Definitions
In the process of researching, the necessity to provide the correct meaning of discussed terminology units arises on a regular basis to ensure readers accurate understanding. Therefore, the methods and the process of defining are issues of great importance in every study. There are two common approaches to carefully provide the accurate meaning of complicated and straightforward terms, which are “conceptual definition” and “operational definition.”
The first one is the outlining of fundamental principles, which underlay a term, or in other words, it can be providing the meaning to one construct. It is possible to use conceptions, which are mental images, for summarising observations and experiences that have something in common to the term to support the definition. Moreover, the other options used to support defining concepts are also vital for the conceptualization. They are constructs, which represent the agreed-on meaning, researchers assign to a term. They do not apply to the object that exists in the physical world and cannot be measured.
Complicated terms require the determination of their dimensions that are a specifiable aspect of a concept and serve the purpose of outlining the vital parts in which a definition can be divided. Indicators as groups of observations within dimensions they belong to, which are chosen to be considered a reflection of a variable. The result of a conceptualization process is obtaining a set of indicators, which assist in specifying the meaning of a term. In general, the conceptual definition is the process of identifying what a particular concept implies based on fictional constructs, mental images, and dimensions and their indicators detection.
The second approach to provide the meaning of a term is the operational definition. It outlines metric techniques for quantifying the object of interest (p. 9). This definition articulates how to detect, identify, and measure the value of characteristics, which describes a phenomenon, a term for which is being explained. For instance, with this defining approach, it is possible to find the existence of an item’s attributes, such as temperature, pressure, volume, and methods of these rates collecting. Operationalization considers such issues as the range of variation, which is the limit of attributes, characteristics between extremes, and dimensions of a concept.
Moreover, from the perspective of operational defining, there are two essential qualities of all variables, which are exhaustive and mutually exclusive. The first one implies the ability to consider and classify every taken observation into one attribute. The second one means that the scientist is capable of categorizing on only one feature basis. In addition, four levels of measurement, which are used for variables with different values of characteristics, exist.
Nominal measures offer a name or a label for a variable without providing the ranking, as the object of defining is not numerically related (Bhandari, 2020). Ordinal ones categorize the data and rank it in order, while it is possible to distinguish the dependency between certain points of the data. Usually, this method is applicable to the related terms, which have the same indicator’s different values.
Interval measures include the mentioned opportunities and provide the option to space the data evenly. It means that this approach allows detecting equal distances and differences in values between attributes (Bhandari, 2020). A standard instance of the appropriate data for interval measure is test scores. The last rate, which summarizes all other levels possibilities, is the ratio level. It allows the zero point detection, which is a matter of great importance for data evaluation. Instances of ratio scales include but are not limited to age, weight, and temperature in Kelvin (Bhandari, 2020). In general, operationalization is the variety of specific research procedures, which result in empirical observation, which represent the concept from the perspective of their physical attributes values evaluating.
Conceptualizes race
“Race” is the term that can be defined by conceptualizing and operationalizing to ensure its accurate meaning providing. The first step of measuring is to determine a variety of dimensions, which characterizes the discussed definition from each side. They serve to provide the correct explanation for a concept and outline the points, which assist in determining the most accurate coincidence to a particular type of race. This variable is the simple one, and most of its dimensions do not require the implementation of additional indicators, which might be necessary for the composite measure. However, it is possible to distinguish one or two of them for each of the dimensions. In this work, all indicators are provided in the form of self-directed sentences.
The first dimension is “racial identity”, which implies initial subjective self-identification, deprived of pre-set options and preconceptions. In other words, it asks to what race an individual feels they belong (Roth, 2016). The indicator is “I believe my race is …”, and it is intended to show individual’s composite and comprehensive opinion of their belonging. The next one is “racial self-classification”, which is also means that a person determines himself or herself, but on the basis of official form or survey, with constrained options. The indicator is “I discovered that my race is … according to a survey”.
The next two dimensions outline an individual’s racial features, which others can directly observe. “Observed, appearance-based race” is concentrated on readily observable characteristics. This dimension depends on personal opinions, which are prejudiced, as most people make mistakes in the process of race determination. The indicator is “Others believe that my race is … on the basis of my appearance.” “Observed, interaction based race” is focused on characteristics revealed through interaction between individuals (Roth, 2016). Instances of features, which can indicate belonging to one or another race, include but are not limited to language, accent, surname, and behavior. The indicator is “Others believe that my race is … on the basis of my personal features, revealed through interactions with them.”
The next dimension is “reflected race”, which implies an individual’s belief about what race they belong to from other people’s points of view. This form of defining is also based on unqualified opinions, but the reliability of the finding might be increased depending on the number of responses. The indicator is “I believe that most people think that my race is ….” “Phenotype” is the dimension that reveals belonging through considering racial appearance.
