that various item rankings and parti- serious crime has been committed (07: 0), although cipant comments are effectively combined, this would probably be inappropriate in the context of more minor crimes (24: /2). Indeed, a clear interpretation of the factor will there is a real sense in which the ‘parents are emerge. An example interpretation of Factor accountable... [for they have been]...in the best A is shown. Notice that this interpretative position to exert [an] influence’over their errant child (participant 26 comment). account has been given a title and that some pertinent demographic information has Factor A: example factor interpretation been provided. The rankings which in- This interpretation uses the relative item formed the interpretation at each stage are rankings and participant comments to arrive also included in the text (as a point at a clear, ‘gestalt’ account of the of reference for the reader). The citing of viewpoint being expressed by Factor A. Q methodology 85

‘14: /1’, for example, indicates that item 14 comment and to the verifying remarks of was ranked in the /1 position by Factor A loading participants Á/ make us very con- and that this item is relevant to the current fident that the main thrust of all competent section of the interpretation: readings would be very similar to our own. In principle, of course, the process of Put another way, in common with most interpretation is potentially never-ending, hermeneutic endeavours, Q data make it there always being different shades of relatively simple to reject incompetent read- meaning and emphases that could be drawn ings, whilst allowing scope for numerous from the data, and hence different readings subtly different competent readings to co- applied to it. Yet Q methodological inter- exist. pretation is necessarily constrained by (and We are thus confident that this interpre- can always be checked against) the subjec- tative process has produced a coherent tive input of the participant group, as, in expression of the Factor A viewpoint Á/ contrast to many other qualitative methods, captured in the item rankings of our parti- that input is actually reflected and frozen in cipants Á/ about the ways in which young the relevant ‘factor exemplifying’ item con- offenders should be punished. This view- figurations. In Q methodology, subjective point is ‘shared’ by members of the partici- input produces objective structures. No pant group. In contrast to many other doubt the procedure which makes this qualitative methods, it has also been cap- possible also necessitates a certain loss of tured in a genuinely gestalt fashion. Add ecological validity in relation to other qua- this viewpoint to the others revealed in the litative methods. In partial compensation, same study (see the item rankings for Factors B, C, D and E in Table 1) and Q however, the presence of these objective methodology has allowed us to gain a structures allows Q methodology to de- comprehensive snapshot of the major view- mand a great deal of the interpreting points being expressed by our participant researcher, for any failure to respond group. fully and faithfully to the subjective input of the participant group can be easily detected. The accuracy and efficacy of the pro- Conclusion duced interpretations can also be verified via a second source: simply by asking We close with a caveat. Q methodology relevant (significantly loading) participants makes no claim to have identified view- to comment upon them. This can be a useful points that are consistent within individuals source of further insight, although one across time. Understanding this is crucial to should bear in mind that all such interpre- understanding the role and place of this tations are designed to communicate a methodology. Factor A need not, and we ‘shared’ viewpoint, and hence that they think should not, be thought of as (nor need not provide a veridical representation reduced to) the expression of stable intra- of a participant’s own opinion. Whilst, psychic features of the factor exemplars therefore, alternative readings of our exam- (such as ‘attitudes’ or ‘personality traits’). ple factor are a definite possibility, these To think otherwise is to impose a priori the various checks and balances Á/ thorough essentialist and somewhat counterintuitive attention to the item rankings, to participant assumption that a given participant is 86 S Watts and P Stenner capable of expressing only one coherent Notes viewpoint on an issue. All that we can say is that these participants did express these 1. Yet, in contrast to the methodological viewpoints via these item configurations. changes mentioned, this theoretical departure is Whilst this leaves individual factor exem- not guaranteed by the act of inversion. One can, for example, choose to conduct a Q technique plars free to ‘change their minds’, we might factor analysis on a collection of R methodologi- nonetheless expect the emergent manifold cal ‘test’ results. In other words, the analysis is of shared viewpoints to show a degree of simply carried out on ‘the transpose of the R consistency over time. In short, what is matrix Á/ i.e., as the correlation and factorization decisive from a Q methodological perspec- by rows of the same matrix of data that in R is tive is less ‘who said what about X?’ than factored by columns’ (Brown, 1980: 12Á/13, ‘what is currently being said about X?’ emphasis added). This method evidently con- It is in this respect that Q methodology tinues to prioritize psychological traits (hypothe- provides results that are consistent with sized cognitive ‘parts’ of persons) and their other broadly constructionist endeavours, measurement. No theoretical change occurs such as discourse analysis, social represen- here, merely a statistical transposition of a set tations theory, autopoietic systems theory of data. This approach to Q technique factor and ethogenics. In enabling a cartography of analysis was employed and promoted by Cyril Burt. Indeed, it is Burt’s ‘transposed matrix social semantics, Q methodology is in a model’ which has invariably found its way into relation of complementarity with more the- mainstream textbooks under the heading ‘Q matic or ‘individual’ approaches in qualita- technique’ factor analysis (see, for example, tive psychology, and also with methods, Maxwell, 1977). The main problem with this like conversation analysis, that focus on model (if one ignores possible theoretical objec- the micro processes of situated interaction. tions) is that a single matrix of data can properly Using Q methodology, to conclude, does be transposed (and thus factor analysed by both not entail a denial of microlevel commu- row and column) only where a single measuring nicative pragmatics, nor of macrolevel so- unit is employed throughout the matrix, ‘i.e., cial structures. Rather it entails a focus on when the same measuring unit (e.g. the inch) is subjectively expressed, socially organized common to both rows and columns’ (Brown, 1980: 13). This condition is rarely satisfied, semantic patterns, whether these are subse- however, simply because the measurement of quently grasped as ‘discourses’, ‘representa- differing traits (be they psychological or physi- tions’ or as ‘fields of the sayable and the cal) is hardly ever undertaken using the same seeable’ (Curt, 1994). measuring unit. As a result, the intercorrelation (and hence the direct comparison) of such traits is highly problematic. Stephenson recognized Acknowledgements these problems very quickly (for a summary, see Burt and Stephenson, 1939). Indeed, he criti- cised Burt’s transposition procedure quite vocif- The authors would like to thank Michelle erously, for both methodological and theoretical Botley for her hard work and for allowing reasons (see, for example, Stephenson, 1936a). If them to take advantage of the illustrative the Q technique was to invert the theoretical data used in this paper. We are also grateful tradition, he realized, a distinct change of to Rom Harre´ and the journal editors for method and a distinct change in the nature of their helpful comments. the gathered data would be required. Q methodology 87

