Operational definitions are definitions which define terms and phrases by descriptions including observations and/or measurements of the people, objects and/or events who/which are relevant to the terms or phrases being defined.
An operational definition
is a definition which defines a term or phrase by a description
including observations and/or measurements of the people, objects
and/or events who/which are relevant to the term or phrase.
One operational question inre: operational definitions, is this:
What do people, objects and/or events do when they _____
[term/phrase being defined operationally]?
Operational definitions thus function as operational answers to operational
questions.
Operational questions are
questions which ask for descriptions including observations and/or
measurements of people, objects and/or events when activities are being
conducted or otherwise are occurring.
Examples:
Operational Question:
What do people do when they do philosophy?
Operational Answer:
When people do philosophy they create concepts and principles
which describe people, objects and events and they develop techniques
for using those concepts and principles to solve problems.
Operational Question:
What is a concept?
Operational Answer: A concept is a mental
representation (idea) of a person, an object, or/and an event.
Operational Question:
What is an object?
Operational Answer: An
object is an entity
which is comprised of matter-energy (m/e) which retains its identity
for a long period of time than an event. Objects include people.
Operational Question:
What is an event?
Operational Answer: An
event is a causal or
coincidental relationship between or among people, objects and/or
events.
Operational Question:
What is a causal relationship
between or among people, objects and/or events?
Operational Answer: A causal relationship occurs between
or among people, objects and/or events when forces which are forms of
m/e are applied and as causes the forces cause as effects (A) changes
in people, objects and/or events or (B) new people, objects and/or
events from pre-existing m/e.
Operational Question:
What is a coincidental relationship?
Operational Answer: A coincidental relationship occurs
between or among people, objects and/or events when peopple, objecs and
events are in proximity, are nearby, to each other without being causal
to each other without causing (A) changes of people, objects or events
or (B) new people, objects or events.
Operational Question:
What is a principle?
Operational Answer: A principle is a mental
representation (idea) of an event—a mental representation of a causal
or coincidental relationship between or among people, objects and/or
events.
Operational Question:
What is a technique?
Operational Answer: A technique is a practical
application of a principle, particularly a causal principle, for the
purpose of solving a problem.
Operational Question:
What is a problem?
Operational Answer: A problem
is learning how to achieve a desire (wanting a person, an
object or/and an event) or avoid a fear (not-wanting a person, an
object or/and an event) according to an individual's or organization's
priorities (the importance of each desire or fear compared to all other
desires and fears).
Operational Question:
What is a desire?
Operational Answer: A desire is wanting a person, an
object and/or an event.
Operational Question:
What is a fear?
Operational Answer: A fear is not-wanting a person, an
object and/or an event.
Operational Question:
What is a priority?
Operational Answer: A priority is the importance of each
desire or fear compared to all other desires and fears.
Operational definitions can be created using structured sentences such as the following:
_____ [Term/phrase being defined operationally] IS _____ [Description of the people/objects/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined].
Example: The mind [Term being defined operationally] IS an individual’s personal system of desires/fears/priorities as evidenced by his observable actions and reactions, in particular, as evidenced by his approach behavior to people/objects/events he desires and his avoidance behavior from people/objects/events he fears [Descriptions of the observable/measurable people/objects/events--in this case the events of approach/avoidance--relevant to the term being defined].
_____ [Term/phrase being defined operationally] IS WHEN _____ [Description of the people/objects/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined].
Example: Love [Term being defined operationally] IS WHEN someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and with you [Description of the people/objects/events relevant to the term being defined].
IF _____ [Description of the people/objects/events relevant
to the
term/phrase being defined],
THEN _____ [Term/phrase being defined operationally].
Example: IF someone says he likes you and does nice
things for you and with you [Description of the
people/objects/events relevant to the term being defined],
THEN that is love [Term being defined
operationally].
WHEN _____ [Description of the people/objects/events relevant
to the term/phrase being defined],
THEN _____ [Term/phrase being defined operationally].
Example: WHEN someone says he likes you and does nice
things for you and with you [Description of
the people/objects/events relevant to the term being defined],
THEN that is love [Term being defined
operationally].
By operational definitions, abstract concepts/principles can be defined by the descriptions of real-world people/objects/events; thus, by operational definitions, abstract concepts/principles/techniques can be made concrete/made into concrete concepts/principles/techniques.
