Abstract
I first argue that there are three major currents in the contemporary debate on operationalism. These are: (a) methodologists who criticize operationalism qua philosophy, (b) psychologists who practice operationalization that is allegedly philosophically noncommittal, and (c) critics who claim that psychologists’ validation practices commit them to stronger operationalism than psychologists realize. I then outline respectful operationalism and argue that it avoids the main criticisms of operationalism while incorporating some of the epistemic benefits of operational definitions. I show how respectful operationalism aligns with other operationalism-friendly theories, such as generalizability theory and Michael T. Kane’s argument-based approach to validity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
