What are the problems with the operational tradition in social research - Essay Example

Operational Tradition in Social Research: General Problems & Critique In social science research, the success in effectively transforming theoretical concepts into empirical measure remains to be an unresolved practice among scholars. As a methodological approach, the process of operationalization is used to translate social science concepts into variables in order to attain a measurable subject for a research study. However, the operationalization approach has had its shortcomings, ranging from the possibility of ineffectively transforming complex concepts, up to its inability to define subjective experiences in the research. This paper aims to present the weaknesses and challenges in operationalizing researches in the realm of social science. First, it aims to elaborate the origin of the operationalization concept from natural sciences and how it extended its function into social science studies. Then, an examination on the foundation of the operational tradition in social research will be presented so that its method and structure will be readily understood. Also, concrete examples on its application will be given to explicitly demonstrate its function. In this way, expounding both its origin and foundation will be crucial in understanding the operational tradition in the social sciences. From there, three main challenges in the operationalization process will be presented to illustrate why changing theory to measurement may pose a problem for researcher. An exploration about the weaknesses of operationalizing social science concept will be presented and illustrated, based on the critique made by various social scientists. Lastly, recommendations will be made to distinguish proper operationalization and bad operationalization. In this way, future researchers in the field of social science will be guided on how to conduct proper research in operational tradition. Operationalization from the Natural Sciences To understand the weaknesses of the operational tradition in social research, it is important explore how its life began in the natural sciences. From the book Social Research: Theory, Methods, and Techniques, the author Piergiorgio Corbetta (2003) notably called the operationalization process as a result on the “intrusiveness of the natural sciences” (p.66). This claim follows the methodological approach of hard sciences which, at all times, favors the establishment of unit of measure in research. When approach is applied in the realm of social research, it requires the conversion of abstract ideas into concrete variables to produce a testable subject for humanities and social sciences. As originally devised by the renowned American physicist Percy Williams Bridgman, the concept of operationalization is declared specifically in the following manner: “In general, we mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations. If the concept is physical, as of length, the operations are actual physical operations, namely, those by which length are measured; or if the concept is mental, as the mathematical continuity, the operations are mental operations, namely, those by which we determine whether a give aggregate of magnitudes is continuous.” (Bridgman, 1927) For P. W. Bridgman, the implication of operationalization concept can only be understood through a specific method of measurement such that a social theory corresponds to its equivalent measurement operation. As a result, the development of this tautology enables the quantified and testable variable to be associated with the abstract concept in humanities and social sciences. From the example above, Bridgman demonstrated how the concept of length can take up various operations such as using a meter stick to measure an object, calculating atomic dimensions through electromagnetic equations, or using light years to measure distances in a galactic scale. With this, it can rightfully be said that the different concepts of length requires different forms of operation to measure it. According to Ennis (1964), Bridgman’s claim goes too far when he insisted that any concept is nothing more than a set of operations. However, it is clear that, as the father of operationalization, Bridgman wants to put an utmost focus on instruments and procedure in research studies. This strict operationalization was then picked up by social science scholars and soon enough, it got into their research works. Operationalization as a Social Science Concept Taking a leap from the natural sciences, operational tradition found its way in the social sciences through the work of the American sociologist George A. Lundberg who claimed that “measurement is not a way of defining things, but it is a process which can be carried out only after ‘thing’ to be measured has been defined” (Lundberg, 1939 p. 68). With this, Lundberg claims that defining an abstract social phenomenon and finding its corresponding measurement are actually the same kind of operation. In other words, definition of concepts should come through its measurement. For instance, in sociology the concept of institutional racism must be significantly valued and then effectively defined so that it can be properly measured. More explicitly, one can find out if people are well aware and concerned with institutional racism in American society. If they are, then, according to Lundberg, a researcher’s task is to devise the appropriate mode of measurement to find out how much understanding do they have about the subject. In his book Foundations in Sociology (1939), Lundberg further supported the operationalization of sociological concepts by advocating to social researchers that they must define theoretical concepts “which evokes a certain type of human response, represented by symbols”. For him, an abstract concept in social science has no use in social research if it cannot be clearly defined through operationalization. For instance, an explicit example by Blalock (1968) demonstrated Lundberg’s operationalization idea that “if a person if asked about the meaning of the concept of intelligence, he should be told that intelligence