Chapter 8 Q Methodology
<!-- %Mutz (2008) is all about how it is important to make deliberative democracy falsifiable. -->Q methodology and deliberative democracy share epistemological and normative roots in American pragmatism: that meaning is intersubjective, that communication is human action and that we can – and should – reach some mutual understanding on the objective and moral world, even if contingent and preliminary. This study illustrates and explores how this common legacy makes Q methodology and and deliberative democracy are a good fit for political psychology. On the one hand, deliberation posits the regulative ideal under which individuals can freely constitute and express their political subjectivity: a mutual and egalitarian give-and-take of reasons. On the other hand, Q may serve to measure the quality of deliberation, occupying a sweet spot between quantitatively constrained interpretations for researchers and qualitative leeway for citizens’ viewpoints: increased consistency or structuration of Q sorts might be falsifiable meta-standards without substantive (and circular) prejudice as to which one viewpoint would be “deliberative”. The study concludes by suggesting further extensions and applications of Q methodology and deliberative democracy.
| Values / Axiology | Beliefs / Ontology | Preferences / Taxes |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Efficiency | Individuals vs Groups | Corporate Tax |
| “Actions are good if consequences are good”. | “People are motivated by incentives”. | “Unfettered markets”. |
| Specific | ||
| What makes a tax desirable? | What makes a tax doable? | Which tax do we want? |
| “A good tax gets at the yield to capital”. | “A doable tax is a withholding tax.” | “Corporate Income Tax”. |