An illustrated invitation to use Q-method in IS Research
Keywords:
Méthode Q, Q-sort, théorie du concours, subjectivité, individu, organisationsAbstract
Q-method has been invented in 50’s by William Stephenson, a psychologist, in order to explore human subjectivity. It is now regularly used in several social sciences and humanities. Research in information systems is an exception with only 14 empirical Q-studies since the first one in 1987. The Q-method has however several strengths and contributes to explore central aspects in IS such as perceptions, interpretations, social representations. The aim of this article is to propose a view of the methodological opportunities this method offers to ISR as well as an illustration of its use in the m-commerce field. It is thus an invitation to use this still underutilized method.References
Je ne comprends pas cette rubrique. S'agit il de la liste bibliographique ?
Baskerville, R.L., Myers, M. (2004), “Special Issue on Action Research in Information Systems: Making IS Research Relevant to Practice – A Foreword”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, n°3, p. 329-335.
Benlian, A., Koufaris, M., Hess, T. (2011), “Service Quality in Software-as-a-Service: Developing the Saas-Qual Measure and Examining its Role on Usage Continuance”, Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 28, n°3, p. 85-126.
Boland R.J.Jr. (1989), “Beyond the Objectivist and the Subjectivist: Learning to Read Accounting as Text”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 14, n°5–6, p. 591–604.
Brown S.R. (1980), “Political Subjectivity – Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science”, Yale University Press.
Brown S.R. (1984), “Mis-understandings, Mis-attributions, and Mis-Qs”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 8, n°1, p. 28-30.
Brown S.R. (1993), “A Q methodological Tutorial”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 16, n°3&4, p. 91-138 [disponible sur www.qmethod.org].
Brown S.R. (1997), “The History and Principles of Q Methodology in Psychology and the Social Sciences”, British Psychological Society symposium on “A Quest for a Science of Subjectivity: The Lifework of William Stephenson”, University of London, England (QArchive).
Brown, S.R. (1972), “A Fundamental Incommensurability between Objectivity and Subjectivity”, In S.R. Brown & D.J. Brenner (Eds.), Science, Psychology, and Communication: Essays Honoring William Stephenson. New York: Teachers College Press, p. 57 94.
Brown, S.R. (1978), “The Importance of Factors in Q Methodoloqy: Statistical and Theoretical Considerations”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 1, n°4, p. 117-124.
Conboy, K., Fitzgerald, G., Mathiassen, L. (2012), “Qualitative Methods Research in Information Systems: Motivations, Themes, and Contributions”, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 21, p. 113-118.
Crawford K., Hasan, H. (2006), “Demonstration of the Activity Theory Framework for Research in Information Systems”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 13, n°2, p. 49-67.
David, A. (2008), “Logique, épistémologie et méthodologie en sciences de gestion : trois hypothèses revisitées”, in David, A., Hatchuel, A., Laufer, C. (eds) Les nouvelles fondations des Sciences de gestion, Vuibert, p. 83-109.
Davis, F.D. (1986), “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End User Information Systems: Theory and Results, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Dawson, G.S., Watson R.T. (2011), "Uncovering and Testing Archetypes of Effective Public Sector CIOs”, ACM Transaction on Management Information Systems, vol.1, n°2, art. 12, p. 1-18.
De Vaujany, F.X. (2006), “Pour une théorie de l'appropriation des outils de gestion: vers un dépassement de l'opposition conception-usage”, Revue Management et Avenir, n°9, p. 109-127.
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M. S. (1994), “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory”, Organization Science, vol. 5, n°2, p. 121-147.
Dos Santos B.L. (1988), “Information Systems: Similarities and Differences Across Organizations”, OMEGA, vol. 17, n°1, p. 9-20.
Dos Santos B.L., Hawk S.R. (1988), “Differences in analyst's attitudes towards information systems development: Evidence and implications”, Information and Management, vol. 14, n°1, p. 31-41.
Faÿ, E., Introna, L., Puyou, F.R. (2010), “Living with Numbers: Accounting for Subjectivity in/with Management Accounting Systems”, Information & Organization, vol. 20, p. 21-43.
