Q Methodology and Its Position in the Mixed-Methods Continuum
In volume 32 of this journal, Paul Stenner suggests that Stephenson was resistant to Q methodology being placed within other theoretical frameworks. Yet in this same piece, Stenner states that it is time for Q methodology to be brought into a greater dialogue with contemporary social theory and research practice. This article seeks to demonstrate how Q fits into the contemporary research practice of mixed methods and argues that this perspective is not in conflict with Stephenson's positions on Q as a methodology. Further, our position reflects recent calls for the development of new techniques and procedures to be used in mixed-methods research. Those making the call will find interest in what Q has to offer the social and behavioral sciences now, 75 years after it emerged in Stephenson's 1935 letter to Nature, and even though the term mixed-methods research has only emerged in last couple of decades. Q methodology is shown to fit well methodologically into the mixed-methods continuum as described by prominent mixed-methods scholars, which further supports a position that Q represents a mixed research methodology.
|Keywords||mixed methods, Q Methodology|
Susan E. Ramlo, & Isadore Newman. (2011). Q Methodology and Its Position in the Mixed-Methods Continuum. Operant Subjectivity, 34(3), 172–191. doi:10.15133/j.os.2010.009