Conceptual adequacy for social science means mediating multiple competing criteria.
Evidence
In what follows, I draw heavily on the work of Goertz, although I have also been deeply influenced by the insights of Gerring (2001, p. 39, Chapter 3), who emphasizes that “goodness in concepts may be understood as an attempt to mediate between eight criteria: coherence, operationalization, validity, field utility, resonance, contextual range, parsimony, and analytic/empirical utility.” — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 82
Categorization
- DEFINE: Names Gerring’s eight criteria for evaluating concept goodness, a useful yardstick for judging rival definitions of Islamophobia.
- XREF: connects to: Defining Islamophobia precisely shapes real resource allocation among rival forms of prejudice. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 72; Accurate Islamophobia measurement should guide resource allocation across prejudice causes — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 72
Related
- Accurate Islamophobia measurement should guide resource allocation across prejudice causes (similarity 0.80)
- Defining Islamophobia precisely shapes real resource allocation among rival forms of prejudice. (similarity 0.80)
- A fixed definition is only optimal for some research questions. (similarity 0.78)