Jumping the Methodological Fence: Q Methodology

  • Tinashe Dune
  • Zelalem Mengesha
  • Valentina Buscemi
  • Janette Perz
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Mixed methods research is consistently used quantitatively and qualitatively to understand and explore the many facets of a range of phenomena. Generally, mixed methods research involves the use of qualitative and quantitative methods simultaneously or concurrently, yet for the most part independently. What if these methods could be truly mixed? This chapter introduces readers to a methodology that aims to address this question – Q methodology. Q methodology allows for the sampling of subjective viewpoints and can assist in identifying patterns, including areas of difference or overlap, across various perspectives on a given phenomenon. Q methodology can be described as “‘qualiquantilogical’ combining elements from qualitative and quantitative research traditions” (Perz et al. BMC Cancer 13: 270, 2013, p. 13). This chapter will outline the five steps involved in conducting a Q methodology study: (1) developing the concourse, (2) developing the Q set, (3) selection of the P set, (4) Q sorting, and (5) Q analysis and interpretation. In order to contextualize and demonstrate how Q methodology can be used, we will present reflections on the use of this methodology with respect to constructions of sexual and reproductive health, chronic low back pain, and culturally and linguistically diverse people. These examples demonstrate how Q methodology can provide a unique and truly mixed way of studying human subjectivity.

Keywords

Q methodology Social research Health research Mixed methods Subjectivity 

References

  1. Brown SR. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Brown SR. A primer on Q-methodology. Operant Subjectivity. 1993;16:91–138.Google Scholar
  3. Brown RD, Pirtle T. Beliefs of professional and family caregivers about the sexuality of individuals with intellectual disabilities: examining beliefs using a Q-methodology approach. Sex Educ. 2008;8(1):59–75.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810701811829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buscemi V, Dune T, Liston MB, Schabrun SM. How do people with chronic low back pain perceive everyday stress? A Q-study. Unpublished paper in preparation for submission. 2018.Google Scholar
  5. Churruca K, Perz J, Ussher JM. Uncontrollable behavior or mental illness? Exploring constructions of bulimia using Q methodology. J Eat Disord. 2014;2(1):22.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-014-0022-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coogan J, Herrington N. Q methodology: an overview. Res Second Teach Educ. 2011;1(2):24–8.Google Scholar
  7. Corr S. Exploring perceptions about services using Q methodology. In: Research in occupational therapy: methods of injury for enhancing practice. Philidelphia: FA Davis Company; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell JW, Klassen AC, Plano Clark VL, Smith KC. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(2):206–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dune T, Perz J, Mengesha Z, Ayika D. Culture clash? Investigating constructions of sexual and reproductive health from the perspective of 1.5 generation migrants in Australia using Q methodology. Reprod Health. 2017;14:50.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0310-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dziopa F, Ahern K. A systematic literature review of the applications of Q-technique and its methodology. Methodology. 2011;7(2):39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellingsen IT, Størksen I, Stephens P. Q methodology in social work research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2010;13(5):395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairweather J. Reliability and validity of Q-method results: some empirical evidence. Operant Subjectivity. 1981;5(1):2–16.Google Scholar
  15. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs–principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 pt 2):2134–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herron-Marx S, Williams A, Hicks C. A Q methodology study of women’s experience of enduring postnatal perineal and pelvic floor morbidity. Midwifery. 2007;23(3):322–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lazard L, Capdevila R, Roberts A. Methodological pluralism in theory and in practice: the case for Q in the community. Qual Res Psychol. 2011;8(2):140–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. McKeown B, Thomas B. Q-methodology. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mengesha ZB, Perz J, Dune T, Ussher J. Challenges in the provision of sexual and reproductive health care to refugee and migrant women: a Q methodological study of health professional perspectives. J Immigr Minor Health. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0611-7.
  21. Montgomery CM, Gafos M, Lees S, Morar NS, Mweemba O, Ssali A, Pool R. Re-framing microbicide acceptability: findings from the MDP301 trial. Cult Health Sex. 2010;12(6): 649–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691051003736261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Omeri A, Lennings C, Raymond L. Beyond asylum: implications for nursing and health care delivery for Afghan refugees in Australia. J Transcult Nurs. 2006;17(1):30–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paige JB. Making sense of methods and measurement: Q-methodology – Part I – Philosophical background. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;10(12):639–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2014.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paige JB. Making sense of methods and measurement: Q-methodology – Part II – Methodological procedures. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015;11(1):75–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2014.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perz J, Ussher JM, Gilbert E. Constructions of sex and intimacy after cancer: Q methodology study of people with cancer, their partners, and health professionals. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:270.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reber B, Kaufman S. Q-Assessor: developing and testing an online solution to Q method data gathering and processing. World Association for Public Opinion Research, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2011. Retrieved from www.file://Users/karenkavanaugh/Downloads/wapor-2011_Reber_Kaufman, 20(1).
  27. Reber BH, Kaufman SE, Cropp F. Assessing Q-assessor: a validation study of computer-based Q sorts versus paper sorts. Operant Subjectivity. 2000;23(4):192–209.Google Scholar
  28. Robbins P, Krueger R. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Prof Geogr. 2000;52(4):636–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers SR. Q methodology. In: Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L, editors. Rethinking methods in psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.Google Scholar
  30. Stenner P, Dancey C, Watts S. The understanding of their illness amongst people with irritable bowel syndrome: a Q methodological study. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(3):439–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stoller EP, Webster NJ, Blixen CE, McCormick RA, Hund AJ, Perzynski AT, ... Dawson NV. Alcohol consumption decisions among nonabusing drinkers diagnosed with hepatitis C: an exploratory sequential mixed methods study. J Mixed Methods Res. 2009;3(1):65–86.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808326119.
  32. Tariq S, Woodman J. Using mixed methods in health research. JRSM Short Rep. 2013;4(6): 2042533313479197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tariq S, Elford J, Cortina-Borja M, Tookey PA. The association between ethnicity and late presentation to antenatal care among pregnant women living with HIV in the UK and Ireland. AIDS Care. 2012;24(8):978–85.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2012.668284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tubergen NV, Olins RA. Mail vs. personal interview administration for Q sorts: a comparative study. Operant Subjectivity. 1978;2(2):51–9.Google Scholar
  36. Van Exel J, de Graaf G. Q methodology: a sneak preview. 2005. Retrieved from http://www.qmethodology.net/PDF/Q-methodology.
  37. Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qual Res Psychol. 2005;2(1):67–91.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. London: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tinashe Dune
    • 1
  • Zelalem Mengesha
    • 1
  • Valentina Buscemi
    • 1
  • Janette Perz
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations