Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect: a reply to Kampen and Tamás

Steven R. Brown*, Stentor Danielson, Job van Exel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

45 Citations (Scopus)
37 Downloads (Pure)


The critical audit of Q methodology by Kampen and Tamás contains many errors of fact and understanding—indeed, a resistance to understanding that is compared to the Medicis’ stance toward Galileo. Following a brief historical summary of similar ill-advised critiques of Q methodology in the 80 years since its introduction, responses are presented to various of the points raised: on the nature of subjectivity, the universe of subjective communicability (concourse) and samples drawn from it, the role of factor analysis and factor interpretation, the forced Q-sort distribution, the ratio between the number of participants and the number of statements in the Q sample, and sources of researcher bias.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)523-537
Number of pages15
JournalQuality and Quantity
Issue number2
Early online date28 Feb 2014
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2015

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Research programs

  • EMC NIHES-05-63-02 Quality


Dive into the research topics of 'Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect: a reply to Kampen and Tamás'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this