IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONDUCT RESEARCH WORK WITHOUT CONCEPTS”. DISCUSS

 IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONDUCT RESEARCH WORK WITHOUT

CONCEPTS”. DISCUSS

Introduction

Research is a pedagogic action that comprises defining and redefining problems, formulating

hypotheses or suggested solutions; collecting, organizing and evaluating data; making deductions

and reaching conclusions; and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they

fit the formulating hypothesis. The purpose of research is to answer questions and acquire new

knowledge. Research is the primary tool used in virtually all areas of science to expand the

frontiers of knowledge (Marczyk, et al, 2005). Ultimately, by conducting research, researchers

attempt to reduce the complexity of problems, discover the relationship between seemingly

unrelated events, and ultimately improve the way we live. The results of research studies are

frequently shared publicly through peer reviewed journals, the Internet, and various other media

outlets that are accessible to both scientists and nonscientists alike. It is necessary, therefore, for

researchers to understand the relevance of their work to humanity. Concepts help the researchers

to speak not just to themselves but also to others who may not share in their scientific interests.

This paper discusses the relevance of concepts in research by advancing the tone of the task that

indeed, it is impossible to conduct research without concepts.

5

Definition of Concept

Concepts are symbolic or abstract elements representing properties, or features of processes, or

phenomenon (Berg, 2001). Concepts may communicate ideas or introduce particular

perspectives, or they may be a means for casting a broad generalization. In terms of ideas,

concepts are important because they are the foundation of communication and thought. Concepts

provide a means for people to let others know what they are thinking, and allow information to

be shared (Ibid.). Because of the role they play in research work, every researcher must have a

section reserved for definition or operationalization of concepts. According to Giovanni Sartori,

concepts are so important that they define what we are. In his own words, “we are . . . prisoners

of the words we pick, we had better pick them well” (1984:60). Indeed, it is Sartori’s argument

that concept formation lies at the heart of all social science endeavors.

“It is impossible to conduct research work without using concepts. It is impossible even

to conceptualize a topic, as the term suggests, without putting a label on it. Concepts are

integral to every argument for they address the most basic question of social science

research” (Sartori, 1970:1038).

A deeper understanding of concepts is clearly presented by John Gerring when he identifies what

he refers to as four elements of an empirical concept: (a) the term (a linguistic label comprising

one or a few words); (b) attributes that define those phenomena (the definition, intension,

connotation, or properties of a concept); (c) indicators that help to locate the concept in empirical

space (the measurement or operationalization of a concept); and (d) phenomena to be defined

(the referents, extension, or denotation of a concept) (2012:116). Understanding these elements

is fundamental for any researcher as it allows one the latitude to achieve a higher degree of

conceptual adequacy. This could be attained by; (a) choose a different term, (b) alter the defining

attributes contained in the intension, (c) adjust the indicators by which the concept is

6

operationalized, or (d) redraw the phenomenal boundaries of the extension (Ibid.). As a

researcher does this, he or she engages in concept formation, which becomes an essential

element of research work.

Concept formation is essential because researchers from different backgrounds employ the

concepts to suit their research topics and problems. This may also be the case for researchers

within the same intellectual tradition. Concepts are routinely stretched, older concepts are

redefined and new words are created. Words with similar meanings end up competing for

relevance within the research realm leading to conceptual confusion and disagreement. This

whole process is what Sartori refers to as “playing musical chairs with words” (1984:38). One

way of resolving this difficult is to realize that different concepts tend to be appropriate for

different research tasks and research venues. In research work, therefore, concept

operationalization is done to help a researcher address the issue of conceptual ambiguities.

Gerring identifies “seven criteria that are critical to the formation of empirical concepts in the

social sciences” and in addressing the ambiguities: (1) resonance, (2) domain, (3) consistency,

(4) fecundity, (5) differentiation, (6) causal utility, and (7) operationalization (i.e., measurement)

(Gerring, 2012:116).

