Q Methodology and Its Position in the Mixed-Methods Continuum

In volume 32 of this journal, Paul Stenner suggests that Stephenson was resistant to Q methodology being placed within other theoretical frameworks. Yet in this same piece, Stenner states that it is time for Q methodology to be brought into a greater dialogue with contemporary social theory and research practice. This article seeks to demonstrate how Qfits into the contemporaryresearch practice ofmixed methods and argues that this perspective is not in conflict with Stephenson's positiQns on Q as a methodology. Further, our position reflects recent calls for the developmentofnew techniques and procedures to be used in mixed-methods research. Those making the call will find interest in what Q has to offer the social and behavioral sciences now, 75 years after it emerged in Stephenson's 1935 letter to Nature, and even though the term mixed-methodsresearch has only emerged in last couple of decades. Q methodology is shown to fit well methodologically into the mixed-methods continuum as described by prominent mixed-methods scholars, which further supports a position that Q represents a mixed research methodology.