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.
BazeleyP. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 63-73.
2.
BazeleyP. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334443
3.
BohrN. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature, 121, 580-590. https://doi.org/10.1038/121580a0
4.
BohrN. (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)
5.
BrownS. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
6.
BrownS. R. (2008). Q methodology. In GivenL. M. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 700-704). Sage.
7.
BrownS. R.RobynR. (2004). Reserving a key place for reality: Philosophical foundations of theoretical rotation. Operant Subjectivity, 27(3), 104-124.
8.
BurtC. (1940). The factors of the mind. University of London Press.
9.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. 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.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1069
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2010). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (Second ed., pp. 45-68). Sage.
DennisK. E.GoldbergA. 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.
EisbergR.ResnickR. (1974). Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei, and particles. Wiley.
15.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. 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.
HallB.HowardK. (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.
HeisenbergW. (2007). Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. Harper Collins.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
NewmanI.RamloS. (2010). Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 505-530). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n20
22.
OnwuegbuzieA. (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.
RamloS. (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.
RamloS. (2015). Theoretical significance in Q methodology: A qualitative approach to a mixed method. Research in the Schools, 22(1), 68-81.
25.
RamloS. (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.
RamloS. (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.
RamloS. (2021). Q methodology as mixed analysis. In OnwuegbuzieA.JohnsonB. (Eds.), The Routledge reviewer’s guide for mixed methods research analysis (pp 199-208). Routledge.
28.
RamloS.BeritK. (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.
RamloS.StarvaggiD.MitchellR.RoketenetzL. (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.
RidenourC. S.NewmanI. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the interactive continuum. Southern Illinois University Press.
31.
SandelowskiM. J.VoilsC. I.BarrosoJ. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29.
32.
SellD. K.BrownS. 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 VaccaJ. L.JohnsonH. 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.
SematH. (1963). Introduction to atomic and nuclear physics (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
34.
StennerP.Stainton-RogersR. (2004). Q methodology and qualiquantology: The example of discriminating between emotions. In ToddZ.NerlichB.McKeownS.ClarkeD. D. (Eds.), Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. Psychology Press. pp. 101-120
StephensonW. (1983). Quantum theory and Q-methodology: Fictionalistic and probabilistic theories conjoined. Psychological Record, 33(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394839
41.
StephensonW. (1986a) William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: I—concepts. Psychological Record, 36, 519-527. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394970
42.
StephensonW. (1986b) William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: II—pragmatics of a thought. Psychological Record, 36, 529-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394971
43.
StephensonW. (1987a). How to make a good cup of tea. Operant Subjectivity, 10(2), 37-57.
44.
StephensonW. (1987b). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: III—Schrödinger’s cat. Psychological Record, 37, 523-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394997
45.
StephensonW. (1988a). Quantum theory of subjectivity. Integrative Psychiatry, 6(3), 180-195.
46.
StephensonW. (1988b). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: V—phenomenology of subjectivity. Psychological Record, 38, 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395016
47.
UherJ. (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.
UherJ. (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.
WilsonJ. D.BuffaA. J.LouB. (2010). College Physics, 7th edition. Pearson.
