Mixed Methods Research and Quantum Theory: Q Methodology as an Exemplar for Complementarity

Abstract

In 1989, Jennifer Greene and colleagues introduced the idea of complementarity in mixed methods research (MMR) without referencing the parallels within physics. Complementarity in physics represents the idea that two contrasted theories are necessary to explain a set of phenomena, such as the wave–particle duality. Few MMR studies provide clear examples of complementarity, and some have questioned if complementarity is possible. However, the creator of Q methodology, William Stephenson, physicist and psychologist, made numerous connections between his methodology and quantum theory, including complementarity. The purpose of this article is to describe complementarity within Q methodology and physics and connect these definitions to complementarity as discussed within the MMR community.

Keywords

complementarity Q methodology inherently mixed research Q technique Q method

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bazeley

(2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 63-73.

Bazeley

(2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334443

Bohr

(1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature, 121, 580-590. https://doi.org/10.1038/121580a0

Bohr

(1987). The quantum of action and the description of nature. In The philosophical writings of Niels Bohr (Vol. 1, pp. 92-101). Ox Bow Press. (Original work published 1929)

Brown

S. R.

(1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.

Brown

S. R.

(2008). Q methodology. In Given

L. M.

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 700-704). Sage.

Brown

S. R.

Robyn

(2004). Reserving a key place for reality: Philosophical foundations of theoretical rotation. Operant Subjectivity, 27(3), 104-124.

Burt

(1940). The factors of the mind. University of London Press.

Caracelli

V. J.

Greene

J. C.

(1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015002195

10.

Caracelli

V. J.

Greene

J. C.

(1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1069

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2010). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (Second ed., pp. 45-68). Sage.

12.

Delprato

D. J.

Brown

S. R.

(2002). Q methodology and the operant construct. Operant Subjectivity, 25(3/4), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2002.006

13.

Dennis

K. E.

Goldberg

A. P.

(1996). Weight control self-efficacy types and transitions affect weight-loss outcomes in obese women. Addictive Behaviors, 21(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(95)00042-9

14.

Eisberg

Resnick

(1974). Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei, and particles. Wiley.

15.

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

Graham

W. F.

(1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

16.

Hall

Howard

(2008). A synergistic approach: Conducting mixed methods research with typological and systemic design considerations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 248-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808314622

17.

Heisenberg

(2007). Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. Harper Collins.

18.

Holton

(1988). The roots of complementarity. Daedalus, 117(3), 151-197. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20025174

19.

Johnson

R. B.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Turner

L. A.

(2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

20.

McKeown

Thomas

(2013). Q methodology. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384412

21.

Newman

Ramlo

(2010). Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 505-530). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n20

22.

Onwuegbuzie

(2012). Introduction: Putting the MIXED back into quantitative and qualitative research in educational research and beyond: Moving toward the radical middle. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 192-219. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.192

23.

Ramlo

(2006/2007). A physicist's reflection on Q methodology, quantum mechanics & Stephenson. Operant Subjectivity, 29 (2), pp 81-86. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2005.011

24.

Ramlo

(2015). Theoretical significance in Q methodology: A qualitative approach to a mixed method. Research in the Schools, 22(1), 68-81.

25.

Ramlo

(2016a). Centroid and theoretical rotation: Justification for their use in Q methodology research. Midwestern Researcher, 28(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815610998.

26.

Ramlo

(2016b). Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815610998

27.

Ramlo

(2021). Q methodology as mixed analysis. In Onwuegbuzie

Johnson

(Eds.), The Routledge reviewer’s guide for mixed methods research analysis (pp 199-208). Routledge.

28.

Ramlo

Berit

(2013). Determining the various perspectives of caregivers of aging adults with Q methodology. The Family Journal, 21(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480712456819

29.

Ramlo

Starvaggi

Mitchell

Roketenetz

(2019). Developing concourse and selecting a Q-sample: Preparation for a Q study about urban, American, middle-school science students’ views of nature. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal for Q Methodology, 41(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2019.006

30.

Ridenour

C. S.

Newman

(2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the interactive continuum. Southern Illinois University Press.

31.

Sandelowski

M. J.

Voils

C. I.

Barroso

(2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29.

32.

Sell

D. K.

Brown

S. R.

(1984). Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and quantitative research: Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign study program participants. In Vacca

J. L.

Johnson

H. A.

(Eds.), Qualitative research in education (Graduate School of Education Monograph Series; pp. 79-87). Kent State University, Bureau of Educational Research and Service.

33.

Semat

(1963). Introduction to atomic and nuclear physics (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

34.

Stenner

Stainton-Rogers

(2004). Q methodology and qualiquantology: The example of discriminating between emotions. In Todd

Nerlich

McKeown

Clarke

D. D.

(Eds.), Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. Psychology Press. pp. 101-120

35.

Stephenson

(1952). Some observations on Q technique. Psychological Bulletin, 49(5), 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057171

36.

Stephenson

(1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.

37.

Stephenson

(1961). Scientific creed, 1961: Philosophical credo. Abductory principles. The centrality of self. Psychological Record, 11, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393380

38.

Stephenson

(1977). Factors as operant subjectivity. Operant Subjectivity, 1(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1977.001

39.

Stephenson

(1982). Q-methodology, interbehavioral psychology, and quantum theory. Psychological Record, 32(2), 235-248.

40.

Stephenson

(1983). Quantum theory and Q-methodology: Fictionalistic and probabilistic theories conjoined. Psychological Record, 33(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394839

41.

Stephenson

(1986a) William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: I—concepts. Psychological Record, 36, 519-527. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394970

42.

Stephenson

(1986b) William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: II—pragmatics of a thought. Psychological Record, 36, 529-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394971

43.

Stephenson

(1987a). How to make a good cup of tea. Operant Subjectivity, 10(2), 37-57.

44.

Stephenson

(1987b). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: III—Schrödinger’s cat. Psychological Record, 37, 523-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394997

45.

Stephenson

(1988a). Quantum theory of subjectivity. Integrative Psychiatry, 6(3), 180-195.

46.

Stephenson

(1988b). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: V—phenomenology of subjectivity. Psychological Record, 38, 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395016

47.

Uher

(2015). Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the transdisciplinary philosophy-of-science paradigm for research on individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 398-458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1

48.

Uher

(2019). Data generation methods across the empirical sciences: Differences in the study phenomena’s accessibility and the processes of data encoding. Quality and Quantity, 53, 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0744-3

49.

Wilson

J. D.

Buffa

A. J.

Lou

(2010). College Physics, 7th edition. Pearson.