Q methodology is often described in terms of its procedures, yet this obscures Q’s deeper philosophical grounding and usefulness to scientifically study subjectivity. Drawing on Gary Gutting’s call for a philosophy that clarifies assumptions and respects complexity, we explore how the philosophical underpinnings of Q offer a radically different way to conceptualize the relationship between the knower and the known, allow for embracing the complexity of subjectivity, and facilitate researchers’ engagement with participants not as data points but as co-constructors of meaning. In doing so, Q can better offer a model of research that is both rigorous and human-centered.
Banks-VanAllenC. E.MidgleyB. D.BrownS. R. (2023). Single cases and the laws of subjectivity. Theory & Psychology, 33(6), 792–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543231185354
2.
BrownS. R. (1972). A fundamental incommensurability between objectivity and subjectivity. In BrownS. R.BrennerD. J. (Eds.), Science, psychology, and communication: Essays honoring William Stephenson (pp. 57–94). Teachers College Press.
3.
BrownS. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
4.
BrownS. R. (1989). A feeling for the organism: Understanding and interpreting political subjectivity. Operant Subjectivity, 12(3/4), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.89.100537
5.
BrownS. R. (2006). A match made in heaven: A marginalized methodology for studying the marginalized. Quality & Quantity, 40, 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8828-2
6.
BrownS. R. (2010). Q methodology. In SalkindN. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1149–1155). Sage.
BurtC.StephensonW. (1939). Alternative views on correlations between persons. Psychometrika, 4, 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287939
9.
GanjiS. S.AhangarA. N.AwasthiA.Jamshidi BandariS. (2021). Psychological analysis of intercity bus passenger satisfaction using Q methodology. Transportation Research. Part A, Policy and Practice, 154, 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.10.023
10.
GoodJ. M. M. (2010). Introduction to William Stephenson’s quest for a science of subjectivity. Psychoanalysis & History, 12(2), 211–243. https://doi.org/10.3366/pah.2010.0006
11.
GuttingG. (1980). Science of discovery. Revue Internationale de Philosophie [International Review of Philosophy], 34(131/132), 26–48.
12.
GuttingG. (2015). What philosophy can do (1st ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
13.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
LiH.SunY.BarwiseA.CuiW.DongY.TekinA.YuanQ.QiaoL.GajicO.NivenA. (2022). A novel multimodal needs assessment to inform the longitudinal education program for an international interprofessional critical care team. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 540. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03605-2
NewmanI.RamloS. (2010). Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 505–530). Sage.
20.
OrtizF.SalonsalmiA.HelanteräI. (2025). Associations between dialysis modality and adherence to immunosuppression after kidney transplantation: A single-center study. PLoS One, 20(1), e0317435. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317435
21.
RamloS. (2015). Theoretical significance in Q methodology: A qualitative approach to a mixed method. Research in the Schools, 22(1), 68–81.
22.
RamloS. (2016). Centroid and theoretical rotation: Justification for their use in Q methodology research. Midwestern Researcher, 28(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815610998
23.
RamloS. (2021). Complementarity in Q methodology and quantum physics. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 43, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.21.100590
24.
RamloS. (2022). Mixed methods research and quantum theory: Q methodology as an exemplar for complementarity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211019497
25.
RamloS. (2023a). It’s not the notes that makes it jazz: Why structure is important in jazz, the natural sciences, and Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 45, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.21.100592
26.
RamloS. (2023b). Using Q methodology in health sciences education to study subjectivity. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 28(5), 1711–1722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10214-1
27.
RamloS. (2024). Non-statistical, substantive generalization: Lessons from Q methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 47(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2023.2173735
28.
RamloS. (2025). Examining subjectivity with Q methodology. Routledge.
StephensonW. (1978). Concourse theory of communication. Communication, 3(1), 21–40.
36.
StephensonW. (1987). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: III —Schrodinger’s cat. Psychological Record, 37, 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394997
37.
StephensonW. (1988a). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: IV — The significance of time. Psychological Record, 38, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395004
38.
StephensonW. (1988b). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: V —Phenomenology of subjectivity. Psychological Record, 38, 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394997
39.
StephensonW. (1990). Fifty Years of Exclusionary Psychometrics: I. Q Technique. Operant Subjectivity, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.90.100553
ThomasD. B.BaasL. R. (1993). The issue of generalization in Q methodology: “Reliable schematics” revisited. Operant Subjectivity, 16(1/2), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.92.100599
WendtA. (2015). Quantum mind and social science: Unifying physical and social ontology. Cambridge University Press.
44.
WolfA. (2022). Perspectives on Q sorting. In RhoadsJ.ThomasD.RamloS. (Eds.), Cultivating Q methodology: Essays honoring Steven R. Brown (pp. 217–241). International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity.
