Happy birthday!
Jun. 28th, 2005 11:13 amHappy 70th birthday Q methodology, the method for investigating intersubjectivity for the discerning if marginalized social scientist! It is elegant, powerful, and bloody good fun if you like that sort of thing.
Q methodology is a method of statistical analysis which is chiefly concerned with human subjectivity. A Q study aims to elicit the multiple accounts or understandings that surround a particular theme, issue, or topic, and investigate the shared nature of these accounts by revealing these patterns (factors) in an interpretable and structured manner.
Participants in a Q study are invited to consider a number of 'items' [1], and to rank them according to a matrix which indicates the extent to which they agree or disagree. These 'Q sorts' [2] are taken from a variety of respondents, and are then correlated and factor-analyzed. The resulting factors represent clusters of people who have ranked the same statements in essentially the same fashion, i.e. that have a common understanding of the topic under investigation. These factors are then interpreted in terms of commonly shared perspectives.
For good explications of Q see Brown (1980), McKeown and Thomas (1988), and Stainton Rogers (1995).
The fabled Blake's 7 fan Q study.
Notes
[1] An 'item' is a statement about the issue under study.
[2] A 'Q sort' is the full collection of items related to the topic of study; a completed Q sort is the ranked ordering of all statements as carried out by an individual respondent.
References
Brown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. (1988) Q Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Stainton Rogers, R. (1995) 'Q Methodology.' In Smith, J. A., Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.) Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage.
On June 28, 1935, William Stephenson penned the following letter to the Editor of the British science journal Nature, thus initiating the development that has come to be known as Q methodology. The letter eventually appeared in the 24 August 1935 issue of Nature (p. 297).
Long may we continue to correlate persons instead of tests.
ETA:
iainjcoleman's quick and dirty B7 Q study analysis.
Q methodology is a method of statistical analysis which is chiefly concerned with human subjectivity. A Q study aims to elicit the multiple accounts or understandings that surround a particular theme, issue, or topic, and investigate the shared nature of these accounts by revealing these patterns (factors) in an interpretable and structured manner.
Participants in a Q study are invited to consider a number of 'items' [1], and to rank them according to a matrix which indicates the extent to which they agree or disagree. These 'Q sorts' [2] are taken from a variety of respondents, and are then correlated and factor-analyzed. The resulting factors represent clusters of people who have ranked the same statements in essentially the same fashion, i.e. that have a common understanding of the topic under investigation. These factors are then interpreted in terms of commonly shared perspectives.
For good explications of Q see Brown (1980), McKeown and Thomas (1988), and Stainton Rogers (1995).
The fabled Blake's 7 fan Q study.
Notes
[1] An 'item' is a statement about the issue under study.
[2] A 'Q sort' is the full collection of items related to the topic of study; a completed Q sort is the ranked ordering of all statements as carried out by an individual respondent.
References
Brown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. (1988) Q Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Stainton Rogers, R. (1995) 'Q Methodology.' In Smith, J. A., Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.) Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage.
On June 28, 1935, William Stephenson penned the following letter to the Editor of the British science journal Nature, thus initiating the development that has come to be known as Q methodology. The letter eventually appeared in the 24 August 1935 issue of Nature (p. 297).
Technique of Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a subject upon which Prof. G. H. Thomson, Dr. Wm. Brown and others have frequently written letters to Nature. This analysis is concerned with a selected population of n individuals each of whom has been measured in m tests. The (m)(m-1)/2 intercorrelations for these m variables are subjected to either a Spearman or other factor analysis.
The technique, however, can also be inverted. We begin with a population of n different tests (or essays, pictures, traits or other measurable material), each of which is measured or scaled by m individuals. The (m)(m-1)/2 intercorrelations are then factorised in the usual way.
This inversion has interesting practical applications. It brings the factor technique from group and field work into the laboratory, and reaches into spheres of work hitherto untouched or not amendable to factorisation. It is especially valuable in experimental aesthetics and in educational psychology, no less than in pure psychology.
It allows a completely new series of studies to be made on the Spearman 'central intellective factor' (g), and also allows tests to be made of the Two Factor Theorem under greatly improved experimental conditions. Data on these and other points are to be published in due course in the British Journal of Psychology.
W. Stephenson
Psychological Laboratory,
University College,
Gower Street,
London, W.C.1.
June 28.
Long may we continue to correlate persons instead of tests.
ETA:
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 04:27 am (UTC)*clunk* (that was my tea-mug engaging in toasting activity)
Mr A.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 04:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 04:43 am (UTC)I enjoyed reading the Blake's 7 Q study again. Though, tying up with the current discussion on Freedom City, I have absolutely no recollection of the title of Account 2, despite recognising at least three quotes of mine further down the page. This probably means that they weren't mine at all.
What happened to Kiwi Separatism? Did it turn into Carry On?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 05:02 am (UTC)My recollection was that you came up with the title of Account 2! (Not famed for my memory, however.) I changed the title of Kiwi Separatism to Carry on Up the Rebels for the wider audience, but it is the same one.
I absolutely love that icon.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 05:14 am (UTC)Thank you, I'll do it again, then!
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 05:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 05:41 am (UTC)Excellent new icon. I'm struggling to think of one for Tennant and so far only have "Gaudis", which is crap and ludicrously obscure. Perhaps I should wait till he's done some episodes.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 05:56 am (UTC)I don't think I'll bother doing all ten, though - just my Top Three! But it may be like babies, you need to see them before you know what their name is.
Having said that...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 06:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 06:06 am (UTC)It was--I popped in en route to the time travelers' convo at MIT last month.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 06:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 07:33 am (UTC)She loves Q yeah, yeah, yeah
Date: 2005-06-28 04:51 am (UTC)Re: She loves Q yeah, yeah, yeah
Date: 2005-06-28 05:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 05:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 06:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 07:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 08:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 09:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 09:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 09:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 09:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 10:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 10:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 10:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 11:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 11:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 09:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 11:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 02:57 am (UTC)Now I'm really intrigued!
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 03:06 am (UTC)I've used a different piece of software in Q-studies since doing this one (a lot of which I number-crunched by hand!), and that gives some extra stats which sometimes help; perhaps I might have squeezed an interpretation out that way. Loving that icon, btw.
It's tempting to do one on how fans perceive 'quality' in fanfiction, but I think I'd be mad to try.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 08:45 am (UTC)Now, let's see if that motivates me to do any work on my research proposal tonight.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 08:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 04:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 04:27 am (UTC)Besides, scissors, paper - it's Blue Peter Q. And that's very important.
(Still hankers for the days of Changing Rooms when they showed you how to decorate a plain lampshade like an Advent crown.