A Word of Caution About Conceptualization

Available under Creative Commons-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

So now that we’ve come up with a clear definition for the term masculinity and made sure that the terms we use in our definition are equally clear, we’re done, right? Not so fast. If you’ve ever met more than one man in your life, you’ve probably noticed that they are not all exactly the same, even if they live in the same society and at the same historical time period. This could mean that there are dimensions of masculinity. In terms of social scientific measurement, concepts can be said to have dimensions when there are multiple elements that make up a single concept. With respect to the term masculinity, dimensions could be regional (Is masculinity defined differently in different regions of the same country?), age based (Is masculinity defined differently for men of different ages?), or perhaps power based (Are some forms of masculinity valued more than others?). In any of these cases, the concept masculinity would be considered to have multiple dimensions. While it isn’t necessarily a must to spell out every possible dimension of the concepts you wish to measure, it may be important to do so depending on the goals of your research. The point here is to be aware that some concepts have dimensions and to think about whether and when dimensions may be relevant to the concepts you intend to investigate.

Before we move on to the additional steps involved in the measurement process, it would be wise to caution ourselves about one of the dangers associated with conceptualization. While I’ve suggested that we should consult prior scholarly definitions of our concepts, it would be wrong to assume that just because prior definitions exist that they are any more real than whatever definitions we make up (or, likewise, that our own made-up definitions are any more real than any other definition). It would also be wrong to assume that just because definitions exist for some concept that the concept itself exists beyond some abstract idea in our heads. This idea, assuming that our abstract concepts exist in some concrete, tangible way, is known as reification.

To better understand reification, take a moment to think about the concept of social structure. This concept is central to sociological thinking. When we sociologists talk about social structure, we are talking about an abstract concept. Social structures shape our ways of being in the world and of interacting with one another, but they do not exist in any concrete or tangible way. A social structure isn’t the same thing as other sorts of structures, such as buildings or bridges. Sure, both types of structures are important to how we live our everyday lives, but one we can touch, and the other is just an idea that shapes our way of living.

Here’s another way of thinking about reification: Think about the term family. If you were interested in studying this concept, we’ve learned that it would be good to consult prior theory and research to understand how the term has been conceptualized by others. But we should also question past conceptualizations. Think, for example, about where we’d be today if we used the same definition of family that was used, say, 100 years ago. How have our understandings of this concept changed over time? What role does conceptualization in social scientific research play in our cultural understandings of terms like family? The point is that our terms mean nothing more and nothing less than whatever definition we assign to them. Sure, it makes sense to come to some social agreement about what various concepts mean. Without that agreement, it would be difficult to navigate through everyday living. But at the same time, we should not forget that we have assigned those definitions and that they are no more real than any other, alternative definition we might choose to assign.