Concept Explication
CONCEPT EXPLICATION
Concept explication involves the in-depth defintion of a single
idea that is the focus for your research. Concepts are building
blocks for creating theories and models, which are used to
describe or predict relationships between two or more concepts.
This is a compilation of several handouts developed by Professor
Steven H. Chaffee at Stanford's Institute for Communication
Research, formerly a faculty member member at the University of Wisconsin.
A fuller treatment is contained in his book Explication (Sage
Communication Concepts 1), Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.
Explication At a Glance
1. Is it a variable?
a. What's the unit of analysis?
b. How does it vary? Over time? Across people? etc.
c. Is an independent, intervening or dependent variable?
2. How is it defined in the literature?
a. What are the different conceptual names and meanings?
b. What operational definitions?
c. How are a and b above related?
d. Which of above are most promising for you?
3. After choosing an operationalization, describe its empirical
nature specifically
a. What values will it have?
b. What's the range of variation, and it that most useful?
c. What are the major correlates?
d. What are the antecedents? Consequences?
4. Alternative approaches to definitions
a. Nominal definition
b. Meaning analysis
c. Empirical definition (definition by rule)
5. Characteristics of the concept
a. Is it a property or relational term?
b. How, specifically, is it measured?
c. Is it real? (Avoid reification)
d. Is invariance of usage maintained?
CONCEPT EXPLICATION
Steven H. Chaffee
The key to useful research is careful definition of the major
concepts in the study. In communication study we have many
terms, and many measures. Explication is the procedure that
provides linkages between the terms we use in discourse and the
measures we use empirically. Without explication, our words are
nothing more than words and our data add nothing to them.
The following steps should be covered in an explication, although
not necessarily in the order listed. This can be considered an
outline or checklist for the student explicating a concept for
research.
1. Preliminary identification of the concept. Most research
starts by focusing on one term that interests the student. The
first question to ask is whether this is a variable, and if not,
whether variables can be derived from it. Once a variable
concept has been identified, further key questions include these:
a. What is the unit of analysis (e.g. persons, communities,
events)?
b. What is the nature of variation in relation to time? For
instance, does it vary across persons at a given point in
time, or across times for a given person?
c. How would this variation be utilized in research? For
example, would you study variation in this concept alone,
or its association with variation in other concepts?
Would you study its antecedent causes, it subsequent effects,
or its intervening role in relationships between
variables?
Chaffee Comment: At this preliminary stage, about all you can
decide is what you want to focus on. Your thinking about that
"focal variable" should change quite a bit as you study it. Try
to select a concept that is a) amenable to empirical observation,
and b) likely to fit into relationships that are important for
communication theory. Generally avoid adopting "canned"
operational definitions from other people's research. You can
make your best contribution by a fresh start that might lead to
innovative studies.
2. Literature search. Once you have formalized your ideas of
the concept at a preliminary level, you can begin organizing the
research literature you are finding on it. Here are some useful
questions to ask in structuring your analysis of the literature:
a. What are the different conceptual meanings that have been
assigned to this concept? What have been the research
purposes of each (see 1c above)?
b. What are the different operational definitions that have
been used?
c. What are the different names under which the concept has
been studied operationally?
d. What have been the operational contingencies (features of
time, sampling, setting, topic, data collection,
measurement) in these studies? How are these variations
from study to study associated with different definitions
that have been used (see 2a, 2b and 2c above)?
e. In view of the prospective research purposes (1c above),
which of the usages of the concept is most promising?
Chaffee Comment: Once you have decided roughly what your focal
variable is to be, scour the research journal, books, etc. in
search of studies that have dealt with it. Your purpose is to
find the various definitions that have been used. (Note that at
this stage is not particularly relevant to catalog the various
relationships that have been found between your concept and other
variables.) Keep a list of all the ways that the concept has
been defined for research purposes. You can ignore purely
abstract definitions (i.e. instances where the concept is given
some meaning that can't be tied to empirical observations in the
real world) or cases where the term is used without definition.
