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

Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, Nathan P Podsakoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

83 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)159-203
Number of pages45
JournalOrganizational Research Methods
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2016

Fingerprint

Social sciences
Concretes
Behavioral science

Keywords

  • concept
  • construct
  • contamination
  • criteria for good conceptual definitions
  • deficiency
  • discriminant validity
  • family resemblance concept structure
  • necessary and sufficient concept structure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Management of Technology and Innovation
  • Strategy and Management
  • Decision Sciences(all)

Cite this

Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. / Podsakoff, Philip M.; MacKenzie, Scott B.; Podsakoff, Nathan P.

In: Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 19, No. 2, 01.04.2016, p. 159-203.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9fbfb2a242944112b42212ef9024ccbe,
title = "Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "concept, construct, contamination, criteria for good conceptual definitions, deficiency, discriminant validity, family resemblance concept structure, necessary and sufficient concept structure",
author = "Podsakoff, {Philip M.} and MacKenzie, {Scott B.} and Podsakoff, {Nathan P}",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1094428115624965",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "159--203",
journal = "Organizational Research Methods",
issn = "1094-4281",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences

AU - Podsakoff, Philip M.

AU - MacKenzie, Scott B.

AU - Podsakoff, Nathan P

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - concept

KW - construct

KW - contamination

KW - criteria for good conceptual definitions

KW - deficiency

KW - discriminant validity

KW - family resemblance concept structure

KW - necessary and sufficient concept structure

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960332337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960332337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1094428115624965

DO - 10.1177/1094428115624965

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84960332337

VL - 19

SP - 159

EP - 203

JO - Organizational Research Methods

JF - Organizational Research Methods

SN - 1094-4281

IS - 2

ER -