{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031098153547133137, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.628415300546448, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Subjectivity, the Researcher, and the Researched

Stephenson’s work 
fundamentally blends a theory of subjectivity and a methodology for its 
study. However, in most Q studies, inquiry centres on perceptions, 
attitudes or discourses, not on subjectivity. A review of three 
exemplars of different uses of Q methodology concentrates in the purpose 
 of the inquiry and the nature of that which is inquired into. Two terms 
 each for inquiry and that-which-is-inquired-into are juxtaposed in an 
analogy: concourse is to Q sorting as subjectivity is to feeling. 
Q-methodology inquiry, conventionally conceived, privileges 
epistemology. However, that-which-is-inquired-into is not merely 
ontological, since it arises from Q sorting. Q sorting itself is an 
inquiry (loosely conceived) into some event or situation. Appreciating 
the extent of the common ground of subjectivity in various Q-methodology 
 applications necessitates understanding that Q sorters both draw 
meaning from and put meaning upon in the act of Q sorting.