IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v49y2020i3p719-741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Criterial Framework for Concept Evaluation in Social Practice and Scholarship

Author

Listed:
  • Peter C. Howie
  • Richard G. Bagnall

Abstract

This article responds to the argued lack of clearly articulated, consistent, and agreed criteria that might be used by researchers for determining the adequacy of a given concept for a given task. It does so by describing the development of a framework of such criteria, presenting that framework, and illustratively applying it to the evaluation of the concept of warm-up in psychodrama. The framework comprises eight criteria in three categories: the intrinsic qualities of a concept (the criteria of clarity, comprehensiveness, parsimony, and resonance), the contextualization of a concept (differentiation and connectedness), and its application (epistemic utility and practical utility). Using the framework to evaluate the concept of warm-up in the context of its use in psychodrama suggests its potential to make significant differentiations. It is argued that this framework may contribute to evaluating other concepts in other contexts, although the extent of such generalizability remains to be ascertained.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter C. Howie & Richard G. Bagnall, 2020. "A Criterial Framework for Concept Evaluation in Social Practice and Scholarship," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(3), pages 719-741, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:3:p:719-741
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124118769104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124118769104
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124118769104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:3:p:719-741. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.