The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Beyond Bias? The Promise and Limits of Q Method in Human Geography
Abstract
Q method is a quantitative technique for eliciting, evaluating, and comparing human subjectivity. We introduce the method here and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, especially with regards to its incorporation into human geographic research. We conclude that Q method is particularly appropriate for human geographies informed by anti-essentialist notions of the subject and constructivist accounts of social and natural reality. Claims by the founders of Q method that hold that the procedure distances and removes the bias of the researcher are shown to be unfounded and epistemologically naïve. Nevertheless, Q method is a rigorous, hermeneutic, and iterative technique that allows the researcher to surrender the monopoly of control in their relationship with the researched and so contribute to more democratic research design and implementation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wyly, E. (2009) · The Professional Geographer · doi:10.1080/00330120902931952 · Cited by 134
When the disaster strikes: Gendered (im)mobility in Bangladesh
Ayeb-Karlsson, S. (2020) · Climate Risk Management · doi:10.1016/j.crm.2020.100237 · Cited by 103
Wolsink, M. (2024) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103392 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Robbins, P., & Krueger, R.
- Venue
- The Professional Geographer
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-11-01
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 636-648
- ISSN
- 0033-0124 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9272
- OpenAlex
- W2021927033
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond Bias? The Promise and Limits of Q Method in Human Geography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0033-0124.00252
- The paper
- Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond Bias? The Promise and Limits of Q Method in Human Geography. The Professional Geographer. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00252
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