You might also find cases where your concept has been given some
other name; keep those on your list, too. It is the empirical
usage of the concept that is important, not the label that is put
on it.
3. Empirical description. Review in detail the properties of
the operational definitions representing the reduced number of
concepts selected from the literature (2e above).
a. What values does this variable take on in different
populations (means, etc.)?
b. What is the range of variation across units of analysis?
c. What is its range of variation across time? Does it tend
to increase, decrease, or merely fluctuate?
d. What are the major correlates within studies? Across
studies (2d above)?
e. How is it distributed in various populations (e.g.
normality, skewness)?
f. What appear to be its immediate antecedents? Effects (if
any)?
Hallahan Comments: Chaffee's emphasis here is largely on
quantitative research. However, many of these concerns relate to
qualitative research as well. For example, if we are studying
the effects of gender portrayals in TV commercials, it is
important to understand, with some precision, the various ways in
which consequences have been measured, the variation in those
consequences, the populations involved, and all possible
explanations. The specifics are important.
4. Define. Sort out the various definitions you have found.
There are three levels of definition in empirical science, of
progressively greater utility for research:
a. Nominal definitions. Set aside those (many) cases where
you have found the term used but have not been able to
answer questions listed (in 1 and 2 above) because it
has simply been a name arbitrarily stipulated for a
without any linking statement.
Instructor Comment: Some examples of nominal definitions
include:
"Public opinion" is what public opinion goals measures.
"Consensus" consists of a majority vote.
b. Real definition: meaning analysis. Two forms of meaning
analysis are found in the literature. They consist of
attempts to answer the following questions:
i. What does this term mean conceptually? What are its
essential elements, empirical research aside?
(Sometimes called Theoretical Analysis)
ii. What lower-order concepts does this general concept
subsume? For example, "mass media use" is often
defined as reading newspapers, watching TV, etc. This
constitutes definition by listing as many as possible
of the events that are included and specifying which
ones are excluded.
Chaffee Comment: Such lists expand and contract
historically, but are much more helpful than undefined
terms, nominal definitions, or purely abstract analyses
of meaning.
c. Real definition: empirical analysis. The "most
scientific" type of definition consists of a set of
rules that can be applied to determine whether a given
event is an instance of the concept. Rules for both
inclusion and exclusion are needed. The advantage of
rules is that they do not change historically, being
equally applicable across a wide range of circumstances.
Useful questions sometimes take these forms:
i. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for
inferring that an event of this class has occurred?
ii. What observations are required, of what units of
analysis, at what times, under what conditions?
iii. What formal operations should be applied to the
observations to create operational measures that
correspond to the concept?
Chaffee Comment: [Empirical analysis] is the most useful type of
definition for scientific purposes, since changes in the lower-
order concepts do not change the nature of the higher-order
concept. But empirical analysis is usually the end product,
rather than the starting point, of research. In a way, empirical
definitions are "hypotheses" subject to modification as we learn
more about the concept. In communication, this type of
definition is rare.
Some examples of meaning analysis:
-- "Communication" requires that a symbol be transmitted by one
person and received by a second person; and a signal (represented
by the symbol) must be shared, at least in part, by the
transmitter and the receiver"
-- "Information seeking" consists of a person undertaking some
action to increase his [or her] input of a specific type of
communication content; that he [she] be, to some extent,
uncertain what content he [she] will receive; and that his [her]
action is to some extent motivated by uncertainty.
Example of empirical analysis:
-- Various writers have described the adoption process as a
series of stages including awareness, evaluation, trial and
adoption. An explicator looks at this list and decides that,
whatever the heuristic value of the total model, it includes too
much. All that needs to be necessary are awareness and adoption.
The evaluation and trial stages may occur in some cases, but not
in all, so they are surplus elements of the concept and can be
dropped.
