IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infsem/v22y2024i4d10.1007_s10257-024-00679-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Q methodology and the sociotechnical perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Muriel Frank

    (Goethe University Frankfurt
    University of Luxembourg)

  • Vanessa Kohn

    (Goethe University Frankfurt)

  • Roland Holten

    (Goethe University Frankfurt)

Abstract

When studying information systems (IS) phenomena, scholars increasingly aim to take a socio-technical approach. This means that instead of focusing exclusively on the technical side, they also study them from a human perspective. An underrecognized yet powerful tool for examining the opinions and attitudes of individuals is the Q methodology because it makes subjective viewpoints on IS phenomena objectively measurable. Despite its benefits and wide application in other disciplines, the use of Q methodology in top IS journals is still rare. Based on a systematic literature review, this article explores the potential and fit of Q methodology within the sociotechnical systems framework. This analysis leads to two main insights. First, Q methodology enables the integration of the social and the technical component as well as instrumental and humanistic outcomes. Second, this qualiquantilogical technique enriches the understanding of IS phenomena by objectifying the approach to exploring subjective viewpoints. Thus, our work highlights the potential of the method for conducting IS research. And it also provides clear guidelines on how to use the method to uncover new patterns inherent in the data being studied.

Suggested Citation

  • Muriel Frank & Vanessa Kohn & Roland Holten, 2024. "Q methodology and the sociotechnical perspective," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 599-631, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v:22:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10257-024-00679-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10257-024-00679-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10257-024-00679-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10257-024-00679-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanessa Kohn & Muriel Frank & Roland Holten, 2023. "How Sociotechnical Realignment and Sentiments Concerning Remote Work are Related – Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 65(3), pages 259-276, June.
    2. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    3. David Ockwell, 2008. "‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 263-292, December.
    4. Stephen P. Smith & Robert B. Johnston & Steve Howard, 2011. "Putting Yourself in the Picture: An Evaluation of Virtual Model Technology as an Online Shopping Tool," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 640-659, September.
    5. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 65705, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    6. Albert H. Segars & Varun Grover, 1999. "Profiles of Strategic Information Systems Planning," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 199-232, September.
    7. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective .- (forthcoming)," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 65692, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    8. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 75001, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    9. Tobias Mettler & Michaela Sprenger & Robert Winter, 2017. "Service robots in hospitals: new perspectives on niche evolution and technology affordances," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(5), pages 451-468, September.
    10. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2010. "The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 125-141, January.
    11. Robin Williams & Neil Pollock, 2012. "Research Commentary ---Moving Beyond the Single Site Implementation Study: How (and Why) We Should Study the Biography of Packaged Enterprise Solutions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Jagdish N. Sheth, 1967. "A Review of Buyer Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(12), pages 718-756, August.
    13. Messerschmidt, Christian & Hinz, Oliver, 2013. "Explaining the Adoption of Grid Computing: An Integrated Institutional Theory and Organizational Capability Approach," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 63397, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    14. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    15. Paul Varella & Mansour Javidan & David A. Waldman, 2012. "A Model of Instrumental Networks: The Roles of Socialized Charismatic Leadership and Group Behavior," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 582-595, April.
    16. Jungjoo Jahng & Hemant Jain & Keshavamurthy Ramamurthy, 2007. "Effects of interaction richness on consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions in e-commerce: some experimental results," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 254-269, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. Christian Bartelheimer, Philipp zur Heiden, Hedda Lüttenberg, Daniel Beverungen, 2021. "Systematizing the Lexicon of Platforms in Information Systems: A Data-Driven Study," Working Papers Dissertations 79, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    3. Mucunska Palevska, Valentina & Novkovska, Blagica, 2018. "The Participation Of Ict In Activities Of Economic Subjects In Small Economy," UTMS Journal of Economics, University of Tourism and Management, Skopje, Macedonia, vol. 9(2), pages 157-168.
    4. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    5. Mario Schaarschmidt & Dirk Homscheid & Thomas Kilian, 2019. "Application Developer Engagement In Open Software Platforms: An Empirical Study Of Apple Ios And Google Android Developers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-33, May.
    6. Yang Wang & Xueming Luo & Zhijie Lin, 2023. "Estimating assortment size effects on platforms: Leveraging imperfect geographic targeting for causal inference," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(11), pages 3394-3412, November.
    7. Lei Huang & Yandong Zhao & Liang Mei & Peiyi Wu & Zhihua Zhao & Yijun Mao, 2019. "Structural Holes in the Multi-Sided Market: A Market Allocation Structure Analysis of China’s Car-Hailing Platform in the Context of Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Sardar Muhammad Usman & Farasat Ali Shah Bukhari & Muhammad Usman & Daniel Badulescu & Muhammad Safdar Sial, 2019. "Does the Role of Media and Founder’s Past Success Mitigate the Problem of Information Asymmetry? Evidence from a UK Crowdfunding Platform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Jingtao Yi & Jinqiu He & Lihong Yang, 2019. "Platform heterogeneity, platform governance and complementors’ product performance: an empirical study of the mobile application industry," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Wei, Ruiqi & Wang, Xinchun & Chang, Yu, 2021. "The effects of platform governance mechanisms on customer participation in supplier new product development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 475-487.
    11. Fabian Schueler & Dimitri Petrik, 2022. "Objectives of platform research: A co-citation and systematic literature review analysis," Papers 2202.08822, arXiv.org.
    12. Mosterd, Lars & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Ding, Aaron Yi & de Reuver, Mark, 2021. "Context dependent trade-offs around platform-to-platform openness: The case of the Internet of Things," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    13. Andreas Hein & Maximilian Schreieck & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2019. "The emergence of native multi-sided platforms and their influence on incumbents," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 631-647, December.
    14. Qiang Zhang & Yan Wang, 2018. "Struggling towards virtuous coevolution: institutional and strategic works of Alibaba in building the Taobao e-commerce ecosystem," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(3), pages 208-242, July.
    15. Andreas Hein & Jörg Weking & Maximilian Schreieck & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2019. "Value co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 503-518, September.
    16. Thomas Hess & René Riedl & Luc Becker, 2024. "Digital Business as a Field for Research and Education," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 34(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Saadatmand, Fatemeh & Lindgren, Rikard & Schultze, Ulrike, 2019. "Configurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    18. Christian Bartelheimer & Philipp Heiden & Hedda Lüttenberg & Daniel Beverungen, 2022. "Systematizing the lexicon of platforms in information systems: a data-driven study," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 375-396, March.
    19. Rémi Mencarelli & Renaud Lunardo & Cindy Lombart & Markus Blut & Ericka Henon, 2022. "Perceiving Control over the Exchange on Peer-to-Peer Platforms: Measurement and Effects in the Second-Hand Market," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 523-541, September.
    20. de Reuver, Mark & Sørensen, Carsten & Basole, Rahul C., 2018. "The digital platform: a research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v:22:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10257-024-00679-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.