IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v57y2023i5d10.1007_s11135-022-01565-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is subjectivity? Scholarly perspectives on the elephant in the room

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Lundberg

    (Malmö University)

  • Nicola Fraschini

    (The University of Western Australia)

  • Renata Aliani

    (The University of Melbourne)

Abstract

The concept of subjectivity has long been controversially discussed in academic contexts without ever reaching consensus. As the main approach for a science of subjectivity, we applied Q methodology to investigate subjective perspectives about ‘subjectivity’. The purpose of this work was therefore to contribute with clarity about what is meant with this central concept and in what way the understanding might differ among Q researchers and beyond. Forty-six participants from different disciplinary backgrounds and geographical locations sorted 39 statements related to subjectivity. Factor analysis yielded five different perspectives. Employing a team approach, the factors were carefully and holistically interpreted in an iterative manner. Preliminary factor interpretations were then discussed with prominent experts in the field of Q methodology. These interviewees were selected due to their clear representation by a specific factor and led to a further enrichment of the narratives presented. Despite some underlying consensus concerning subjectivity’s dynamic and complex structure and being used as individuals’ internal point of view, perspectives differ with regard to the measurability of subjectivity and the role context plays for their construction. In light of the wide range of characterisations, we suggest the presented perspectives to be used as a springboard for future Q studies and urge researchers, within and beyond the Q community, to be more specific regarding their application of the concept. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of attempting to deeply understand research participants in order to truly contribute to a science of subjectivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Lundberg & Nicola Fraschini & Renata Aliani, 2023. "What is subjectivity? Scholarly perspectives on the elephant in the room," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4509-4529, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01565-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01565-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-022-01565-9
    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/s11135-022-01565-9?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. Jarl Kampen & Peter Tamás, 2014. "Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3109-3126, November.
    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. Peter Nijkamp & Karima Kourtit & Henk Scholten & Esmeralda Willemsen, 2023. "Citizen Participation and Knowledge Support in Urban Public Energy Transition—A Quadruple Helix Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    4. Pinillos, Daniel & Poccard-Chapuis, René & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A. & Corbeels, Marc & Timler, Carl J. & Tittonell, Pablo & R. Ballester, Maria Victoria & Schulte, Rogier P., 2021. "Landholders' perceptions on legal reserves and agricultural intensification: Diversity and implications for forest conservation in the eastern Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Isyaku, Usman, 2021. "What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. Chung-Chu Liu & Jason C. H. Chen & Che-Cheong Poon, 2019. "Perception Types Of Home Buyers By Q Methodology: A Comparative Study Of Hong Kong, Taiwan, And The Usa," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(01), pages 235-257, March.
    7. Boilson, Andrew & Gauttier, Stéphanie & Connolly, Regina & Davis, Paul & Connolly, Justin & Weston, Dale & Staines, Anthony, 2019. "Q-Method Evaluation of a European Health Data Analytic End User Framework," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2019), Rovinj, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 12-14 September 2019, pages 219-231, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.

    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:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01565-9. 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.