Q Methodology and Its Position in the Mixed-Methods Continuum

Abstract

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.