Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences

被引:431
作者
Podsakoff, Philip M. [1 ]
MacKenzie, Scott B. [2 ]
Podsakoff, Nathan P. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Warrington Coll Business Adm, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Indiana Univ, Kelley Sch Business, Dept Mkt, Bloomington, IN USA
[3] Univ Arizona, Eller Coll Management, Dept Management & Org, Tucson, AZ USA
关键词
concept; construct; necessary and sufficient concept structure; family resemblance concept structure; discriminant validity; deficiency; contamination; criteria for good conceptual definitions; HUMAN-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; OLD WINE; FORMATIVE MEASUREMENT; CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY; JOB-SATISFACTION; EMPLOYEE VOICE; WORK; VALIDATION; PERFORMANCE; STRESS;
D O I
10.1177/1094428115624965
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Despite the importance of establishing good, clear concept definitions in organizational research, the field lacks a comprehensive source that explains how to effectively develop and articulate a concept's domain. Thus, the purpose of this article is to explain why clear conceptual definitions are essential for scientific progress and provide a concrete set of steps that researchers can follow to improve their conceptual definitions. First, we define what is meant by a concept, describe the functions served by concepts in scientific endeavors, and identify problems associated with a lack of conceptual clarity. Then we explain why it is so difficult to adequately define concepts. Next, we provide a series of recommendations for scholars in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences who are either trying to define a new concept or revise the definition of one that already exists in the field. Following this, we provide some examples that generally meet the criteria for a good conceptual definition. We conclude with a set of questions that authors, reviewers, and editors can use as a guide for evaluating concept definitions.
引用
收藏
页码:159 / 203
页数:45
相关论文
共 145 条
[1]   Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research [J].
Adcock, R ;
Collier, D .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2001, 95 (03) :529-546
[2]  
Adcock R., 2005, WHAT IS CONCEPT POLI
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2017, The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science
[4]   Workplace Victimization: Aggression from the Target's Perspective [J].
Aquino, Karl ;
Thau, Stefan .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 60 :717-741
[5]   ORGANIZATIONAL THEORIES - SOME CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION [J].
BACHARACH, SB .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 1989, 14 (04) :496-515
[6]   On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007) [J].
Bagozzi, Richard P. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2007, 12 (02) :229-237
[7]   A PROSPECTUS FOR THEORY CONSTRUCTION IN MARKETING [J].
BAGOZZI, RP .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1984, 48 (01) :11-29
[8]   Preventative maintenance: A proactive customer service [J].
Barker, WO ;
Lane, JR ;
Holbrook, DP ;
Vadrevu, NR ;
Padalino, LT .
BELL LABS TECHNICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 9 (04) :187-200
[9]   An extended paradigm for measurement analysis of marketing constructs applicable to panel data [J].
Baumgartner, Hans ;
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2006, 43 (03) :431-442
[10]  
Berry LL, 2004, MARK HEALTH SERV, V24, P14