For example, Oxford Languages defines oxygen asĪ colorless, odorless reactive gas, the chemical element of atomic number 8 and the life-supporting component of the air ( Oxford Languages and Google, n.d.), Furthermore, if one looks up oxygen in a dictionary today, the meaning will likely be far from Lavoisier’s or Priestley’s. In other words, the definition of oxygen had to change after a new theory provided the appropriate meaning. ( Emphasis added, Online Etymology Dictionary, n.d.) The downfall of the phlogiston theory required a new name, which Lavoisier provided. The element was isolated by Priestley (1774), who, using the old model of chemistry, called it dephlogisticated air. For example, oxygen was a term coined in 1777 by French chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) to indicate “acid generating” ( American Chemical Society, 2000). The definitions of theoretical concepts may be far removed from their vernacular definitions. When critics indicate that there is a requirement to define concepts before my use of them, I respond that we don’t know what the concept is until we use it and determine, by research, its causes and effects. In this brief essay, I want to explain why. As a curmudgeon, I have argued against these critiques. This sequence-define, measure, then investigate-seems arbitrary and not at all theoretically powerful (see Torgerson, 1958, for measurement by fiat). I will start with a confession: Many times in my publishing career I have had editors, reviewers, and colleagues tell me where I have fallen short: One critique I’ve received is that I need to define my concepts before I use them and that I should create my measures for these concepts before I conduct my investigation. He earned his graduate degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his undergraduate degree from Columbia University. He has served as editor of Human Communication Research, is a Fellow of the International Communication Association (ICA) and of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Honor Society. He has published in Human Communication Research, Communication Research, Communication Monographs, Journal of Communication, Communication Theory, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, and the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology and many other journals. He studies attitude change and social influence, research methods and statistics, intercultural communication, and social networks. Carnell Professor of Media and Communication and Affiliate Professor of Sociology at Temple University, and Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland.
0 kommentar(er)
