Volume List  / Volume 3 (1)



DOI: 10.7708/ijtte.2013.3(1).04

3 / 1 / 45-53 Pages


Emma Logo - BME Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Department of Ergonomics and Psychology, Budapest, Hungary -


All human activities, including transportation have an impact and put pressure on the environment. If anybody would be asked with questionnaire or interview, claims to be environmentally conscious in transportation, but acts another way. Environmental awareness in transport is difficult to measure with “traditional” way, because the real actions and the human subjectivity cannot be measured these ways. The idea behind the development of Q-methodology was to inquire into the subjectivity of human mind. This article theoretically investigated the possibility of measuring environmental awareness in road transportation with this methodology.

Download Article

Number of downloads: 3845


This work is connected to the scientific program of the “Development of quality-oriented and harmonized R+D+I strategy and functional model at BME” project. This project is supported by the Szechenyi Development Plan (Project ID: TÁMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/ KMR-2010-0002). Special thanks to Adam Török for his valuable contribution.


Barry, J.; Proops, J. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology, Ecological Economics. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6, 28(3): 337-345.


Barry, J.; Proops, J. 2000. Citizenship, sustainability and environmental research: Q methodology and local exchange trading systems. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.


Brown, S.R. 1980. Political subjectivity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


Cattell, R.B. 1988. The data box: Its ordering of total resources in terms of possible relational systems. In J.R. Nesselroade & R.B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum. 996 p.


Dennis, K.E.; Goldberg, A.P. 1996. Weight control selfefficacy types and transitions affect weight-loss outcomes in obese women, Addictive Behaviours. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(95)00042-9, 21(1): 103-116.


McKeown, B.F.; Thomas, D.B. 1988. Q Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 356 p.


Oppenheim, A.N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Continuum, London. 312. p.


Pope, C.; Ziebland, S.; Mays, N. 2000. Qualitative research in healthcare: analyzing qualitative data, British Medical Journal, 320(7227): 114-116.


Robbins, P.; Krueger, R. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q-method in human geography, The Professional Geographer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00252, 52(4): 636-648.


Sell, D.K.; Brown, S.R. 1984. Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and quantitative research: Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign study program participants, Qualitative research in education. 79-87.


Spearman, C. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things, The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1): 72-101.


Stainton Rogers, W. 1991. Explaining health and illness: An exploration of diversity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 249-267.


Thomas, D.B.; Baas, L.R. 1992. The issue of generelization in Q methodology: „reliable schematics” revisited, Operant Subjectivity, 16(1-2): 18-36.


Thomas, D.M.; Watson, R.T. 2002. Q-sorting and MIS research: A primer, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8(2002): 141-156.


Thurstone, L.L. 1931. Rank order as a psychological method, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1931): 187-201.


Watts, S.; Stenner, P. 2005. Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation, Qualitative Research in Psychology. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa, 2(1): 67-91.