1. Q Methodology Lisa Lazard

2. Overview Q Methodology: history & theoretical assumptions How to do Q Q Practical Analysis: an example

3. What is Q Methodology? Q is both a quantitative and qualitative technique which is used to study subjective experience It has been widely used to study subjective and debatable issues e.g. Kitzinger, 1987 (sexuality); Senn, 1996 (pornography); Capdevila & Stainton Rogers, 2000 (political protest). It has been used particularly successfully in health related research, for example, by Stainton Rogers, 1991 (understandings of health & illness), Eccleston, Williams & Stainton Rogers, 1997 (chronic pain); and Stenner, Dancey & Watts, 2000, (IBS).

4. William Stephenson (1902-1989)

5. History & Theoretical Assumptions (1) William Stephenson first introduced Q methodology in the 1930s “The hallmark of sound scientific procedure nowadays, it seems, is to assert hypotheses and to confirm predictions...There is need, however, for care and discernment in these matters...Psychology, it seems to us, has by no means achieved a sophisticated theoretical status, with ideal constructs such as physics has fashioned for itself. The situations in psychology, therefore, call for an attitude of curiosity, as well as one of hypothetico- deductive logic...We should be making discoveries rather than testing our reasoning” (1953: 151). Operant Subjectivity (observable through concrete behaviour)

6. Q: Theory & Practice (1) Q involves sorting a set of statements to represent a perspective or viewpoint (the process of making subjectivity operant) Focuses on viewpoints shared by particular groups of participants By-person factor analysis identifies groups of Q sorts that have been completed in a similar way and can be clearly distinguished from other groups that emerge Factors called perspectives or narratives

7. Q: Theory & Practice (2) Q methodology can be seen to be a para- quantitative (Capdevila & Stainton Rogers, 2000) or qualiquantological (Stenner & Stainton Rogers, 2004) The aim of Q methodology is not to ‘test’ its participants nor does it impose a priori meanings. Instead, participants are asked to decide for themselves what is ‘meaningful’ Q does not presuppose polarised viewpoints – allows emergence of multiple perspectives

8. Q: Practicalities  Q involves 4 main stages: 1. Development of the Q pack (materials) 2. Q sorting (participants) 3. Statistical analysis 4. Factor interpretation (qualitative analysis)

9. Developing the Q pack (1) What are we talking about? DEFINITIONS How should it be construed? UNDERSTANDINGS What is to be done? POLICIES The research question and subsequent statements need to focus on one of these areas

10. Developing the Q pack (2) Collect a large sample of statements (e.g. 200) Statements collects via cultural analysis Piloting the statements AgreeDisagreeUncertainUnclear/ Inappropriat e 1.Enjoys taking risks.[ ] 1.Cannot be trusted.[ ] 1.Is really able to put themselves in another persons shoes[ ]

11. Developing the Q pack (3) Statements Piloted for: Balance Clarity Coverage

12. Q Sorting

13. Statistical Analysis  Traditional factor analysis called R analysis  Variables measured on many individuals  look for an association among variables  Q analysis is a pattern analysis that looks at relationships between people

14. Example of Rank Ordering Descriptions ranked from: 1 most descriptive to 8 least descriptive ABCDEF Shy846135 Talkative552714 Cautious763421 Relaxed418676 Volatile227342 Suspicious681253 Easy-going374588 Thoughtful135867

15. Factor Interpretation: An Example Selected ItemsF 1F 2F 3F 4 Has many legs+500-4 Hairy+5+2 -4 Carnivorous+4-5+5-2 Large-4+4+30 Intelligent-30+2+5 Found in the home+4-5 +5

16. Factor 1: Middle Class Youth 11. Mature love 10. Inner harmony 3. A sense of accomplish-ment 15. Self-respect 14. Salvation 16. Social recognition 6. Equality8. Freedom13. Pleasure17. True friendship9. Happi-ness 5. A world of beauty 12. National security 4. A world at peace18. Wisdom2. An exciting life1. A comfortable life7. Family security -3-20+1+2+3

17. Factor 2: The humanist 8. Freedom 1. A comfortable life 13. Pleasure17. True friendship 12. National security 16. Social recognition 2. An exciting life6. Equality7. Family security 3. A sense of accomplish-ment 10. Inner harmony 14. Salvation 5. A world of beauty 4. A world at peace18. Wisdom11. Mature love15. Self-respect9. Happi-ness -3-20+1+2+3

18. Factor 3: Stability 1. A comfortable life 10. Inner harmony14. Salvation17. True friendship 16. Social recognition 13. Pleasure11. Mature love 12. National security 8. Freedom15. Self-respect7. Family security 2. An exciting life4. A world at peace 5. A world of beauty 6. Equality18. Wisdom9. Happi-ness 3. A sense of accomplish-ment -3-20+1+2+3

19. Factor 4: Self-Defined Adventurer 4. A world at peace 12. National security 6. Equality18. Wisdom 13. Pleasure 1. A comfortable life 5. A world of beauty 11. Mature love9. Happi-ness7. Family security17. True friendship 14. Salvation10. Inner harmony 16. Social recognition 3. A sense of accomplish-ment 2. An exciting life8. Freedom15. Self-respect -3-20+1+2+3

20. Summary Multiple perspectives rather than polarisation Focus on relations/patterns in narratives rather than simple corrections of variables

21. Useful References & Links Brown, S.R. (1980). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press. (also available on line from http://www.qmethod.org/News/politicalsubjectivity.htm)http://www.qmethod.org/News/politicalsubjectivity.htm Capdevila, R. & Stainton Rogers, R. (2000) If You Go Down to the Woods Today…Narratives of Newbury. In Addams, H. & Proops, J. (eds.) Social Discourse and Environmental Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Corr, S., Phillips, C.J. & Capdevila, R. (2003) Using Q Methodology to Evaluate a Day Service for Younger Adult Stroke Survivors. Operant Subjectivity: Journal of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity 27(1), 1-23. Curt, B. (1994). Textuality and Tectonics: troubling social and psychological science. Buckingham: Open University Press. Jordon, K., Capdevila, R. & Johnson, S. (2005) Baby or Beauty: A Q study into Post Pregnancy Body Image’. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 23(1), 1-13. ISSN: 0264-6838.

22. Useful References & Links Kitzinger, C. (1986). Introducing and developing Q as a feminist methodology: a study of accounts of lesbianism. In Wilkinson, S. (ed.) Feminist Social Psychology: Developing Theory and Practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Senn, C.Y. (1996). Q-methodology as feminist methodology: Women’s views and experiences of pornography. In Wilkinson, S. (ed.) Feminist Social Psychologies: International Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press. Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q Methodology. In Smith J.A., Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (eds.) Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage. Stainton Rogers, R., Stenner, P., Gleeson, K. & Stainton Rogers, W. (1995). Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda Cambridge: Polity Press. Stainton Rogers, W. (1991). Explaining Health and Illness. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Stenner, P. & Marshall, H. (1995). ‘A Q-Methodological Study of Rebelliousness’. European Journal of Social Psychology. 25: 621-636. Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2005) Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2: 67-91 Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2005) The subjective experience of partnership love: A Q Methodological study. British Journal of Social Psychology 44(1): 85-107. You might also have a look at these Q web sites: http://www.qmethod.org http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/