is what an IQ test measures” (pp. 7-8). For a while, these types of positivist assertions based on strict operationalization by Lundberg dominated and remained uncontested in both natural and social scientists. However, over time, the idea came under fire due to certain weaknesses in providing an operational definition; because while operational tradition aims to provide a seemingly reliable and pragmatic methodological mode, its scope can sometimes be and limiting inadequate to cover the entire realm of social research. Problems with Operational Tradition As previously emphasized, operational tradition involves a methodological approach which transforms conceptual ideas into a concrete and testable subject for social science research. Originated from the natural sciences, it intends to apply empirical and measurement observation to social phenomena through constructing both theoretical and operational definition. However, its application remains to be a subject of contentions among social scientists. Generally, researchers expressed their varied views about applying operational tradition in humanities and social sciences. According to H. Russell Bernard (2006), operationalization is a pragmatic way of doing research since, over time, theoretical and operational definitions enables researchers to refer and replicate from other works and this can build a collective knowledge in the research community. On the other hand, he prompted social researchers to rethink about the complex variables in the social sciences such as the idea compassion, anger, religiosity, and political orientation. The possibility in using simple tools in examining multifaceted variables can suffer the risk in undermining the research process. Other researchers (Beck, Bryman, & Liao, 2004; Bulmer, 2001; and Bailey, 1994) have also expressed and elaborated the difficulties highlighted by operationalized practice in social science research. Broadly speaking, these challenges include: 1.) complexity of abstract variables 2.) existence of subjective definition, and 3.) coming up with definitional agreement. All these concerns were elaborated based on the insights of researchers who were able to encounter some difficulties in dealing with the operationalization process. Complexity of Abstract Variables One of the most prominent criticisms about involving operational tradition in social science research is the argument that scholars cannot fully concretize abstract concepts. That is to say, social phenomena do not always have the corresponding measurement operations and, as a result, a clear delineation between the methodological practice of natural science and social sciences should be put into place. This is because both studies need different kind of operational measurement. For one thing, there is a huge difference between a physical and social phenomenon. In his study, Williams (2003) pointed out how physical occurrences such as temperature can be readily defined because of the constancy of its equivalent measurement operation. For instance, measuring different temperatures through Celsius or Kelvin practically yields a direct translation of the same results. However, in social sciences where constant relations between measurements are lacking, it is almost impossible to employ operationalization and concretize abstract concepts in human sciences. For instance, the idea about ethnicity reveals both socio-cultural orientation and physical aspects of a person. But then again, according to Williams, the “standard” measurement for ethnicity can be very vague as when he cited an example on ethnicity research in Plymouth, United Kingdom. If it would be problematic to claim that 97% of poverty rate in the populace are white, then ethnic minorities such as Greeks, Maltese, Cornish, and Irish will be largely disregarded (Williams, 2003). As such, operationalization in the social sciences cannot be applicable to multi-faceted theoretical ideas. Other researchers such as Beck, Bryman, & Liao (2004) added that social concepts in human sciences such as poverty, alienation, homelessness, and ethnicity take on a “range of distinctive dimensions and appearances in different social environment”. For a social scientist, it will be difficult to exactly determine if a testable proposition has indeed operationalized a social concept or theory. The operational tradition simply could not, at all times, offer an operational definition and corresponding measurement to the distinctive dimensions and appearances present in different social environment and phenomena. Existence of Subjective Definition In human sciences, social institutions do not necessarily provide definite measurement operations for moral, political, and cultural norms. In contrast with objective measurement found in the natural sciences, the existence of operational definition for social research is subjective by nature. That is to say, an operational definition for a social concept such as poverty has subjective meaning for those people who experience it. For instance, once again, when it comes to the concept of poverty, people have different conception of what being poor means. Poverty, being a social condition, goes beyond the money metric measurement. In recent years, researchers have actually recognized the importance of looking at the multidimensionality of poverty. In qualitative research, social scientists are more interested in defining poverty through subjective insights of people who experience it. The same is also true when measuring the concept of intelligence. While many would point to IQ tests to measure the intellect, there are many contentions about the numerous types of intelligence being measured. Researchers in recent years go beyond the standard definition which is the ability to comprehend facts. In measuring intelligence through IQ test, there is no certain assurance that will determine if a researcher is really measuring the mind’s capacity to handle facts. For all we know, the operational measurement we constructed only measures specs of the concept such as task taking ability or dexterity. With all these examples, it is only rightful to say that operationalization