# Q Methodology A person-centered research approach developed in the 1930s to investigate opinions, beliefs, and perceptions on particular subjects. Q methodology combines quantitative and qualitative techniques by having participants rank-order a set of statements or items (Q-sorting) on a quasi-normal distribution grid, typically followed by interviews or focus groups to explore their reasoning. --- ## Entries ### [Blom, Kruyen and Van Genugten (2026)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399853274_Which_competencies_are_the_most_important_in_government_Introduction_of_the_Competency_Explorer_to_investigate_civil_servants_competencies) _Which competencies are the most important in government? Introduction of the Competency Explorer to investigate civil servants competencies_, by Rutger Blom, Peter Kruyen and Marieke van Genugten. [[2026-02-13]]: Develops and validates the "Competency Explorer", a digital tool based on Q methodology to systematically assess the relative importance of 32 competencies for civil servants. Through two validation cycles with 131 Dutch municipal civil servants, the authors demonstrate how Q methodology solves the common problem in competency research where everything ends up being rated as equally important. The tool's digital implementation enables larger samples with automated administration and immediate feedback, while supporting both individual and team-level analysis. Key findings show New Public Governance (NPG) related competencies (networking, collaboration) dominate but must be combined with bureaucratic and managerial skills, demonstrating the hybrid nature of civil service competencies. ### [O'Connor, Knox and Janenova (2019)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734371X19888009) _Bureaucrats, Authoritarianism, and Role Conceptions_, by [[Karl O’Connor]], [[Colin Knox]] and [[Saltanat Janenova]]. Uses Q methodology to identify three distinct bureaucratic archetypes among civil servants in Kazakhstan: (1) Job bureaucrats who see themselves as neutral administrators emphasizing legalism and resisting political interference; (2) Policy entrepreneurs who push for modernization and evidence-based policymaking, often challenging ministers; and (3) Ethno-politicians whose bureaucratic behavior is shaped by ethnic allegiances, balancing nationalist and multicultural imperatives. The research explores how administrative behavior unfolds in ethnically contested and transitional state environments.