This article brings Alexander Wendt's (2015) ‘quantum social ontology’ into the realm of empirical International Relations (IR) research by coupling it with Q methodology. It shows how Wendt's ontology and Q methodology share a central interest in complex agency and are inherently allied in terms of principles and purposes. The quantum view has catalysed conversation within IR and social sciences more broadly, but that debate has remained almost exclusively on a theoretical level. This article shows that there is potential for empirical research in this area regardless of whether one considers the quantum view to be an analogy or ontological reality. Q methodology's grounding ideas align with quantum physics and the quantum social ontology, e.g. in the fashion it conceives of subjective states of mind and their measurement. Practical examples of Q methodological work are presented to illustrate the quantum concepts in a social scientific setting. The article argues for a broader study of political subjectivity within IR through a notion of personhood, which opens up vast potentialities for agency as well as for breaking free of determinism, and fixed notions of human nature as well as ostensibly fixed understandings of advantaged or disadvantaged subject positions.
AaltoPami (2003), ‘Revisiting the Security/Identity Puzzle in Russo-Estonian Relations’, Journal of Peace Research, 40(5): 573–591.
2.
AaltoPami (2011), ‘The Human Subject in International Studies: An Outline for Interdisciplinary Research Programmes’, in AaltoPami, HarleVilho, and MoisioSami (eds.) International Studies. Interdisciplinary Approaches, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 178–206.
3.
AlbertMathias (2015), ‘Book Review. Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology by Alexander Wendt’, International Affairs, 91(4): 872–874.
4.
AlbizuaAmaia, and ZografosChristos (2014), ‘A Values-Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change. Applying Q Methodology in the Ebro Delta, Spain’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 24: 405–422.
5.
AscherWilliam (1987), ‘Subjectivity and the Policy Sciences’, Operant Subjectivity, 10(3): 73–80.
6.
BaradKaren (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham: Duke University Press.
7.
BrownSteven R. (1980), Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science, New Haven: Yale University Press.
8.
BrownSteven R. (2002), ‘Subjective Behavior Analysis’, Operant Subjectivity, 25(3/4): 148–163.
9.
BrownSteven R. (2006), ‘A Match Made in Heaven: A Marginalized Methodology for Studying the Marginalized’, Quality & Quantity, 40(3): 361–382.
10.
ButlerJudith (2001), ‘Giving an Account of Oneself’, Diacritics, 31(4): 22–40.
11.
BymanDaniel L., and PollackKenneth M. (2001), ‘Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In’, International Security, 25(4): 107–146.
12.
CallahanKathe, DubnickMelvin J., and OlshfskiDorothy (2006), ‘War Narratives: Framing Our Understanding of the War on Terror’, Public Administration Review, 66(4): 554–568.
13.
CrasnowSharon (2016), ‘A Quantum Explanation of Everything’, Metascience, 25: 313–315.
14.
Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society (2017), ‘Symposium on Alexander Wendt, Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology’, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 29(2): 121–263.
15.
CurryRobin, BarryJohn, and McClenaghanAndrew (2013), ‘Northern Visions? Applying Q Methodology to Understand Stakeholder Views on the Environmental and Resource Dimensions of Sustainability’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5): 624–649.
16.
DavisThomas C. (1999), ‘Revisiting Group Attachment: Ethnic and National Identity’, Political Psychology, 20(1): 25–47.
17.
DeCanioStephen J. (2017), ‘What Is It Like to Be a Social Scientist?’, Critical Review, 29(2): 121–140.
18.
Der DerianJames (2013), ‘From War 2.0 to Quantum War: The Superpositionality of Global Violence’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(5): 570–585.
19.
DonnerJonathan (2001), ‘Using Q-Sorts in Participatory Processes: An Introduction to the Methodology’, in KruegerRichard A., CaseyMary Anne, DonnerJonathan, KirschStuart, and MaackJonathan N. (eds.) Social Development Papers, Paper 36, Social Analysis: Selected Tools and Techniques, Washington D. C.: World Bank, pp. 24–49.
20.
DryzekJohn S. (2005), ‘Handle with Care: The Deadly Hermeneutics of Deliberative Instrumentation’, Acta Politica, 40: 197–211.
21.
DryzekJohn S., ClarkMargaret L., and McKenzieGarry (1989), ‘Subject and System in International Interaction’, International Organization, 43(3): 475–503.
22.
