3.5.1. Strengths
Q methodology is deemed to be appropriate in addressing research questions that involve “many potentially complex and contested answers” (Watts & Stenner, 2005, p. 75). In relation to the present study, the factors affecting a successful reintegration into mainstream education are multiple and multifaceted and are likely to be determined by individual circumstances. As such, Q methodology would provide a suitable approach for studies aiming to explore a range of views regarding ‘what works’.
Hughes (2016) described Q as a ‘person-centred’ methodology, which challenges a ‘one size fits all’ solution by hearing a range of voices, including the marginalised. Q methodology actively involves participants in the research process, which counteracts criticisms of studies where participants may perceive research as something that is ‘done to them’, as opposed to ‘with them’. In this respect, Q methodology allows researchers to remain close to the participants and to “interpret and ‘raise’ their voices with integrity” (Hughes, 2016, p. 65). The involvement of participants also helps to create a more balanced relationship between the participants and the researcher, which addresses issues associated with power differentiation.
Watts and Stenner (2012) highlight ‘flexibility’ as a major advantage of the procedure involved in Q methodological studies, as the method can be used to explore views on a wide range of topics. It has increasingly been employed to explore a range of issues relevant to education and according to Hughes (2016), has included child-participants as young as five years old. The Q sort technique itself is flexible in the sense that items in the Q set may be composed of objects, statements, words and pictures (Watts & Stenner, 2012). It is thus adaptable to the requirements of the investigation and to suit the specific sample of participants.
In addition, the abductive nature of Q methodology reduces the imposition of the researcher’s views on those being researched. In contrast to deduction (top-down logic) and induction (bottom-up logic), abductive approaches use the data obtained to create possible hypotheses from which the most plausible theory is selected to explain the data. Abduction is a logic designed for discovery and theory generation
(as opposed to testing and theory verification) and therefore hypotheses do not need to be derived from formalised or pre-existent theories. Watts and Stenner (2012) highlight the prominence of abduction at two substages of the Q methodological procedure; firstly, in exploratory factor analysis and secondly, during factor interpretation, where the aim is to provide a plausible hypothesis or ‘best possible theoretical explanation’ of the relevant data.
In summary, Q methodology offers a unique, innovative tool that is empowering for participants and which gives a voice to the marginal (Hughes, 2016). It is deemed advantageous in researching socially complex issues and allows participants to give a view that reflects their subjectivity. Coogan and Herrington (2011, p. 27) argue that “no other methods capture the essence of that the participants feel about a topic from collective voices, while at the same time identifying subtle differences between some of these voices.” Q methodology was therefore viewed as the most appropriate vehicle for exploring a range of views regarding the factors that support a successful reintegration into mainstream education, and for identifying similarities and divergences in the viewpoints of a specific group of participants.
3.5.2. Limitations
As with all methodological approaches, Q methodology does have a number of shortcomings. van Exel and de Graaf (2005) highlighted that it is still an innovative, and therefore sometimes suspect, methodology. This could result in misunderstandings or the dismissal of important findings and may lead to a requirement on the part of the researcher to spend time explaining the methodology and the results. It has been acknowledged that Q methodology has
increasingly been employed to explore a range of issues in relation to education, however it has generally been underused with CYP in this area (Hughes, 2016) and continues to be less understood than its purely qualitative or quantitative research counterparts. Although this may be viewed as a criticism, Hughes (2016) advocates that the person-centred approach to research has practical implications for Educational Psychologists (EPs) wishing to incorporate such approaches into their practice and van Exel and de Graaf (2005, p. 17) argue that “Q methodology is a valuable addition to any researcher’s toolbox.”
On a practical note, the statements in a Q set must represent a diverse range of views without making the Q sorting procedure too long or tedious (Watts & Stenner, 2005). This can mean that Q methodological research is time intensive (Barry & Proops, 1999) and can result in concern over whether the prescriptive statements are overly restrictive (Brown, 1980). The importance of peer reviews and pilot studies as a means of gaining feedback on the items contained within the Q set is recognised and has been utilised in the present study.
With regard to the task of Q sorting, ten Klooster, Visser and de Jong (2008) state that this can be time consuming and demanding for participants. This is an issue that must be addressed when using child-participants and can be mediated through creating a Q set with fewer statements and a Q grid with a steeper distribution (Watts & Stenner, 2012). There is also a risk of social desirability bias when participants complete the task of Q sorting, if they attempt to sort the items according to what they think the researcher expects or wants (Cross, 2005). In addition, Watts and Stenner (2005) highlight that some participants may feel
discomfort in relation to the ambiguity of the items in the Q set. There is a requirement for participants to interpret the statements and attribute their own meaning to each, which may lead to some participants feeling insecure about their ability. However, this limitation can be mediated by addressing the issue directly with participants and by providing assurance that there is no ‘right or wrong’ way to sort the items.
A further limitation of Q methodology concerns whether results are constant over time. However, from a social constructionist perspective, views and attributed meanings are context specific and capable of change and therefore ‘fixed’ views and constant results would not be expected.