2. Piloting can be done in a number of studies which include many more participants different ways. As we implied in the main text, than items). however, asking pilot participants to physically 5. The relevant internet address is: www. sort a very large number of items is probably rz.unibw-muenchen.de/Â/p41bsmk/qmethod unwise. It may be more sensible to ask a group of 6. A factor’s eigenvalue (the word just means pilot participants (or even one or two partici- ‘characteristic value’) is simply the sum of pants with subject-specific expertise) to provide squared factor loadings for that factor. Divide general comments on the construction of the Q the eigenvalue by n (where n equals the number set, remembering that the primary functions of of participants in your study) and multiply the the piloting process are to ensure: (a) that result by 100, and you will have calculated the semantic duplication within the statements is variance accounted for by that factor. This gives avoided; (b) that statements are clearly expressed us the following equation (Eq. 1): V/100(EV/n). (usually in everyday rather than technical termi- It follows, therefore, that one can also calculate a nology); (c) that statements express a single factor’s eigenvalue by multiplying the variance it proposition only (as multiple propositions can accounts for by n and then dividing the result by make sorting and interpretation highly proble- 100. The following equation (Eq. 2) results: EV/ matic); (d) that the Q set is properly ‘balanced’ V /n/100. More detailed (and sometimes contra- (in the context of politically charged or particu- dictory) observations about eigenvalues, their larly contentious research questions, it may be calculation, and their use in a Q methodological very important to ensure that relatively equal context can be found in Brown (1980). This numbers of ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ responses are avail- publication is available at the following web able to your participants); and finally, and address by kind permission of Professor S.R. perhaps most importantly, (e) that the Q set Brown: http://reserves.library.kent.edu/course- provides adequate coverage of relevant issues page. asp?cid/203&page/01. and that it is, therefore, broadly representative of 7. Let us assume, for example, that our the appropriate opinion domain. hypothetical factor has an eigenvalue of 0.86 3. The only exception to this rule is that at and that our study includes 50 participants. least one item must be assigned to every ranking Insert these figures into Eq. 1 of Note 6 and we position. If this is not done, the linear assump- see that V/100(0.86/50). In other words, our tions of correlation would effectively be broken, factor accounts for 1.72% of the study variance. rendering the intercorrelation of the resultant Q A single Q sort in the same study will, however, sorts highly problematic (Kline, 1994). account for 2% of the study variance (as 100% 4. The rules of conventional (R methodologi- of the study variance divided amongst 50 parti- cal) factor analysis demand that your study be cipant Q sorts/2%). In other words, the single designed such that it has at least twice as many Q sort has more explanatory power than the participants as it does variables (Kline, 1994). factor. Once the matrix is inverted, however, as it is in a 8. Arguably, decisions about the ‘signifi- Q methodological context, this same assumption cance’ of a loading should properly be made on suggests that you should have at least twice as theoretical rather than statistical grounds. On the many items in the Q set as you do participants. In other hand, one will undoubtedly have to justify truth, however, the two situations are hardly such decisions and statistical arguments are equivalent and objections on these grounds are likely to hold considerably more weight in a unusual. This may be because the initial assump- psychological context. A significant factor load- tion is itself somewhat arbitrary (even in an R ing (at P B/0.05) can be calculated using the methodological context). Nonetheless, if main- following equation: 1.96(1/ân) where n equals stream journal publications are a goal, it is the number of items in your Q set. If, therefore, probably sensible to maintain at least a 1:1 ratio our Q set contains 60 items, a statistically of items to participants (and certainly to avoid significant loading will be equal to or greater 88 S Watts and P Stenner than 1.96(1/â60)/9/0.26. Of course, this will participants with significant (and usable) load- still mean that 1/5 of your significant factor ings. At 9/0.40, therefore, we have maximized loadings are likely to have occurred by chance. the number of participants with significant load- It may be better, therefore, to employ the more ings and have duly achieved our most satisfac- stringent (P B/0.01) significance level. This can tory solution. be calculated using the equation: 2.58(1/ân). 