Q Methodology
Lisa Lazard
Overview
 Q Methodology: history & theoretical
assumptions
 How to do Q
 Q Practical
 Analysis: an example
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).
William Stephenson
(1902-1989)
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 hypotheticodeductive logic...We should be making discoveries rather
than testing our reasoning” (1953: 151).
 Operant Subjectivity (observable through concrete
behaviour)
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
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
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)
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
Developing the Q pack (2)
 Collect a large sample of statements (e.g. 200)
 Statements collects via cultural analysis
 Piloting the statements
Agree
Disagree
Uncertain
Unclear/
Inappropriat
e
1. Enjoys taking risks.
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
1. Cannot be trusted.
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
1. Is really able to put themselves in
another persons shoes
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
Developing the Q pack (3)
 Statements Piloted for:

Balance

Clarity

Coverage
Q Sorting
(8)
(7)
(7)
(6)
(6)
(5)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(1)
-6
(1)
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
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
Example of Rank Ordering
Descriptions ranked from:
1 most descriptive to
8 least descriptive
A
B
C
D
E
F
Shy
8
4
6
1
3
5
Talkative
5
5
2
7
1
4
Cautious
7
6
3
4
2
1
Relaxed
4
1
8
6
7
6
Volatile
2
2
7
3
4
2
Suspicious
6
8
1
2
5
3
Easy-going
3
7
4
5
8
8
Thoughtful
1
3
5
8
6
7
Factor Interpretation: An Example
Selected Items
Has many legs
Hairy
Carnivorous
Large
Intelligent
Found in the home
F1
+5
+5
+4
-4
-3
+4
F2
0
+2
-5
+4
0
-5
F3
0
+2
+5
+3
+2
-5
F4
-4
-4
-2
0
+5
+5
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. Equality
8. Freedom
13. Pleasure
17. True friendship
9. Happi-ness
5. A world of beauty
12. National
security
4. A world at peace
18. Wisdom
2. An exciting life
1. A comfortable life
7. Family security
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
Factor 2: The humanist
8. Freedom
1. A comfortable
life
13. Pleasure
17. True friendship
12. National
security
16. Social
recognition
2. An exciting life
6. Equality
7. Family security
3. A sense of
accomplish-ment
10. Inner harmony
14. Salvation
5. A world of
beauty
4. A world at peace
18. Wisdom
11. Mature love
15. Self-respect
9. Happi-ness
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
Factor 3: Stability
1. A comfortable
life
10. Inner harmony
14. Salvation
17. True friendship
16. Social
recognition
13. Pleasure
11. Mature love
12. National
security
8. Freedom
15. Self-respect
7. Family security
2. An exciting life
4. A world at peace
5. A world of
beauty
6. Equality
18. Wisdom
9. Happi-ness
3. A sense of
accomplish-ment
0
+1
-3
-2
-1
+2
+3
Factor 4: Self-Defined
Adventurer
4. A world at peace
12. National
security
6. Equality
18. Wisdom
13. Pleasure
1. A comfortable
life
5. A world of
beauty
11. Mature love
9. Happi-ness
7. Family security
17. True friendship
14. Salvation
10. Inner harmony
16. Social
recognition
3. A sense of
accomplish-ment
2. An exciting life
8. Freedom
15. Self-respect
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
Summary
 Multiple perspectives rather than
polarisation
 Focus on relations/patterns in
narratives rather than simple
corrections of variables
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)
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.
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/