Q methodology's role and status is appraised I light of the 12 intervening years since the keynote speech carrying the same title was read at the first (1985) Q conference. The pervasiveness of subjectivity is stressed, as is Q's role in measuring and conceptualizing it. Evidence is provided that Q methodology has achieved certain characteristics of a normal science (as defined by Kuhn), and an inventory is made of conceptual errors and of the kings of resistances to Q's implications Summaries are also provided of the variety of projects in which Q methodology has a central role. The conclusion is reached that Q remains outside the mainstream, but that there have been marked improvements in its status within the past decade. These comments constituted an address to the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, Syracuse University, October 23-35, 1997.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1998.007
Journal Operant Subjectivity
Citation
Steven R. Brown. (1998). Subjective Science: Normal and Abnormal (Continued). Operant Subjectivity, 21(3/4), 92–111. doi:10.15133/j.os.1998.007