Wojtek, Your comments are well taken on the issue of potential distortion of subjects' responses, the limitations of statistical technique in analysing results and the reliance of q on "completeness". First, I would like to say that if there is the potential for dissimulation, q would provide a better data set for testing that as a hypothesis. Furthermore, additional sorting could be conducted with "tell me what you think I want to hear" as the condition of instruction. That is, subjects could be asked to sort the statements according to a scale from what they think the surveyor most wants to hear to what they think the surveyor least wants to hear. The results of the resurvey could then be compared with the original results. Second, the statistical relationships revealed by factor analysis are *only statistical relationships*. They provide leads, they don't purport to be the "results" of the q study. Let's say I've got 30 subjects and 56 statements. I don't even want to do the math on how many different ways those 56 statements could be arranged -- many _billions_ of ways. All that the factor analysis does is help focus in on a managable number of relationships, say 30 or 40 for the researcher to look at more closely. If I may take liberties with the commissar and peasant story, the peasant's answer, "Because I have a sheep" is the punchline. But the commissar's unscripted question, ". . . you do not want give your sheep that is of much smaller value than the other animals. I do not understand that. Why???" is the hook. Survey research doesn't really allow you to ask that unexpected question; q does. You're quite right about the importance of completeness in assembling a list of statements. But, although the statements are taken as representative of opinion on a topic they are not held to be a priori *indicators* of one or another opinion. Whether or not the subjects interpret the statements in the same way is not important in a q study. That's because the statements *in isolation* are not assumed to "indicate" anything in particular; it is only in relation to one another that an attempt is made to interpret the meaning of statements. I should also qualify that completeness remains a subjective judgement, perhaps even impressionistic. The researcher stops collecting statements when it seems like there's nothing more to be said on the topic -- when even a vigorous search for new opinions turns up only the same old ones. I think I understand now what your expectations are regarding q method and I would agree with your criticisms if q lived up to those expectations. The difference may hinge on what you call "standardized cues". Yes, the same statements are shown to each of the respondents. But, no, it isn't assumed that they have the same meaning for all respondents. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: HTTP://WWW.VCN.BC.CA/TIMEWORK/
