Editing Operationalization (section)

==In the social sciences==
[[File:Operationalization of Free and Fair Judiciary.png|thumb|400px|An operationalization diagram, used to illustrate obscure or ambiguous concepts in an academic paper. This particular example is tailored to use in the field of Political Science.]]

Operationalization is often used in the [[social sciences]] as part of the [[scientific method]] and [[psychometrics]]. Particular concerns about operationalization arise in cases that deal with complex concepts and complex stimuli (e.g., business research, software engineering) where unique threats to validity of operationalization are believed to exist.<ref>{{cite conference
 | last1 = Lukyanenko | first1 = Roman
 | last2 = Evermann | first2 = Joerg
 | last3 = Parsons | first3 = Jeffrey
 | editor1-last = Tremblay | editor1-first = Monica Chiarini
 | editor2-last = VanderMeer | editor2-first = Debra E.
 | editor3-last = Rothenberger | editor3-first = Marcus A.
 | editor4-last = Gupta | editor4-first = Ashish
 | editor5-last = Yoon | editor5-first = Victoria Y.
 | contribution = Instantiation Validity in IS Design Research
 | doi = 10.1007/978-3-319-06701-8_22
 | pages = 321–328
 | publisher = Springer
 | series = Lecture Notes in Computer Science
 | title = Advancing the Impact of Design Science: Moving from Theory to Practice - 9th International Conference, DESRIST 2014, Miami, FL, USA, May 22-24, 2014. Proceedings
 | volume = 8463
 | year = 2014| isbn = 978-3-319-06700-1
 }}</ref>

===Anger example===
For example, a researcher may wish to measure the concept "anger." Its presence, and the depth of the emotion, cannot be directly measured by an outside observer because anger is intangible.  Rather, other measures are used by outside observers, such as facial expression, choice of vocabulary, loudness and tone of voice.

If a researcher wants to measure the depth of "anger" in various persons, the most direct operation would be to ask them a question, such as "are you angry", or "how angry are you?".   This operation is problematic, however, because it depends upon the definition of the individual.  Some people might be subjected to a mild annoyance, and become slightly angry, but describe themselves as "extremely angry," whereas others might be subjected to a severe provocation, and become very angry, but describe themselves as "slightly angry."  In addition, in many circumstances it is impractical to ask subjects whether they are angry.

Since one of the measures of anger is loudness, the researcher can operationalize the concept of anger by measuring how loudly the subject speaks compared to his normal tone. However, this must assume that loudness is a uniform measure. Some might respond verbally while others might respond physically.

===Economics objections===
One of the main critics of operationalism in social science argues that "the original goal was to eliminate the subjective [[Mentalism (psychology)|mentalistic]] concepts that had dominated earlier psychological theory and to replace them with a more operationally meaningful account of human behavior. But, as in economics, the supporters ultimately ended up "turning operationalism inside out".<ref>Green 2001 ''Operationism Again: What Did Bridgman Say? What Did Bridgman Need?'' in Theory and Psychology 11 (2001) p.49</ref> "Instead of replacing 'metaphysical' terms such as 'desire' and 'purpose'" they "used it to legitimize them by giving them operational definitions." Thus in psychology, as in economics, the initial, quite radical operationalist ideas eventually came to serve as little more than a "reassurance fetish"<ref name="Koch1992p275">Koch, Sigmund (1992) ''Psychology’s Bridgman vs. Bridgman’s Bridgman: An Essay in Reconstruction.'', in ''Theory and Psychology'' vol. 2 no. 3  (1992) p.275</ref> for mainstream methodological practice."<ref>Wade Hands (2004) [http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/112364/on_operationalisms_and_economics/ "On operationalisms and economics" (December 2004)]</ref>