-- A study shows that the strength of an expressed opinion can
be increased by "reinforcing" it through social approval. The
author's conclusion is that reinforcement is a necessary
condition for opinion formation. A later study demonstrates that
there are conditions under which opinions change without
reinforcement. So the definition is waterered-down, in that
reinforcement becomes a sufficient condition, rather than a
necessary one. Finally, it is found that in some instances
opinions shift in a direct opposite to the pattern of
reinforcement. So, the element of reinforcement is eliminated
from the definition of opinion formation, because it is neither
necessary nor sufficient.
5. Review definition With a real definition (4b or 4c above),
you can apply various criteria to it. Some important questions:
a. Property or relation? Is this a concept that is observable
for a single unit of analysis, in isolation from other units
(property term)? Or is it only observable in the context of
other units, such as a comparison between communities or an
interaction between people (relational term)? (Caution:
Almost all concepts in communication research are relational;
unfortunately most data collection and much theory and
analysis proceed as if they were properties.)
Chaffee example: Income is a property term, but
socioeconomic status is a relational term. So if you are
interested in SES, but have data only on income, you should
be treating that data as relational, e.g. as "relative
income."
b. Specificity. How explicitly is the definition spelled out,
at each level from higher-order concepts to lower-order
constituent concepts, to operational procedures? The more
specific, the better. When terms are used vaguely, there is
more danger that operational definitions are inappropriate to
the concept intended, and consequently that the research will
be inconsistent with the theory behind it.
Hallahan example: In examining the effects of "television
viewing," it makes a difference whether the viewer saw
"Beavis and Butthead" or "60 Minutes."
c. Non-reification. Does the term refer to real events? Do the
operational measures represent real events? Our capacities
to gather data, and to talk about communication, greatly
exceed the incidence of communication events in the real world of
human experience. Such terms are called opaque or
reifications. ...
Chaffee comment: Insofar as possible, avoid giving names to
attributes that you might image exist, but that cannot be
observed. You may suspect that there is a key factor that
has not been observed, but that could be given empirical
meaning by careful research. In that case you are proposing
a hypothetical construct, the hypothesis being that it
exists; the first task of your research should then be a
"validity check" on its existence. When you provide
operational evidence of a hypothetical construct, it attains
the more secure status of an intervening variable. If a
hypothetical construct remains unobserved, it is considered
a reification, and other researchers are unlikely to be
persuaded by your references to it.
-- Some common reifications in communications research are
the terms "catharsis," "dissonance," "group cohesiveness,"
"coorientation" and "attitude." So far none of these things
has ever been observed, yet they hold important positions in
certain theoretical formulations. The danger is that they
may not exist, except in the minds of the theoreticians.
-- Some hypothetical constructs that have gradually been
converted into intervening variables by careful research
include "empathy," "understanding," "learning," and
"conformity." However, these concepts are tied to very
specific operational definitions, and when they are used to
cover other kinds of situations they are simply reified
terms.
d. Invariance of usage. The general goal of explication is
so that one, and only one, concept will be attached to an
empirical meaning. Several questions need to be asked:
i. Do does this researcher use a single definition for
the concept and the same name for that definition
consistently (intra-observer invariance)
ii. Do different researchers use the same combination
of concepts and meanings? (inter-observer
invariance). Are these also consistent over time?
This happy state of consistent usage cannot be
legislated, but it can be facilitated by careful
explication.
Chaffee example: The term "generation" is a term used
appropriately for analyzing families and other kinship
systems. However it is misapplied to differences between
age-groups in society as a whole in the notion of a
"generation gap."
6. Modify definition. Your review of the definition at stage 5
(above) may well lead you to redefine the concept. Recycle this
definition through all of the steps above (1...5).
Then:
With a adequately explicated research concept, you are prepared to move
on to a research design. The key steps include:
Explication of additional concepts in the study
Operationalization (creating methods for observing or
measuring the concepts)
Choosing a sample to study
Testing the concept, and observational and analysis methods
Refining the concepts and operationalizations
Conducting the research
Analyzing the results
Validation, refinement of the concept
Writing and reporting the results