10. It is perfectly possible for a single factor Using the same example, this would mean that a to have both positive and negative significant statistically significant loading would have to be loadings. This is known as a ‘bipolar’ factor. This equal to or greater than 2.58(1/â60)/9/0.34. bipolarity implies that two diametrically op- Again, Brown (1980) provides a more detailed posed viewpoints are being expressed by the commentary. participants who load on such a factor, each 9. As we shall see in the section on ‘Factor viewpoint having a factor exemplifying item Interpretation’, the confounding of a participant configuration that it is the ‘mirror-image’ of the Q sort also tends to mean that their qualitative other. In other words, the positive loaders will comments are lost from the final analysis (as one agree with the item rankings and overall item generally only uses the comments of significantly configuration for that factor (as they are con- loading participants to support a particular factor tained in the Item or Factor Score table in your interpretation). This is a shame. We tend, there- printout Á/ see Table 1 in the main text), whereas fore, to employ a strategy which minimises the negative loaders are agreeing with an entirely confounding and which duly maximises the reversed configuration (and hence they are ad- number of significantly loading participants in vocating an opposed viewpoint). If the positive / a particular study. Let us suppose you have loaders have ranked an item at 4, therefore, the negative loaders have effectively ranked the followed the instructions laid out in Note 8 same item at /4. If the positive loaders have above and have calculated that a significant ranked an item at /2, the negative loaders have loading in your study (at P B/0.01) must reach ranked it at /2, and so on. Such factors 9/0.34 or above. You then find that (in using this necessarily require you to produce two distinct significance level) 35 of 50 participant Q sorts factor interpretations, the first interpreting the load on a single factor, 4 have no significant factor exemplifying configuration as it appears in loading and the remaining 11 are confounded. your Item Score Table (which will reveal the This means that 15 participant Q sorts (30% of positive viewpoint), the second interpreting the the data) are not being used to construct the same configuration with all the item rankings various factor exemplifying item configurations. reversed (which will reveal the negative or In such circumstances, it may be sensible to diametrically opposed viewpoint). consider raising the level at which a loading is said to be significant (which will only make your criterion more stringent from a statistical view- References point). In the example, we might look again at the Billig, M. 1997: The dialogic unconscious: psy- solution with a significance level of 9/0.35 or choanalysis, discursive psychology and the above, then 9/0.36 or above, and so on. At 9/0.40 we find that 42 of the 50 participants load nature of repression. British Journal of Social Á/ significantly on a single factor, five now have Psychology 36, 139 59. no significant loading and only three are con- Brown, S. and Stenner, P. 2001: Being affected: founded. In other words, only eight participant Q Spinoza and the psychology of emotion. sorts (16% of the data) are not now being used. International Journal of Group Tensions 30, We also find that raising the level still further (to 81Á/105. 9/0.41 or above) only serves to increase the Brown, S.R. 1980: Political subjectivity: applica- number of Q sorts with no significant loading tions of Q methodology in political science. and hence to reduce the overall numbers of New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Q methodology 89

