This article presents design principles and practical steps for web-based Q methodology surveys. Drawing on the experience of two online Q studies, we discuss theoretical concerns, sort and survey design, software programs, and issues in researcher–participant engagement. We argue that opening Q methodology to online modes of data collection is important to capture greater diversity in social perspectives and geographies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BesikaA.CollardP. C.CooganJ.2018. Attitudes of therapists towards people with learning disabilities. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research18:89–101.
2.
BrownS. R.1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
EdenS. A.DonaldsonA.WalkerG.2005. Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area37:413–422.
4.
ExelJ.BakerR.MasonH.DonaldsonC.BrouwerW.TeamE.2015. Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology. Social Science & Medicine126:128–137.
5.
JeffaresS.2015. Online Q-set for PhD research query, Q method list [Electronic mailing list message]. Available to subscribers at: q-method@listserv.kent.edu (accessed October 19, 2020).
6.
JeffaresS.DickinsonH.2016. Evaluating collaboration: The creation of an online tool employing Q methodology. Evaluation22:91–107.
7.
O’NeillS. J.BoykoffM.NiemeyerS.DayS. A.2013. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change23:413–421.
8.
OrmerodK. J.2017. Common sense principles governing potable water recycling in the southwestern US: Examining subjectivity of water stewards using Q methodology. Geoforum86:76–85.
9.
OrmerodK. J.2019. Toilet power: Potable water reuse and the situated meaning of sustainability in the southwestern United States. Journal of Political Ecology26:633–651.
10.
RamloS.2016. Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research10:28–45.
11.
ReberB. H.KaufmanS. E.CroppF.2000. Assessing Q-assessor: A validation study of computer-based Q sorts versus paper sorts. Operant Subjectivity23:192–209.
12.
RobbinsP.KruegerR.. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer52:636–48.
13.
SneegasG.2020. Making the case for critical Q methodology. The Professional Geographer72:78–87.
WolfA. 2020. Conducting Q methodology during coronavirus, Q_method List [Electronic mailing list message]. Available to subscribers at: q-method@listserv.kent.edu (accessed October 19, 2020).
