Editing Operationalization (section)

{{Short description|Part of the process of research design}}
[[File:Personal Space.svg|thumb|right|300px|An example of operationally defining [[personal space]].<ref name="Damasio, Feeling"> [[Antonio Damasio]] (1999) ''[http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/pylyshyn/Consciousness_2014/Emotions/10-Damasio-OCR.pdf The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness]'' ch.2, p.55</ref>]]
In [[research design]], especially in [[psychology]], [[social sciences]], [[life sciences]] and [[physics]], '''operationalization''' or '''operationalisation''' is a process of defining the measurement of a [[phenomenon]] which is not directly [[Measurement|measurable]], though its existence is inferred from other phenomena. Operationalization thus defines a [[fuzzy concept]] so as to make it clearly distinguishable, measurable, and understandable by [[empirical observation]]. In a broader sense, it defines the [[Extension (semantics)|extension]] of a [[concept]]—describing what is and is not an instance of that concept. For example, in medicine, the phenomenon of [[health]] might be operationalized by one or more indicators like [[body mass index]] or [[tobacco smoking]]. As another example, in visual processing the presence of a certain object in the environment could be inferred by measuring specific features of the light it reflects. In these examples, the phenomena are difficult to directly observe and measure because they are general/abstract (as in the example of health) or they are [[latent variables|latent]] (as in the example of the object). Operationalization helps infer the existence, and some elements of the extension, of the phenomena of interest by means of some observable and measurable effects they have.

Sometimes multiple or competing alternative operationalizations for the same phenomenon are available. Repeating the analysis with one operationalization after the other can determine whether the results are affected by different operationalizations. This is called checking robustness. If the results are (substantially) unchanged, the results are said to be ''robust against certain alternative operationalizations'' of the checked variables.
 
The concept of operationalization was first presented by the British physicist N. R. Campbell in his 'Physics: The Elements' (Cambridge, 1920). This concept spread to [[humanities]] and [[social sciences]]. It remains in use in physics.<ref>Inguane, R., Gallego-Ayala, J., & Juízo, D. (2013). Decentralized water resources management in Mozambique: challenges of implementation at river basin level. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C.</ref><ref>Wright, R. (2007). Statistical structures underlying quantum mechanics and social science. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 46(8), 2026-2045.</ref><ref>Atmanspacher, H. (1994). Is the ontic/epistemic distinction sufficient to describe quantum systems exhaustively?. In Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics (pp. 15-32).</ref><ref>Svozil, K. (1990). The quantum coin toss-testing microphysical undecidability. Physics Letters A, 143(9), 433-437.</ref><ref>Downing, K. L. (1992). A qualitative teleological approach to cardiovascular physiology. Recent advances in qualitative physics, 329.</ref><ref>Martens, H., & de Muynck, W. M. (1990). The inaccuracy principle. Foundations of physics, 20(4), 357-380.</ref>