Brown, S.R. and Robyn, R. 2003: Reserving a key message of social psychology. Oxford: Black- place for reality: philosophical foundations well. of theoretical rotation. Paper presented at Haslam, S.A. and McGarty, C. 2003: Research the 19th annual conference of the Interna- methods and statistics in psychology. Lon- tional Society for the Scientific Study don: Sage. of Subjectivity, Kent State University, OH, Kitzinger, C. 1986: Introducing and developing Q 2Á/4 Oct. as a feminist methodology: a study of ac- Burt, C. 1937: Correlations between persons. counts of lesbianism. In Wilkinson, S., edi- British Journal of Psychology 28, 59Á/96. tor, Feminist social psychology: developing Burt, C. and Stephenson, W. 1939: Alternative theory and practice. Milton Keynes: Open views of correlations between persons. Psy- University Press. chometrika 4, 269Á/81. ______1987: The social construction of lesbian- Capdevila, R. and Stainton Rogers, R. 2000: If ism. London: Sage. you go down to the woods today: narratives Kline, P. 1994: An easy guide to factor analysis. of Newbury. In Addams, H. and Proops, J., London: Routledge. editors, Social discourse and environmental Maraun, M.D. 1998: Measurement as a normative policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. practice: implications of Wittgenstein’s phi- Crossley, M.L. 2000: Introducing narrative psy- losophy for measurement in psychology.