ElmanColin, and ElmanMiriam Fendius (2003), ‘Lessons from Lakatos’, in ElmanColin, and ElmanMiriam Fendius (eds.) Progress in International Relations Theory. Appraising the Field, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 21–70.
23.
FierkeKarin Marie (2017), ‘Consciousness at the Interface: Wendt, Eastern Wisdom and the Ethics of Intra-Action’, Critical Review, 29(2): 141–169.
24.
HaeslyRichard (2001), ‘Euroskeptics, Europhiles and Instrumental Europeans: European Attachment in Scotland and Wales’, European Union Politics, 2(1): 81–102.
25.
HaeslyRichard (2005), ‘Identifying Scotland and Wales: Types of Scottish and Welsh National Identities’, Nations and Nationalism, 11(2): 243–263.
26.
HavenEmmanuel, and KhrennikovAndrei (2013), Quantum Social Science, New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HenselPaul R., and MitchellSara McLaughlin (2015), ‘Lessons from the Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project’, Journal of Peace Research, 52(1): 116–119.
28.
HilhorstDorothea, WeijersLoes, and WesselMargit Van (2012), ‘Aid Relations and Aid Legitimacy: Mutual Imaging of Aid Workers and Recipients in Nepal’, Third World Quarterly, 33(8): 1439–1457.
29.
JacksonPatrick Thaddeus (2016), ‘Fundamental Grounding’, Perspectives on Politics, 14(4): 1153–1157.
30.
JervisRobert (2017), ‘One World or Many?’, Critical Review, 29(2): 170–188.
31.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour (2018), ‘Forum: Quantum Social Theory’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(2): 153–251.
32.
Kallio-TamminenTarja (2006), Kvanttilainen todellisuus. Fysiikka ja filosofia maailmankuvan muovaajina [Quantic Reality. Physics and Philosophy as Shapers of Worldviews], Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
33.
KhrennikovaPolina (2016), ‘Quantum Dynamical Modelling of Competition and Cooperation between Political Parties: The Coalition and Non-Coalition Equilibrium Model’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 71: 39–50.
34.
KhrennikovaPolina, HavenEmmanuel, and KhrennikovAndrei (2014), ‘An Application of the Theory of Open Quantum Systems to Model the Dynamics of Party Governance in the US Political System’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53: 1346–1360.
35.
KilpeläinenSarah, AaltoPami, ToivanenPasi, LehtonenPinja, and HolttinenHannele (2019), ‘How to Achieve a More Resource-Efficient and Climate-Neutral Energy System by 2030? Views of Nordic Stakeholders’, Review of Policy Research, 36(3): 1–25.
36.
KoçakMurat (2012), ‘Threat Assessment of Terrorist Organizations: The Application of Q Methodology’, Journal of Risk Research, 15(1): 85–105.
37.
KristensenPeter Marcus (2016), ‘Discipline Admonished: On International Relations Fragmentation and the Disciplinary Politics of Stocktaking’, European Journal of International Relations, 22(2): 243–267.
38.
KurkiMilja, and WightColin (2007), ‘International Relations and Social Science’, in DunneTim, KurkiMilja, and SmithSteve (eds.) International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 13–33.
39.
KurowskaXymena, and TallisBenjamin C. (2013), ‘Chiasmatic Crossings: A Reflexive Revisit of a Research Encounter in European Security’, Security Dialogue, 44(1): 73–89.
40.
LahlouSaadi (2011), ‘How Can We Capture the Subject's Perspective? An Evidence-Based Approach for the Social Scientist’, Social Science Information, 50(3-4): 607–655.
41.
LehtonenPinja, and AaltoPami (2017), ‘Smart and Secure Borders through Automated Border Control Systems in the EU? The Views of Political Stakeholders in the Member States’, European Security, 26(2): 207–225.
42.
LigtvoetAndreas, CuppenEefje, RuggeroOlga Di, HemmesKas, PeschUdo, QuistJaco, and MehosDonna (2016), ‘New Future Perspectives through Constructive Conflict: Exploring the Future of Gas in the Netherlands’, Futures, 78–79: 19–33.
43.
LynnLaurence E. (1999), ‘A Place at the Table: Policy Analysis, Its Postpositive Critics, and the Future of Practice’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3): 411–425.
44.
MansbachRichard W., and TaylorKristen L. (2012), Introduction to Global Politics, Abingdon: Routledge.
45.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies (2018), ‘Forum: Social Theory Going Quantum-Theoretic? Questions, Alternatives and Challenges’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 47(1): 67–141.
46.