Galliers, R.D., Huang, J.C. (2012), “The Teaching of Qualitative Research Methods in Information Systems: An Explorative Study Utilizing Learnig Theory”, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 21, p. 119-134.
Gauzente, C. (2010), “Does Anybody Read SMS-Advertising? A Qualitative and Quantitative Study of Mobile Users’ Attitudes and Perceived Ad-Clutter”, International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, vol. 6, n°2, p. 13-29.
Goldkuhl, G. (2012), “Pragmatism vs Interpretivism in Qualitative Information Systems Research”, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 21, p. 135-146.
Gottschalk, P. (2001), “Key Issues in IS Management in Norway: An Empirical Study Based on Q Methodology”, Information Resources Management Journal, vol. 14, n°2, p. 37-45.
Gottschalk, P., Christensen B.H., Watson R.T. (1997), “Key Issues in IS Management Surveys: Methodological Issues ad Choices in a Norwegian Context”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 9, n°2, p. 57-66.
Grover, V., Segars, A.H. (2005), “An Empirical Evaluation of Stages of Strategic Information Systems Planning: Patterns of Process Design and Effectiveness”, Information & Management, vol. 42, 761-779.
Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K. (1994), “Realizing Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Development: The Case for ETHICS”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 18, n°1, p.83-109.
Kaplan, B., Duchon, D. (1988), “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 12, n°4, p. 571-586.
Kendall J.E., Kendall K. E. (1993), “Metaphors and Methodologies: Living Beyond the Systems Machine”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 17, n°2, p. 149-171.
Kendall K.E., Buffington, J.R., Kendall, J.E. (1987), “The relationship of organizational subcultures to DSS user satisfaction”, Human Systems Management, vol. 7, n° 1, p. 31-39.
Klaus, T., Wingreen, S., Blanton, J.E. (2007), “Resistant Groups in Enterprise Systems Implementation – A Q Methodology Examination”, Journal of Information Technology, vol. 25, p. 91-106.
Klein, H.K., Myers, M.D. (1999), “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, n°1, p. 67-94.
Lamb, R., Kling, R. (2003), “Reconceptualising Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, n°2, p. 197-235.
Leonardi, P.M. (2009), “Why Do People Reject New Technologies and Stymie Organizational Changes of Which They Are in Favor? Exploring Misalignments Between Social Interactions and Materiality”, Human Communication Research, vol. 35, p. 407–441.
Leonardi, P.M. (2011), “Digital Materiality? How Artifacts without Matter, Matter”, First Monday, vol. 15, n° 6 – 7, 14p.
Ligpar, R.M. (1995), “William Stephenson at the University of Chicago: Subjectivity/Objectivity Revisited”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 18, n° 3/4, p. 86-93.
McKeown, B. (1998), “Circles: Q Methodology and Hermeneutical Science”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 21, n°3/4, p. 112-138.
Mingers, J. (2001), “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology”, Information Systems Research, vol. 12, n°3, p. 240-259.
Miranda,S.M., Saunders, C.S. (2003), “The Social Construction of Meaning: An Alternative Perspective on Information Sharing”, Information Systems Research, vol. 14, n°1, p. 87-106.
Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation”, Information Systems Research, vol. 2, n°3, p. 192-222.
Morgan, G., Smircich, L. (1980), “The Case for Qualitative Research”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 5, n°4, p. 491-500.
Morgado, E.M., Reinhard, N., Watson, R.T. (1999), “Adding Value to Key issues Research Through Q-sorts and Interpretative Structured Modeling”, Communication of AIS, vol. 1, art. 3, 1-22.
Myers, M. D. (1997), "Qualitative Research in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly, vol. 21, n°2, p. 241-242. MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 1997, http://www.misq.org/supplements/ MISQ Discovery, updated version, last modified: May 21, 2012, www.qual.auckland.ac.nz
Myers, M.D., Klein, H.K. (2011), “A Set of Principles for Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 35, n°1, p. 17-36.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., Caldwell D.F. (1991), “People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, n03, p. 487-516.
of Global Information Technology Management, vol. 6 n°.4, p.27-44.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations”, Organization Science, vol. 3, n°3, p. 398-427.
