The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
HUSELID, M. A. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256741 · Cited by 9,342
Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305 · Cited by 3,618
Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics
Sartori, G. (1970) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1958356 · Cited by 3,318
Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs*
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00384 · Cited by 2,062
Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research
Morrison, E. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.574506 · Cited by 1,803
Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0176 · Cited by 1,647
On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.3 · Cited by 1,481 · cited 1×
“This conceptual distinction has important methodological implications (cf. Green, Goldman, & Salovey, 1993; Russell & Carroll, 1999; Tay & Drasgow, 2012).”
BackgroundA Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences
Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691149707.001.0001 · Cited by 833
The dangers of poor construct conceptualization
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070303031003011 · Cited by 426
Self-citation
Cited by
An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity
Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428120968614 · Cited by 1,309
Sarta, A., Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320929088 · Cited by 264
Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda
Banks, G. C., Fischer, T., Gooty, J., & Stock, G. (2021) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101471 · Cited by 260
Back to Basics: The Importance of Conceptual Clarification in Psychological Science
Bringmann, L. F., Elmer, T., & Eronen, M. I. (2022) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214221096485 · Cited by 221
“Although we find existing discussions of conceptualization insightful, and largely build on them in this article, they often have focused too much on providing long lists of rather abstract criteria for conceptual clarity, which can set the bar very high for starting conceptualclarification research or clarifying a co…”
BackgroundInfluentialA critique of the Leader-Member Exchange construct: Back to square one
Gottfredson, R. K., Wright, S. L., & Heaphy, E. D. (2020) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101385 · Cited by 205
Metadata
- Authors
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-01-14
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 159-203
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2322618287
- Cited by
- 712
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 39.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
