Using Q Methodology in Administrative Ethics

Q methodology is seldom used by academics and practitioners in the field of administrative ethics, but it has important potential for empirical studies. Q offers a procedure and conceptual framework with which to study subjectivity in the social context. It has the advantage of bringing marginalized viewpoints to the fore but also has some drawbacks. The appendix provides a basic introduction to Q and shows how it can be used in research. Administrative ethics uses a wide range of methodologies (Menzel 2005); many purely descriptive studies are either quantitative and use surveys, or qualitative and use case-studies. Q methodology, an approach for the study of subjectivity, is rarely used in academic research or organizational and policy practice related to administrative ethics. Although not yet accepted in the field of administrative ethics, Q methodology is widely employed in other administrative sciences. As one example of its use, van Eeten’s (2001) study of the Schiphol Airport expansion controversy in the Netherlands won best article of the year in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. He writes: “The 1999 mini-symposium in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management shows that Q-methodology is finally being considered a candidate for the toolkit of mainstream policy analysis. The discussion seems to shift from fundamentalist debates over epistemology toward the question of the added value to the analysts’ toolkit” (2001, 396). Q methodology has also been applied more widely than policy analysis in public administration. Prominent examples of researchers who have adopted it include Selden, Brewer, and Brudney (1999), who identified five conceptions of administrative roles and responsibilities; Gaines, van Tubergen, and Paiva (1984), who studied the perceptions of police officers about promotion as a source of motivation; and Cunningham and Olshfski (1986), who did a Q on opinions and perceptions of the administrator-legislator relationship.