Resonance is the degree to which a term or definition makes sense, is intuitively clear, or it

conforms to established usage. For a researcher to communicate, he or she must use concepts

that resonate with established usage. Domain means the linguistic terrain within which a concept

is expected to resonate. It is the boundary within which a concept is understood to apply. While

greater breadth of comprehension and usage is always desirable, no social science concept is

universal. Consistency implies the capacity of a concept to carry the same meaning (more or

7

less) in each empirical context to which it is applied. Fecundity could also be viewed as

coherence, depth, fruitfulness, illumination, informativeness, insight, natural kinds, power,

productivity, richness, or thickness. It is the ability of a concept to explain as much as possible

the empirical world. Differentiation means that a concept should be distinguishable from other

concepts. Causal utility is the capacity to function causally, as well as descriptively. That is, they

serve as components of a larger causal argument.

Apart from concept formation, researchers also engage in concept definition based on three

approaches: minimal, maximal, and cumulative. Minimal definition strategy seeks to identify the

bare essentials of a concept. Each attribute that defines a concept minimally is regarded as a

necessary condition: all entities must possess this attribute in order to be considered a member of

the set. Maximal definitions, aim for the inclusion of all attributes, thereby defining a concept in

its purest, most ideal form. Cumulative definition reconciles minimal and maximal approaches

by ranking the attributes commonly associated with a concept in a cumulative fashion, that is, as

more or less essential to a concept.

Relevance of Concepts in Research Work

The Scientific Method

The development of the scientific method is credited to Roger Bacon, a philosopher and scientist

from 13th-century England; although some argue that the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei played

an important role in formulating the scientific method. Later contributions to the scientific

method were made by Francis Bacon and René Descartes (Marczyk, Ibid). It is characterized by:

8

empirical approach, observations, questions, hypotheses, experiments, analyses, conclusions and

replication. Every research has to follow a scientific process which is defined by concepts.

Understanding the process first requires one to internalize the concepts. This process is best

thought of as an approach to the acquisition of new knowledge, and this approach effectively

distinguishes science from nonscience. The scientific method is not a single method, but rather

an overarching perspective on how scientific investigations should proceed. It is a set of

concepts, principles and methods that help researchers obtain valid results from their research

work.

Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is an interconnected set of ideas (theories) about how a particular

phenomenon functions or is related to its parts. The framework serves as the basis for

understanding the causal or correlational patterns of interconnections across events, ideas,

observations, concepts, knowledge, interpretations and other components of experience.

Everyone has a conceptual framework about how reality works that allows him or her to make

predictions about how A is related to B and what will happen when the two intersect. This allows

us to make choices about our behavior on the basis of what we think those relationships are.

A conceptual framework is a structure which the researcher believes can best explain the natural

progression of the phenomenon to be studied (Camp, 2001). It is linked with the concepts,

empirical research and important theories used in promoting and systemizing the knowledge

espoused by the researcher. It shows the series of action the researcher intends carrying out in a

research study

9

According to Adom, et al (2018) conceptual framework explains the path of a research and

grounds it firmly in theoretical constructs. The overall aim of the two frameworks is to make

research findings more meaningful, acceptable to the theoretical constructs in the research field

and ensures generalizability. They assist in stimulating research while ensuring the extension of

knowledge by providing both direction and impetus to the research inquiry. For this reason, the

conceptual framework of a study—the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs,

and theories that supports and informs your research—is a key part of your design (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). Miles and Huberman (1994) defined a conceptual framework as a visual or

written product, one that “explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be

studied— the key factors, concepts, or variables—and the presumed relationships among them”

(p. 18). Conceptual framework informs the rest of the research design to help to assess and refine

research goals, develop realistic and relevant research questions, select appropriate methods, and

identify potential validity threats to findings.

Concepts as the building blocks of theories

Theory can be defined as a general and, more or less, comprehensive set of statements or

propositions that describe different aspects of some phenomenon (Babbie, 1998; Hagan, 1993;

Senese, 1997). Theories can be understood as interrelated ideas about various patterns, concepts,

processes, relationships, or events. Concepts are the “building blocks of theory” (Turner, J. 1989:

5). The inclusion of a theory in a research is indispensable because theories heighten the quality

of a research.

