Q Method: Assessing Subjectivity Through Structured Ranking of Items

Leidig, Susann; Köhler, Hanna; Caruso, Carina; Göller, Michael

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08518-5_20

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The analyses occur based on the ordering of the 64 statements that were provided to the respondents. In theory, it is always possible that critical perspectives are missed because certain items were not presented in the concourse (Leidig et al, 2022). In our case, this is possible but not likely.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…As in the analysis, the holistic ordering of all the statements and analysis of the ordering within the Q-methodology has advantages compared with other methods for research agenda setting. Respondents must consider every item for a position in the Q-grid (Leidig et al, 2022) and order the items individually, not in a consensus meeting with each institute. The Q-sorting process may be seen as a boundary object (Star, 2010), as a few broad research areas are sufficiently helpful to serve producers and consumers of research findings.…”

Section: What This Study Adds To the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advancing collaboration in health professions education in the general practice domain, developing a national research agenda

de Groot,

der Vossen,

Slootweg

et al. 2024

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health professions education (HPE) research in the General Practice domain (GP-HPE) is vital for high-quality healthcare. Collaboration among GP-HPE researchers is crucial but challenging. Formulating a research agenda, involving stakeholders, and fostering inter-institutional collaboration can address these challenges and connect educational research and practice. Methods We used Q-methodology to explore perspectives on GP-HPE research of participants from all Dutch postgraduate GP training institutes. Participants individually sorted statements based on the relevance of future GP-HPE research for educational practice. Data analysis comprised inverted factor analysis, rotation, and qualitative interpretation of configurations of all statements. The National Meeting on Educational Research took a participatory approach. Results We included 73 participants with diverse involvement in GP-HPE research. We identified five distinct perspectives, each representing a research focus area for developing and innovating GP education: the clinician scientist, the socially engaged GP, the specific GP identity, the GP as an entrepreneur, and the GP engaged in lifelong learning. Discussion The resulting five perspectives align with General Practice hallmarks. Q-methodology and a participatory approach facilitated collaboration among stakeholders. Successful inter-institutional collaboration requires a common goal, neutral leadership, participant commitment, regular meetings, audit trail support, process transparency, and reflexivity. Future research should address evidence gaps within these perspectives. Conclusion Using Q-methodology turned out to be valuable for compiling a national research agenda for GP-HPE research. The research process helped to cross boundaries between researchers in different institutions, thus putting inter-institutional collaborative advantage center stage. Our approach could provide a conceivable procedure for HPE researchers worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: What This Study Adds To the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing collaboration in health professions education in the general practice domain, developing a national research agenda

de Groot,

der Vossen,

Slootweg

et al. 2024

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The analyses occur based on the ordering of the 64 that were provided to the respondents. In theory, it is always possible that critical perspectives are missed because certain items were not presented in the Q sorting (Leidig et al, 2022). In our case, this is possible but not likely.…”

Section: Strenghts and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Respondents mustconsider every item for a position in the grid(Leidig et al, 2022) and order the items individually, not in a consensus meeting with each institute. As such, this method was perceived to be valuable for building commitment to teamwork between institutes that earlier had to compete with each other in the infrequent grant calls.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing collaboration in Health Professions Education in the General Practice domain, developing a national research agenda

de Groot,

Vossen,

Slootweg

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health professions education (HPE) research in the general practice domain (GP-HPE) is vital for high-quality healthcare. Collaboration among GP-HPE researchers is crucial but challenging. Formulating a research agenda, involving stakeholders, and fostering inter-institutional collaboration can address these challenges and connect educational research and practice.Methods We used Q-methodology to explore participants' perspectives from all Dutch postgraduate GP training institutes on GP-HPE research. Participants individually sorted statements based on the relevance of future GP-HPE research for educational practice. Data analysis comprised inverted factor analysis, rotation, and interpretation. The National Meeting on Educational Research took a participatory approach that was crucial in decision-making and aligning the results.Results We included 73 participants with diverse involvement in GP-HPE research. We identified five distinct perspectives, each representing a research focus area for developing and innovating GP education: the clinician scientist, the socially engaged GP, the specific GP identity, the GP as an entrepreneur, and the GP engaged in lifelong learning.Discussion The resulting five perspectives align with the general practice hallmarks. Q-methodology and a participatory approach facilitated collaboration and consensus among stakeholders. Successful inter-institutional collaboration requires a common goal, neutral leadership, participant commitment, regular meetings, audit trail support, process transparency, and reflexivity. Future research should focus on addressing evidence gaps within these perspectives.Conclusion In the Netherlands, we developed a national research agenda for GP-HPE research using Q-methodology, focusing on inter-institutional collaboration, which provides a potential model for HPE researchers worldwide.

show abstract

Addressing Methodological Challenges in Research on Professional Learning and Development

Göller

Kyndt

Paloniemi

et al. 2022

Methods for Researching Professional Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Q Method: Assessing Subjectivity Through Structured Ranking of Items

Cited by 3 publications

References 38 publications

Advancing collaboration in health professions education in the general practice domain, developing a national research agenda

Advancing collaboration in health professions education in the general practice domain, developing a national research agenda

Advancing collaboration in Health Professions Education in the General Practice domain, developing a national research agenda

Addressing Methodological Challenges in Research on Professional Learning and Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About