It is different from the observed ones, as it depends on only scientifically based provisions. This dimension includes but is not limited to characteristics, such as skin color, hair texture or color, nose shape, lip shape, and eye color (Roth, 2016). The first indicator is “I believe that my race is … on my skin color basis.” The second one is “I believe that my race is … on my other features basis.”
The next dimension is “Racial Ancestry,” which implies considering the compiled racial groups of an individual’s ancestors (Roth, 2016). It also has two indicators focused on both known and hidden features left from an individual’s forefathers, which may determine their belonging. The first indicator is “I believe that my racial ancestry is … on my family history basis.” The second one is “I believe that my racial ancestry is … on my genetic testing basis.”
The last dimension is “Origin”, which implies consideration of the territory where an individual and his forefathers have lived. It focuses on investigating a person’s race by determining its ancestral land and connecting it to the characteristics prevailing in people, which also belong to this territory. The indicator is “I believe that my race is … on the basis of the land my ancestors came from.” All the mentioned above dimensions and indicator together, form the set of points which assist in determining the belonging and defining the meaning of the variable “race.”
Operationalizes race
Operationalization is focused on specific research procedures development and assist in representing the concept. “Race” is the exhaustive variable, which means that it is possible to classify every observation into at least one attribute, and they do not exclude each other (Chapter 5, conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement,” n.d.). A person can notice that their race may depend on a variety of indicators, which complement each other.
The data, race can be determined on the basis of which, do not have values, which might help to range it, in a particular order, and the zero point is absent. Therefore, the measures appropriate to the discussed concept are exclusively nominal ones. In this situation, measurement, which is possible to conduct around the variable “race,” is limited to two options. These possibilities are surveys, one of which is composed in the form of cards, with answers “Yes”, “No”, or “Inapplicable”. The second one represents a set of options, and the measure, which requires choosing one of them.
Typical measurements for the first three of the mentioned dimensions, respectively, are open-ended self-identification questions, closed-ended survey questions, and interviewer classification (Roth, 2016). The appropriate options of data collecting for the next dimensions are the same, with the exception of the “racial ancestry.” It is necessary to analyze ancestry informative markers to measure the belonging according to the genetic indicator.
It is possible to identify one comprehensive and precise definition for the term “race” divided into three sentences by gathering all the provided information. Race is an individual’s belonging to a particular group of people, which have common attributes, united into several major categories. These attributes are a type of skin, behavioral and appearance features, genetic distinguishes, and origin. Measurements can be conducted on the basis of interviewer classification, open and close-ended questions, which compose survey’s cards, and Analysis of ancestry informative markers.
Census Bureau changes
Census Bureau’s report on race provides readers with an updated vision regarding the meaning of the term “race” and attributes, which serve its correct determination. Several distinct changes were implemented in it with the purpose of ensuring the accurate definition of race categories. The first one is restating the question of race, which was deprived of emphasis on personal opinion, to obtain results supported with complementary observations.
The second major change is adding the sixth category, “Some Other Race”, to consider a group of people that cannot determine themselves as belonging to the other five segments (Humes et al., 2011). In addition, were conducted the adjustments, which serve the expanding of multiple-race combinations and improving origin questions to different groups (Humes et al., 2011). These changes are vital for the accurate race identification of an individual and a better understanding of the term’s meaning.
How Changes to Variables Affect Conclusion
The operational definition is supposed to provide an accurate meaning of a concept. Therefore, the difference in distinct operationalization processes and their outcomes can produce different conclusions about race. Changes to variables may outline altered categories with other particular attributes. The mentioned situation’s consequences are incorrect definitions about the same term that may affect the conclusion. It is necessary to carefully consider potential changes in order to avoid misunderstandings and mistakes in determining an individual’s race.
Reflection
It is possible to notice gaps in one or another explanation of the term’s meaning and methods to measure the variable, comparing distinct operational and conceptual definitions. The contemporary world is evolving along with society’s vision and opinion toward race determination, which raises the necessity to restate the previous descriptions regularly. Comparing the Bureau’s conceptualization and operationalization of race and my ones, it is possible to notice similar and different points. Definition of race categories, which are used in the 2010 Census, is focused on the location, people of a particular group and their ancestors has lived, personal self-determination, and reported entries (Humes et al., 2011).
The provided identification is brief, strict, and precise. I assume that it was necessary to reject complementary attributes, as the initial definition mat becomes unclear. However, it brings to a conclusion that the term was not fully explained, which is partially justified with the presence of missing points in the questionnaire. My definition is more complicated and comprehensive but does not include instances, which might be approved by using a form for race determination. The meaning of the term “race” is explained similarly in my and Bureau’s operational and conceptual definitions. The main difference between them is in the number and focus of provided details.
References
Bhandari, P. (2020). Levels of measurement: Nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio. Web.
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A, & Ramirez, P. R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Census Bureau.
Chapter 5, conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement. (n.d.). Web.
Roth, W. D. (2016). The multiple dimensions of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(8), 1310-1338.