10.1 What is measurement?

In social science, when we use the term measurement, we mean the process by which we describe and ascribe meaning to the key facts, concepts, or other phenomena that we are investigating. In this chapter, we’ll use the term “concept” to mean an abstraction that has meaning. Concepts can be understood from our own experiences or from particular facts, but they don’t have to be limited to real-life phenomenon. We can have a concept of anything we can imagine or experience such as weightlessness, friendship, or income. Understanding exactly what our concepts mean is necessary in order to measure them.

In research, measurement is a systematic procedure for assigning scores, meanings, and descriptions to concepts so that those scores represent the characteristic of interest. Social scientists can and do measure just about anything you can imagine observing or wanting to study. Of course, some things are easier to observe or measure than others.

Where does measurement fit in the process of designing research?

Table 10.1 is intended as a partial review and outlines the general process researchers can follow to get from problem formulation to data collection, including measurement. Use the drop down feature in the table to view the examples for each component of the research process. Keep in mind that this process is iterative. For example, you may find something in your literature review that leads you to refine your conceptualizations, or you may discover as you attempt to conceptually define your terms that you need to return back to the literature for further information. Accordingly, this table should be seen as a suggested path to take rather than an inflexible rule about how research must be conducted.

Table 10.1. Components of the Research Process from Problem Formulation to Data Collection. Note. Information on attachment theory in this table came from: Bowlby, J. (1978). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. Adolescent Psychiatry, 6, 5-33

Categories of concepts that social scientists measure

In 1964, philosopher Abraham Kaplan (1964)^[1] wrote The Conduct of Inquiry, which has been cited over 8,500 times.^[2] In his text, Kaplan describes different categories of things that behavioral scientists observe. One of those categories, which Kaplan called “observational terms,” is probably the simplest to measure in social science. Observational terms are simple concepts. They are the sorts of things that we can see with the naked eye simply by looking at them. Kaplan roughly defines them as concepts that are easy to identify and verify through direct observation. If, for example, we wanted to know how the conditions of playgrounds differ across different neighborhoods, we could directly observe the variety, amount, and condition of equipment at various playgrounds.

Indirect observables, on the other hand, are less straightforward concepts to assess. In Kaplan’s framework, they are conditions that are subtle and complex that we must use existing knowledge and intuition to define. If we conducted a study for which we wished to know a person’s income, we’d probably have to ask them their income, perhaps in an interview or a survey. Thus, we have observed income, even if it has only been observed indirectly. Birthplace might be another indirect observable. We can ask study participants where they were born, but chances are good we won’t have directly observed any of those people being born in the locations they report.

Sometimes the concepts that we are interested in are more complex and more abstract than observational terms or indirect observables. Because they are complex, constructs generally consist of more than one concept. Let’s take for example, the construct “bureaucracy.” We know this term has something to do with hierarchy, organizations, and how they operate but measuring such a construct is trickier than measuring something like a person’s income because of the complexity involved. Here’s another construct: racism. What is racism? How would you measure it? The constructs of racism and bureaucracy represent constructs whose meanings we have come to agree on.

Though we may not be able to observe constructs directly, we can observe their components. In Kaplan’s categorization, constructs are concepts that are “not observational either directly or indirectly” (Kaplan, 1964, p. 55),^[3] but they can be defined based on observables. An example would be measuring the construct of depression. A diagnosis of depression can be made through the DSM-V which includes diagnostic criteria of fatigue, poor concentration, etc. Each of these components of depression can be observed indirectly. We are able to measure constructs by defining them in terms of what we can observe. Though we may not be able to observe them, we can observe their components.