in social research must cover the subjective nature of the human sciences field. Other researchers (Beck, Bryman, Liao, 2004) echoed similar concern to operationalize abstract concepts in social science which specifically needed subjective definitions from the respondents. They contend that broad, non-operationalize social concepts exist and, for this reason, operational tradition lacked the means to transform these abstractions into concrete and objective ideas. Definitional Agreement Another problematic position of operationalization in social science research is the lack of definitional agreement among researchers. Provided that a social scientist is able to conceptualize an operational definition based on subjective replies from respondents, this will still not solve the contradiction on different definitions among different researchers. According to Beck, Bryman, & Liao (2004), these differences in definition among scholars totally provide an “undeniable refutation of the methodological approach”. As the definitional agreement becomes an unresolved issue in operationalization, survey researchers are expected to remain familiar with conceptualization and variable specification. Williams (1998) provided an example that if a researcher wanted to describe a broad concept like homelessness in a social survey, then the term itself must be operationally defined. As to the reliability of the definition, that remains to be an unresolved issue in terms of operationalizing a research in humanities and social sciences. This is because one of the problematic stances of operational tradition in social researcher is that there is a ‘standard’ definition of homelessness and subjective definition of those respondents who experience it themselves. And if, hypothetically, the researcher was able to bridge the various definitions of homelessness, it is still likely that this result will contradict to other definitions made by other researchers. Unlike in the natural sciences where the theory and measurement is tightly linked (e.g. temperature is measured through degree Celsius or Fahrenheit), the social sciences have no direct translation between a social phenomenon and its corresponding measurement. As such, strict operationalization in the human sciences concepts will, at all times, remain unresolved. Proper Operationalization Overall, the operational tradition in social science research remains knotty in its field application. Ideally, operationalization for a social researcher is where he descends from “ladder from the ladder of abstraction” – from theory to measurement (Beck, Bryman, & Liao, 2004). However, in the realm of social sciences, there are just various ways to measure one concept or abstraction. There is no standard and fixed equivalent of a theoretical concept which can concretize and measure subjective experiences. However, despite this, survey researchers find a way to somehow bridge the gap between theory and measurement. Bernard (2006) offered an exemplification on how a social researcher can utilize operationalization in social sciences. In his book Research Methods in Anthropology, he demonstrated how an abstract concept like intelligence can be solely defined as an ability to comprehend facts using an intelligence test. That is to say, whatever the type of intelligent test is used, it should only measure intelligence and nothing more. If the results are not satisfactory, Bernard believes that a researcher must then “build a better case, where better means that the outcomes are more useful in building theory, in making predictions, and in engineering behavior”. From this, it can be inferred that proper operationalization should be disconnected from bad operationalization practice. Most importantly, in social science research, it is important to recognize that research tools such interviews and survey questionnaires must be crafted carefully so that it can build an efficient connection between theory and measurement. We cannot discount that operationalization, though most often scrutinized, can measure the degree or frequency of social conditions such as happiness or poverty. However, because operationalization is vulnerable to biases and pre conception, it is important that the methodological will be continually questioned and scrutinized within the academe. Given the general problems and critique about operational tradition, it is also important for researchers to consider that providing an operational measurement to a social concept is a formidable and intricate task. For a social scientist, the goal is to introduce proper operationalization which has the capacity to yield reliable and efficient data for social science research. Works Cited Bailey,Kenneth, 2006. Methods of Social Research. 4th ed. New York: Free Press Beck, Michael Lewis, S., Bryman, Alan, and Liao, Tim Futing, 2004. The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Oxford: SAGE PUblication Inc. Bernard, Harvey Russell, 2006. Research methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lanham :Rowman Altamira Blalock, H., 1961. Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press Bulmer, Martin, 2001. Social Measurement: What Stands in Its Way? [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 October 2011] Bridgman, P.W., 1927. The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: MacMillan Corbetta, Piergiorgio, 2003. Social Research Theory, Methods and Techniques. Oxford: SAGE Publications Ltd. Ennis, Robert, 1964. Operational Definitions. American Educational Research Journal [e-journal] 1(3) Available through: Journal Storage (JSTOR) Database. [Accessed 23 October 2011] Lundberg, Georg Andrew, 1939. Foundation of Sociology. New York: The Macmillan Company Williams, MacMillan M., 1998. The social world as Knowable. In: W. Jones, ed. 2000. One Hundred and One ways to Find Information about Health (pp. 22-33) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, Malcolm, 2003. The Problem of Representation: Realism and Operationalism in Survey Research. Sociological Research Online [e-journal] 8(1) Available through Sociological Research Online database. [Accessed 23 October 2011] Read More