chology: self, trauma, and the construction Theory and Psychology 8, 435Á/61. of meaning. Buckingham: Open University Maxwell, A.E. 1977: Multivariate analysis in Press. behavioural research. London: Chapman & Curt, B. 1994: Textuality and tectonics: troubling Hall. social and psychological science. Bucking- Moscovici, S. 1981: On social representations. In ham: Open University Press. Forgas, J.P., editor, Social cognition: perspec- Fehr, B. 1988: Prototype analysis of the concepts tives on everyday life. London: Academic of love and commitment. Journal of Person- Press. ality and Social Psychology 55, 557Á/79. Parker, I. 1997a: Psychoanalytic culture: psycho- Good, J.M.M. 2000: William Stephenson, Cyril analytic discourse in Western society. Lon- Burt and the demise of the London school. don: Sage. Paper presented at the History and Philoso- ______1997b: Discourse analysis and psycho- phy of Psychology section of the British analysis. British Journal of Social Psychol-

Psychological Society, Annual conference, ogy 36, 479Á/95. University of Ripon and York St John, UK Polkinghorne, D.E. 1995: Narrative configuration April. in qualitative analysis. International Journal

Harre´, R. 1999: The singular self: an introduction of Qualitative Studies in Education 8,8Á/25. to the psychology of personhood. London: Potter, J. 1997: Discourse analysis as a way of Sage. analysing naturally occurring talk. In Silver- ______2004: Staking our claim for qualitative man, D., editor, Qualitative analysis: issues psychology as science. Qualitative Research of theory and method. London: Sage. in Psychology 1,3Á/14. Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. 1987: Discourse and Harre´, R. and Gillett, G. 1994: The discursive social psychology: beyond attitudes and mind. London: Sage. behaviour. London: Sage. Harvey, O.J. 1997: Beliefs, knowledge, and mean- Rogers, C.R. 1954: Psychotherapy and personal- ing from the perspective of the receiver. In ity change. Chicago, IL: University of McGarty, C. and Haslam, S.A., editors, The Chicago Press. 90 S Watts and P Stenner

Schmolck, P. 2002: PQMethod (version 2.11). Stenner, P., Dancey, C.P. and Watts, S. 2000: The [Computer software]. Available at www.rz. understanding of their illness amongst

unibw-muenchen.de/Â/p41bsmk/qmethod people with Irritable Bowel Syndrome: a [last accessed: 28 October 2004]. Q methodological study. Social Science Senn, C.Y. 1996: Q methodology as feminist and Medicine 51, 439Á/52. methodology: women’s views and experi- Stenner, P. and Eccleston, C. 1994: On the ences of pornography. In Wilkinson, S., textuality of being: towards an invigorated editor, Feminist social psychologies: inter- social constructionism. Theory and Psychol-

national perspectives. Buckingham: Open ogy 4, 85Á/103. University Press. Stenner, P. and Marshall, H. 1995: A Q metho- ______1995: Repertory grids: an interactive, dological study of rebelliousness. European

case-study perspective. In Smith, J.A., Harre´, Journal of Social Psychology 25, 621Á/36. R. and Van Langenhove, L., editors, Rethink- ______1999: On developmentality: researching ing methods in psychology. London: Sage. the varied meanings of ‘independence’ and ______1996: Beyond the divide between cogni- ‘maturity’ extant amongst a sample of young tion and discourse: using interpretative people in East London. Journal of Youth

phenomenological analysis in health psy- Studies 2, 297Á/316. chology. Psychology and Health 11, 261Á/71. Stenner, P. and Stainton Rogers, R. 1998: Jealousy ______editor, 2003: Qualitative psychology: a as a manifold of divergent understandings: a practical guide to research methods. Lon- Q methodological investigation. European

don: Sage. Journal of Social Psychology 28, 71Á/94. Smith, N.W. 2001: Current systems in psychol- ______2004: Q methodology and qualiquan- ogy: history, theory, research, and applica- tology: the example of discriminating tions. London: Wadsworth. between emotions. In Tod, Z., Nerlich, Stainton Rogers, R. 1995: Q methodology. In B., Mckeown, S. and Clark, D., editors, Smith, J.A., Harre´, R. and Van Langenhove, Mixing methods in psychology. London: L., editors, Rethinking methods in psychol- Routledge. ogy. London: Sage. Stenner, P. and Watts, S. 1998: [Re]searching for Stainton Rogers, R. and Stainton Rogers, W. love: subjectivity and the ontology of the 1992: Stories of childhood: shifting agendas Q factor. Operant Subjectivity 21, 27Á/48. of child concern. Hemel Hempstead: Har- Stephenson, W. 1935: Correlating persons in- vester-Wheatsheaf. stead of tests. Character and Personality 4, Stainton Rogers, R., Stenner, P., Gleeson, K. 17Á/24. and Stainton Rogers, W. 1995: Social psy- ______1936a: The foundations of psycho- chology: a critical agenda. Cambridge: Polity metry: four factor systems. Psychometrika