MillerHugh T. (2016), ‘From Social Constructivist Epistemology to Context Realism’, Critical Policy Studies, 10(3): 365–379.
47.
MontgomeryAlexander H. (2016), ‘Quantum Mechanisms: Expanding the Boundaries of Power, Space, and Time in Global Security Studies’, Journal of Global Security Studies, 1(1): 102–106.
48.
O'ConnorKarl (2013), ‘Q Methodology as a Tool for Committee Governance Research’, West European Politics, 36(5): 1073–1087.
49.
OdysseosLouiza (2002), ‘Radical Phenomenology, Ontology, and International Political Theory’, Alternatives, 27: 373–405.
50.
PenttinenElina (2013), Joy and International Relations. A New Methodology, Abingdon: Routledge.
51.
RamloSusan (2005), ‘A Physicist's Reflection on Q Methodology, Quantum Mechanics & Stephenson’, Operant Subjectivity, 29(1/2): 81–86.
52.
RobynRichard (2005), The Changing Face of European Identity: A Seven-Nation Study of (Supra)National Attachments, Abingdon: Routledge.
53.
Schwartz-SheaPeregrine, and YanowDvora (2012), Interpretive Research Design. Concepts and Processes, New York: Routledge.
54.
SeoHyunjin, and KinseyDennis F. (2013), ‘Three Korean Perspectives on U.S. Internet Public Diplomacy’, Public Relations Review, 53: 594–596.
55.
SmithThomas S. J. (2016), ‘What Ever Happened to Quantum Geography? Toward a New Qualified Naturalism’, Geoforum, 71: 5–8.
56.
SprujitPita, KnolAnne B., PetersenArthur C., and LebretErik (2016), ‘Differences in Views of Experts about Their Role in Particulate Matter Policy Advice: Empirical Evidence from an International Expert Consultation’, Environmental Science & Policy, 59: 44–52.
57.
SteinmoSven (2017), ‘Wendt's Challenge to Social Science: Quantum Physics, Consciousness, and Society’, Critical Review, 29(2): 189–198.
58.
StephensonWilliam (1953), The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and Its Methodology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
StephensonWilliam (1981), ‘Cyril Burt, Quantum Theory and Q: Historical Note’, Operant Subjectivity, 4(4): 120–134.
StephensonWilliam (1983), ‘Quantum Theory and Q-methodology: Fictionalistic and Probabilistic Theories Conjoined’, Psychological Record, 33(2): 213–230.
62.
StephensonWilliam (1985), ‘Perspectives in Psychology: Integration in Clinical Psychology’, Psychological Record, 35(1): 41–48.
63.
StephensonWilliam (1986a), ‘Protoconcursus: the Concourse Theory of Communication’, Operant Subjectivity, 9(2): 37–58.
64.
StephensonWilliam (1986b), ‘William James, Niels Bohr, and Complementarity: I – Concepts’, Psychological Record, 36(4): 519–527.
65.
StephensonWilliam (1986c), ‘William James, Niels Bohr, and Complementarity: II – Pragmatics of a Thought’, Psychological Record, 36(4): 529–543.
66.
StephensonWilliam (1987), ‘William James, Niels Bohr, and Complementarity: III – Schrodinger's Cat’, Psychological Record, 37(4): 523–544.
67.
WaldnerDavid (2017), ‘Schrödinger's Cat and the Dog That Didn't Bark: Why Quantum Mechanics Is (Probably) Irrelevant to the Social Sciences’, Critical Review, 29(2): 199–233.
68.
WendtAlexander (2015), Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.
WilloughbyM. J. (1986), ‘Nuclear Freeze Attitude Structures: A Pre- and Post-Test of the Impact of the Korean Airline Incident’, Social Science Quarterly, 67(3): 534–544.
70.
WongTimothy Ka-Ying, and SunMilan Tung-Wen (1988), ‘Dissolution and Reconstruction of National Identity: The Experience of Subjectivity in Taiwan’, Nations and Nationalism, 4(2): 241–272.
71.
WrightRon (2007), ‘Statistical Structures Underlying Quantum Mechanics and Social Science’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 46(8): 2026–2045.
72.
YearsleyJames M., and BusemeyerJerome R. (2016), ‘Quantum Cognition and Decision Theories: A Tutorial’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74: 99–116.
73.
ZanottiLaura (2017), ‘Reorienting IR: Ontological Entanglement, Agency, and Ethics’, International Studies Review, 00: 1–19.