Orlikowski, W.J., Baroudi, J.J. (1991), “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions”, Information Systems Research, vol. 2, n°1, p. 1-28.
Orlikowski, W.J., Scott S.V. (2008), “Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization”, Academy of Management Annals, vol. 2, n°1, p. 433-474.
Petter, S., Straub, D., Ral, A. (2007), “Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 31, n°4, p. 623-656.
Pimchangthong, D., Plaisent, M., Bernard, P. (2003), “Key issues in Information Systems Management: A Comparative Study between Academics and Practitioners in Thailand”, Journal of Global Business Review, vol. 3, jan., p. 56-67.
Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., Kavan, C.B. (1995), “Service Quality: A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 19, n°2, p. 173-187.
Rowe, F., Struck D. (1999), Cultural Values, “Media Richness and Telecommunication Use in an Organization”, Accounting Management and Information Technologies, vol. 9, p. 161-192.
Segars, A., Grover, V. (1999), “Profiles of Strategic Information Systems Planning”, Information Systems Research, vol. 10, n°3, p. 199-232.
Segars, A.H., Grover, V. (1998), “Strategic Information Systems Planning Success: An Investigation of the Construct and its Measurement”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 22, n°2, p. 139-163.
Segars, A.H., Grover, V., Teng, T.C. (1998), “Strategic Information Systems Planning: Planning System Dimension, Internal Coalignment, and Implications for Planning Effectiveness”, Decision Sciences, vol. 29, n°2, p. 303-779.
Stephenson, W. (1977), “Factors as Operant Subjectivity”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 1, n°1, p. 3-16.
Stephenson, W. (1979), “The Communicability and Operantcy of the Self”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 3, n°1, p. 2-14.
Stephenson, W. (1980), “Q Methodology and the Subjectivity of Literature”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 3, n°4, p. 111-133.
Stephenson, W. (1981), “Principles for the Study of Subjectivity”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 4, n°2, p. 37-53.
Stephenson, W. (1983a), “Against Interpretation, Part I and II”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 6, n°3, p. 73-103.
Stephenson, W. (1983b), “Against Interpretation, Part III”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 6, n°4, p. 109-125.
Stephenson, W. (1986a), “Protoconcursus I: The Concourse Theory of Communication”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 9, n°2, p. 37-58.
Stephenson, W. (1986b), “Protoconcursus II: The Concourse Theory of Communication”, Operant Subjectivity, vol. 9, n°3, p. 73-96.
Swanson, E.B., Ramiller, N.C. (1997), “The Organizing Vision in Information Sytems Innovation”, Organization Sciences, vol. 8, n°5, p. 458-474.
Thomas, D.M., Watson, R.T. (2002), “Q-sorting and MIS Research: A Primer”, Communication of the AIS, vol. 8, p. 141-156.
Tractinsky N., Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1995), “Information System Design Decisions in a Global versus Domestic Context”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 19, n°4, p. 507-534.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author bears the responsibility for checking whether material submitted is subject to copyright or ownership rights (e.g. figures, tables, photographs, illustrations, trade literature and data). The author will need to obtain permission to reproduce any such items, and include these permissions with their final submission.
It is our policy to ask all contributors to transfer for free the copyright in their contribution to the journal owner. There are two broad reasons for this:
- ownership of copyright by the journal owner facilitates international protection against infringement of copyright, libel or plagiarism;
- it also ensures that requests by third parties to reprint or reproduce a contribution, or part of it, in either print or electronic form, are handled efficiently in accordance with our general policy which encourages dissemination of knowledge within the framework of copyright.
In conformity with the French law, the author keeps the 'moral rights' related to the article:
- The 'authorship right': It is the author's right to have his name associated with each publication and exploitation of the article.
- The 'integrity right': It can be claimed by the author if he finds that during an exploitation, his work has been distorted (cutting, reassembly...).