Press. 1, 195Á/209. Stenner, P. 1993: Wittgenstein and the textuality ______1936b: The inverted factor technique.

of emotion. Practice 9, 29Á/35. British Journal of Psychology 26, 344Á/61. ______1996: Shared pathways of Heidegger and ______1953: The study of behaviour: Q techni-

Foucault. Manifold 3, 12Á/17. que and its methodology. Chicago, IL: Uni- ______1998: Heidegger and the subject: ques- versity of Chicago Press. tioning concerning psychology. Theory and ______1983: Quantum theory and Q methodol-

Psychology 8, 59Á/77. ogy: fictionalistic and probabilistic theories Q methodology 91

conjoined. The Psychological Record 33, ______2002: Stories of partnership love: Q

213Á/30. methodological investigations. Unpublished ______1988/89: The quantumization of psycho- Ph.D Thesis, University of East London. logical events. Operant Subjectivity 12, Watts, S. and Stenner, P. 2003a: Q methodology,

1Á/23. quantum theory and psychology. Operant Á/ Sternberg, R.J. 1986: A triangular theory of love. Subjectivity 26, 155 73.

Psychological Review 93, 119Á/35. ______2003b: On normativity, meaninglessness, and the centrality of the self: a reply to the Stricklin, M. and Almeida, J. 2001: PCQ: analysis comments of Good & Brown. Operant Sub- software for Q-technique (Academic Edition, jectivity 26, 182Á/89. revised) [Computer software]. Available at http://www.pcqsoft.com/ [last accessed: 28 ______2005: The subjective experience of part- October 2004]. nership love: a Q methodological study. British Journal of Social Psychology 44. Watts, S. 2000: Critical psychology in the new Willig, C. 2001: millenium. International Journal of Critical Introducing qualitative research in psychology: adventures in theory and Psychology 11, 169Á/72. method. Buckingham: Open University Press.

About the authors DR SIMON WATTS is a Senior Lecturer in the Division of Psychology at Nottingham Trent University. Simon teaches qualitative research methods and personal relationships and publishes in the same areas. He completed a PhD in 2002 which examined the theory and potential of Q methodology as a qualitative method, with particular reference to its application in the context of partnership love. Simon has also taught in the Department of Human Relations at the University of East London, in the Departments of Psychology at University College Northampton and University College London, and he currently supervises Masters level qualitative dissertations for the Open University. DR PAUL STENNER is a Lecturer in Psychology at University College London. Paul has been publishing Q methodological research for over a decade and in relation to a variety of subject matters, including jealousy, rebelliousness, love and I.B.S. Paul is a familiar name in qualitative psychology and is the coauthor of two related books. The first of

these Á/ ‘Textuality and Tectonics’ (written with Rex and Wendy Stainton Rogers and

others, under the collective pseudonym ‘Beryl Curt’) Á/ was acclaimed by reviewers as an

innovative and groundbreaking text. The second Á/ ‘Social Psychology: A Critical

Agenda’ (coauthored with Rex and Wendy Stainton Rogers and Kate Gleeson) Á/ was described by Kenneth Gergen as ‘historically speaking, an enormously important publication’. Paul is currently researching in the area of ethics and the emotions. He has previously held posts at the Universities of East London and Bath. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.