| Abstract: | 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 Robbins, P., and R. Krueger. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer 52 (4):636–48.Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]), 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. |
