Construct clarity and validity

A vague notion put forward by a line manager prompted a literature search, which rendered articles captured in this post.

Zongozzi (2021: 151) emphasises the importance of grounding, of clearly articulated theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks, and of construct clarity, as essential components of a good theory; stating that “Theories undergo rigour check and therefore, a theory without clear construct(s) is deemed to lack rigour”. Further citing Tight (2004) who says “theory is frequently used in an overlapping sense with ‘concept, epistemology, model, paradigm or philosophy, as well as methodology’”.

‘Constructs’ are the foundation and the building blocks of theory, says Suddaby (2010: 346) and states that “clear constructs are simply robust categories that distil phenomena into sharp distinctions that are comprehensible to a community of researchers”. A ‘construct’ is a concept that has been deliberately and consciously devised or espoused for a special scientific purpose. Construct clarity comprises four aspects, says Suddaby (2010: 347):

1. Definition — “skillful use of language to persuasively create precise and parsimonious categorical distinctions between concepts”
2. Scope — delineated “conditions or contextual circumstances under which a construct will or will not apply”
3. Relationships — clarity with regard to conceptual distinctions, as well as “semantic relationships to other related constructs”
4. Coherence — the degree of “or logical consistency of the construct in relation to the overall theoretical argument”

Suddaby (2010: 347) indicates that meanings “are notoriously difficult to specify”, because “meanings of words are never fixed or permanent”, and existing constructs are applied to a new empirical context the meaning of terms often changed. However slightly the change, over time and multiple empirical applications, the definition of constructs tend to drift. It is therefore obligatory to qualify meaning. It is important “to strip away the extraneous meaning that has become attached to a construct” (p. 348).

Construct validity, “flows from the ability to crisply and precisely describe theoretical constructs” and pertain to operationalization of empirical questions of and measurement, says Suddaby (2010: 346) who further indicates (p. 354) a tension between the ‘umbrella advocates’ versus the ‘validity police’.

The term umbrella advocates refers to those researchers who argue that constructs should be viewed as large buckets or broad concepts loosely defined because this better captures the inherent complexity and messiness of the empirical world we study. The term validity police refers to those researchers who argue that constructs should be small buckets narrowly defined in order to bring more scientific rigor and validity to the study …

While busy with the review of relevant literature, core concepts and conceptual frameworks emerge, often as ‘ah uh’ moments. The conceptual framework becomes a significant reference point. Berman and Smyth (2015: 127) indicate that it is important to align epistemology, ontology and methodology, as reflected in table 1 below.

Berman and Smyth (2015: 130) explain that “what is to be researched, the ontology, or the reality of the context of the research problem, needs to be clear and bounded in order to establish a solid foundation for shared meaning and conceptual validity”. They elaborate that “the prompts for this [ontological] dimension of research focus on describing the context of the research and the key concepts and relationships between those concepts that exist in that context”. These are ‘connected with the epistemological basis of research’, say Berman and Smyth (2015: 130).

Berman, J., & Smyth, R. (2015). Conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process: A pedagogical model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(2), 125–136.

Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35, 346–357.

Zongozzi, J.N. (2021). A concept analysis of theory in South African Open Distance and E-Learning research. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36:2, 149-163, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2020.1743172