Making the Case for Critical Q Methodology
Making the Case for Critical Q Methodology
复制标题
论证关键 Q 方法论
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Gretchen Sneegas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gretchen Sneegas
Q方法结合定性和定量方法，通过确定参与者之间的共同世界观来衡量主观性。自从Robbins和Krueger（2000）首次将Q方法论引入人文地理学以来，在以批判、反思和创新的方式使用Q方法论的研究人员中，出现了一个新兴的“关键Q”研究团体。特别是，这个工作的主体质疑标准Q方法论的实证主义基础，认为它是主体性的“客观”衡量标准。尽管许多这样的分析使用Q方法来识别和分析话语，但很少有明确地涉及批评话语分析领域。本文认为，语篇分析在地理Q研究中被“黑盒化”，并概述了标准Q方法论协议中的四个关键时刻，研究人员可以在这些关键时刻有效地整合批判性语篇分析。在这样做的过程中，本文认为，将批判性话语分析的“混乱”与Q方法论的“整洁”并置，暴露了生产性的紧张、差距和矛盾，这些紧张、差距和矛盾为询问和批判性反思提供了关键时刻。关键词：语篇分析，混合方法，Q方法论，反身性主体性。
Q methodology combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to measure subjectivity by identifying shared worldviews among participants. Since Q methodology was first introduced to human geography by Robbins and Krueger (2000), a nascent body of “critical Q” research has emerged among researchers who employ Q methodology in critical, reflexive, and innovative ways. In particular, this body of work questions the positivist foundations of standard Q methodology as a supposedly “objective” measure of subjectivity. Although many such analyses use Q methodology to identify and analyze discourses, few explicitly engage the field of critical discourse analysis. This article argues that discourse analysis has been “blackboxed” in geographic Q scholarship and outlines four key moments in the standard Q methodology protocol where researchers could productively integrate critical discourse analysis. In so doing, this article argues that juxtaposing the “messiness” of critical discourse analysis and the “tidiness” of Q methodology exposes productive tensions, gaps, and contradictions that provide key moments for interrogation and critical reflexivity. Key Words: discourse analysis, mixed methods, Q methodology, reflexivity subjectivity.
影响因子：
4.9
作者：
Forrester, John;Cook, Brian;Donaldson, Andrew
通讯作者：
Donaldson, Andrew