Theories are systematically and logically constructed from concepts. Every research must have a

section on theoretical framework. It is the ‘blueprint’ or guide for a research (Grant & Osanloo,

10

2014). It is a framework based on an existing theory in a field of inquiry that is related and/or

reflects the hypothesis of a study. It is often ‘borrowed’ by the researcher to build his/her own

house or research inquiry. It serves as the foundation upon which a research is constructed.

Sinclair (2007) and Fulton and Krainovich-Miller (2010) compare the role of theoretical

framework to that of a map or travel plan. Thus, when travelling to a particular location, the map

guides your path. Likewise, the theoretical framework guides the researcher so that s/he would

not deviate from the confines of the research. The theoretical framework consists of theoretical

principles, constructs, concepts, and tenants of a theory (Grant & Osanloo, 2014).

Cognitive scientific explanations, description and prediction

Most researchers agree that the three general goals of scientific research are description,

prediction and understanding/explanation (Cozby, 1993; Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 1997).

Concepts play a crucial role in helping a researcher attain these noble goals. Description refers to

the process of defining, classifying, or categorizing phenomena of interest in a given research

work. Prediction often stems from description. If a researcher finds that there is a relationship

(i.e., correlation) between two variables, then it may be possible to predict one variable from

knowledge of the other variable. Explanation is the successful identification of the cause or

causes of a phenomenon under research. These goals may not be achievable without the use of

concepts.

11

Concepts aid in communication

Concepts are used to construct a language of communication for a group of professionals. The

usefulness of scientific discovery is limited if it is not communicated to the consumers and the

general public. Scientists rely on concepts to communicate their research results. This could be

through publications (peer-reviewed journals), in national and international conferences where

the results are shared with other researchers, and finally dissemination through popular media,

such as magazines, newspapers, and blogs.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the place of concepts in research work from the foundation laid by

Giovanni Sartori and ably analyzed by John Gerring. While concepts are key to any research

work, caution must be taken in dealing with conceptual ambiguities that arise during research

work. Researchers from all disciplines use concepts to achieve the main objective of research; to

discover and disseminate new and relevant knowledge. This implies that research work must be

scientific and must be shared. Concepts are necessary in both cases. Without concepts, the

structure and vision for a study will be unclear.

12

REFERENCES

Adom, D., Hussein, E. K. & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework:

Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7 (1),

438 – 441.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8 th Ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Allyn and

Bacon.

Camp, W. G. (2001). Formulating and evaluating theoretical frameworks for career and technical

education research. Journal of Vocational Educational Research, 26 (1), 27-39.

Cozby, P. C. (1993). Methods in behavioral research (5 th Ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield

Publishing Co.

Fulton, S. & Krainovich-Miller, B. (2010). Gathering and Appraising the Literature. In G.

LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, J. (Eds). Nursing research: methods and critical appraisal for

evidence-based practice (7 th Ed.). St. Louis MO: Mosby Elsevier.

Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology. A unified framework. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Grant, C. & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical

framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for ‘house’. Administrative Issues

Journal: Connecting Education, Practice and Research, pp. 12-22. DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.9

Hagan, F. E. (1993). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (3 rd Ed.). New Yak

Macmillan.

Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.

Machery, E., & Seppälä, S. (2011). Against hybrid theories of concepts. Anthropology and

Philosophy, 10, 99–126.

Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D. & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and

methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book

(2 nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misinformation in comparative politics. American Political Science

Review, 64 (4), 1033–1046. Cited in Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology. A unified

framework. New York: Cambridge University Press.

13

______ .1984. Social science concepts: A systematic analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cited in

Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology. A unified framework. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Senese, J. D. (1997). Applied research methods in criminal justice. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Sinclair M. (2007). Editorial: A guide to understanding theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Evidence Based Midwifery 5(2): 39.

Shaughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1997). Research methods in psychology (4 th Ed.).

Boston: McGraw Hill.

Tuner, J. H. (1989). Theory building in sociology: assessing theoretical cumulation. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.