Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comment: Q‐method and the isms

Comment: Q‐method and the isms Scientists should be epistemologically self-conscious. Without some understanding of how one comes to know, one risks not really knowing what one knows. At the same time, scientists need to get on with their work. Consequently, various conventions and norms coalesce within scientific communities to guide practice in ways generally consistent with some underlying epistemological perspective. Those who oppose the prevailing perspective may be able to induce debate by sharply contrasting, perhaps for rhetorical purposes in an exaggerated way, its norms and conventions with those of some alternative perspective. Thus, in contemporary social science we see the search for generalizations that can be subjected to empirical tests branded as positivism by those who advocate the search for contextual understanding under the banner of postpositivism. Q-method seems caught up in this clash of isms. The article by Toddi Steelman and Lynn Maguire attempts to demonstrate the potential usefulness of Q-method to policy analysts by showing its application in inter- and intraorganizational contexts. In his article, Dan Durning claims Q-method as part of the postpositive project. Laurence Lynn, in his article, confronts the postpositive challenge head on, especially in its claims that positivism threatens democracy by empowering expertise. In this brief http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Wiley

Comment: Q‐method and the isms

Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/comment-q-method-and-the-isms-Nhql1eyDZt

References (5)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
ISSN
0276-8739
eISSN
1520-6688
DOI
10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:3<426::AID-PAM6>3.0.CO;2-Y
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Scientists should be epistemologically self-conscious. Without some understanding of how one comes to know, one risks not really knowing what one knows. At the same time, scientists need to get on with their work. Consequently, various conventions and norms coalesce within scientific communities to guide practice in ways generally consistent with some underlying epistemological perspective. Those who oppose the prevailing perspective may be able to induce debate by sharply contrasting, perhaps for rhetorical purposes in an exaggerated way, its norms and conventions with those of some alternative perspective. Thus, in contemporary social science we see the search for generalizations that can be subjected to empirical tests branded as positivism by those who advocate the search for contextual understanding under the banner of postpositivism. Q-method seems caught up in this clash of isms. The article by Toddi Steelman and Lynn Maguire attempts to demonstrate the potential usefulness of Q-method to policy analysts by showing its application in inter- and intraorganizational contexts. In his article, Dan Durning claims Q-method as part of the postpositive project. Laurence Lynn, in his article, confronts the postpositive challenge head on, especially in its claims that positivism threatens democracy by empowering expertise. In this brief

Journal

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management – Wiley

Published: Jun 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.