Data collection in mixed methods research (MMR) can present challenges. To demonstrate the inherently mixed data collection within Q methodology (Q-technique), we start by generating a concourse of subjective statements with ChatGPT. A structured Q-sample is selected from the concourse using Fisher’s Design of Experiments which came from agricultural research and involves small sample theory and variance design. The process of the Q-sort involves each participant placing the Q-sample’s numbered subjective items into a continuum (grid) of Most Like to Most Unlike their view on the topic. Thus, the participants transform the subjective statements into a qualitative–quantitative hybrid representation of their inner subjectivity. The contribution to MMR is continuing the dialogue for integrated data collection via a specific example.
BhatiaP. (2023). ChatGPT for academic writing: A game changer or a disruptive tool?Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology, 39(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_84_23
3.
BraswellR.D. (2022). Comparative rotations and analyses of Q data: A worked example. In RhoadsJ.ThomasD.RamloS. (Eds.), Cultivating Q Methodology: Essays Honoring Steven R. Brown (pp 145-181). International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity.
4.
BrownS. R. (1970). On the use of variance designs in Q methodology. Psychological Record, 20(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393928
5.
BrownS. R. (1971). Experimental design and the structuring of theory. Experimental Study of Politics, 1(1), 1–41.
6.
BrownS. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
7.
BrownS. R. (2008). Q methodology. In GivenL. M. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 699–702). Sage.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
10.
DieterenC. M.PattyN. J. S.Reckers-DroogV. T.van ExelJ. (2023). Methodological choices in applications of Q methodology: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7(1), Article 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100404
11.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
12.
FisherR. A. (1926). The arrangement of field experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain, 33(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.23637/rothamsted.8v61q
13.
FisherR. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Oliver and Boyd.
14.
FisherR. A. (1960). The design of experiments (7th ed.). Hafner.
15.
HardingS. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.
16.
JeffaresS. (2014). Interpreting hashtag politics: Policy ideas in an era of social media. Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
18.
KellerE. F. (2022). Making sense of my life in science: A memoir. Modern Memoirs, Inc.
19.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
20.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
21.
LiJ. (2020). Evaluating the initial impact of a public management reform: A multiphase mixed methods investigation using Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819885721
22.
LonginoH. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.
23.
LyotardJ. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.
24.
McKeownB.ThomasD. (2013). Q methodology. Sage.
25.
MontgomeryD. C. (2017). Design and analysis of experiments (9th ed.). Wiley.
26.
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.
27.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
RamloS. (2017). The preferences of Q methodologists at the factor-analytic stage: An examination of practice. Research in the Schools, 24(2), 40–55.
33.
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.
34.
RamloS. (2022). Conceptualizing Q methodology as an integrated analysis. In OnwuegbuzieA.HitchcockJ. (Eds.), The routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research (pp. 324–340). Routledge.
35.
RamloS.NewmanI. (2011). Q methodology and its position in the mixed methods continuum. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(3), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.11.100594
36.
RamloS.StarvaggiD.MitchellR.RoketenetzL. (2019). Developing concourse & selecting a Q-sample: Preparation for a Q study about urban, American, middle-school science students’ views of nature. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 41(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2019.006
37.
RichardsonL.RamloS. (2019). Views of obesity: Generating a concourse using anecdote circles. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 41, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2019.003
38.
RidenourC. S.NewmanI. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the interactive continuum. Southern Illinois University Press.
39.
RortyR. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. University of Minnesota Press.
40.
SoukupP. A. (2021). Bots. Communication Research Trends, 40(4), 3–27.
41.
StephensonW. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-Technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.
42.
StephensonW. (1967). The play theory of mass communication. University of Chicago Press.
43.
StephensonW. (1972). Applications of communication theory: I. The substructure of science. Psychological Record, 22(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394060
44.
StephensonW. (1978). Concourse theory of communication. Communication, 3, 21–40.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
48.
WoolgarS. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In RipA.MisaT. J.SchotJ. (Eds.), Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 57–74). Pinter.
49.
WrayK. B. (2002). Reasoning about methodological pluralism. Philosophy of Science, 69(2), 123–152.
50.
ZhouY.WuM. L. (2022). Reported methodological challenges in empirical mixed methods articles: A review on JMMR and IJMRA. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820980212