If a person cannot provide a description by means of the observation(s)/measurement(s) of the people/objects/events related to a term he wishes to define/use in a discusssion, then there is an excellent chance that (A) the people/objects/events he is trying to define/discuss do not exist or (B) he does not know what he is talking about.
Operational definitions are required for The Code of Science [http://www.bobkwebsite.com/thecodeofscience.html]
to ensure that scientists can communicate with each other and with
nonscientists.
Notes:
[1] Stanovich, Keith
How To Think Straight About Psychology
Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL, 1989
“... In short, the explanation of phenomena, not the analysis of
language,
is the goal of the scientist. The key to progress in all the sciences
has
been to abandon essentialism and to adopt operationalism ... . [p. 39.]
Where ... does the meaning of concepts in science come from if not
from
discussions about language? What are the criteria for the appropriate
usage
of a scientific concept? To answer these questions, we must discuss
operationism,
an idea that is crucial for the construction of theory in science, and
one
that is especially important for evaluating theoretical claims in
psychology.”
[p. 39.]
“Although there are different forms of operationism, it is most useful
...
to think of it in the most general way. Operationism is simply the idea
the
concepts in scientific theories must in some way be grounded in, or
linked
to, observable events that can be measured. Linking the concept to an
observable
event is the operational definition of a concept and makes the concept
public.
The operational definition removes the concept from the feelings and
intuitions
of a particular individual and allows it to be tested by anyone who can
carry
out the measurable operations.” [p. 39.]
“The link between concepts and observable operations can vary greatly
in
[the] degree of directness or indirectness. Some scientific concepts
are
defined almost entirely by observable operations in the real world.
[Other]
concepts [are] defined only partially by these direct links. ...[The]
use
of some concepts is determined by both a set of operations and the
particular
concept’s relationship to other theoretical constructs. [There] are
concepts
that are not directly defined by observable operations but are linked
to
other concepts that are. These have only an indirect operational
definition,
one that comes from other concepts that are defined more directly by
observable
operations.” [p. 40.]
“Thus, although theoretical concepts differ in how closely they are
linked
to observations, all concepts acquire their meaning partially through
their
link to such observations, a point emphasized by noted Harvard
philosopher
W. V. Quine: ‘The sentences of science, no matter how theoretical,
acquire
what meaning they have through a network of sentence-to-sentence links
whose
starting point is sensory stimulation. All evidence for the truth of a
scientific
theory, moreover, is drawn from sensory observation through the same
network.’
(1985, p. 32.) In short, operationism, not debate about language,
determines
the meaning of concepts in science.” [p. 40.]
“[Operationism] is not unique to psychology. It is characteristic of
all
sciences. ... This is what makes possible the public nature of science,
one
of its defining features. Two different scientists agree on the same
operational
definition so that is possible for one to replicate the other’s
results.”
[p. 43.]
[2] Greene, Brian
The Elegant Universe
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 2000
p. 249.
The most meaningful definitions in physics are those that are
operational—that
is, definitions that provide a means, at least in principle, for
measuring
whatever is being defined. After all, no matter how abstract a concept
is,
having an operational definition allows us to boil down its meaning to
an
experimental procedure for measuring its value.
[3] Greene, Brian
The Elegant Universe
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 2000
p. 203
"The physicist Ernest Rutherford once said, in essence, that if you
can't
explain a result in simple, nontechnical terms, then you really don't
understand
it. He wasn't saying that this means your result is wrong; rather, he
was
saying that it means you do not fully understand its origin, meaning,
or
implications."
[4] Bernstein, Jeremy
Einstein
Penguin Books, 625 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, USA, 1976.
p. 35.
There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician
engaged
in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his
conclusions
may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, and
definitely
as in mathematical formulae? If so, would it not be a great boon to
such
as I to express them so?--translating them out of the hieroglyphics,
that
we might also work upon them by experiment. I think it must be so,
because
I have always found that you could convey to me a perfectly clear idea
of
your conclusions, which, though they may give me no full understanding
of
the steps of your process, give me the results neither above nor below
the
truth, and so clear in character that I can think and work from them.
If
this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians,
working
on these subjects, were to give us the results in this popular, working
state,
as well as in that which is their own and proper to them? -- Michael
Faraday,
age 66, to James Clerk Maxwell, age 26, inre Maxwell's use of
mathematics
to describe electromagnetics.
Cited in MacDonald, D.K.C., Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin, p. 79.