See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304242875

Concept Development: A Primer

Article  in  Philosophy of Management · July 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s40926-015-0011-9

CITATIONS READS
7 12,008

2 authors, including:

John Branch
University of Michigan
23 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Contemporary Issues in Digital Marketing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Branch on 21 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Concept Development: A Review
Abstract

Concepts serve critical functions in science, through their descriptive powers and as the building-blocks of

theory. When concepts are immature, therefore, science suffers. Consequently, concept development ought

to be considered a fundamental scientific activity. Knowledge of the different approaches to concept

development, however, is relatively limited in the management discipline. The purpose of this article,

therefore, is to review the literature on concept development. It begins by establishing the link between

concepts and science. It then describes and discusses the different approaches to concept development.

Finally, it provides an example of concept development from the marketing sub-discipline.

!1
Concept Development: A Review

1. Concepts and Science

Concepts and science are inextricable. Indeed, according to Sartori (1984), concepts are the basic

unit of science. At the most foundational level, concepts serve science through their descriptive powers, by

enabling scientists to “… analyze the relation between [the] ordinary commonsense conception of things

and the scientific understanding… critically reflect on [their] understanding and study not simply what the

concepts are about but the concepts themselves” (Wartowsky, 1968, p. 6). In turn, concepts serve science

as the building-blocks of theory, by allowing scientists to form “systematic linkages between and among

concepts, resulting in a formal theoretic structure” (Chinn & Kramer, 1995, p. 91). In summary,

[s]cience could not exist without concepts. Why are they so essential? By the very act of
naming phenomena, we fix continuing attention on them. Once our attention is fixed, we can
begin to examine them comparatively and to ask questions about them. Such questions not
only enable us to systematically specify what we see, but when they take the form of
hypotheses or propositions, they suggest how phenomena might possibly be related to each
other. In the end, communication among investigators, including the vital interplay of
discussion and argument necessary to enhance the development of science, is made possible
by the specification of concepts and their relationships (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 102).

When concepts are immature, therefore, science suffers. First, with respect to their descriptive

powers, the manner in which science understands the universe “becomes a source of difficulty when the

meanings of concepts are diverse and the referents are poorly specified” (Berthold, 1964, p. 406). An

immature concept makes it difficult to “differentiate between the concept of interest and other concepts…

Communication is impaired as questions regarding vague and ambiguous concepts are met with confused

responses that are dependent upon individual and often ad hoc interpretations” (Rodgers, 1989, p. 330).

Second, with respect to their role as the building-blocks of theory, the value of a theory is derived

exclusively from the “extent to which it connects fruitfully with the empirical world. Concepts are the

means, and the only means, of establishing such connections, for it is the concept that points to the

empirical instances about which a proposal is made” (Bulmer, 1984, p. 242). In summary, when concepts

are immature, it leads to..

[a]mbiguity as to the problem being addressed by the study; questions as to what concepts
have guided the investigator’s choice of literature and discussion of it; ambiguity as to the
meanings of the concepts used, particularly those that would serve as variables in the

!2
Concept Development: A Review

empirical phase of the study; lack of explicit presentation of the investigator’s conceptual
image of the problem; and questionable or lack of parallel interrelation among the
background or state of knowledge about the guiding problem or objective of the study, the
rationale or conceptual framework guiding the study, and the purposes or aims of the study
(Batey, 1977, p. 325).

Consequently, concept development ought to be considered a fundamental scientific activity.

Indeed, “knowledge development, and consequently progress are not dependent solely on empirical

enquiry but require attention to conceptual concerns and growth” (Rodgers, 1993, p. 7). Accordingly,

scientists, as the agents of science, must be cognisant of the maturity of the concepts with which they

work (Batey, 1977). Additionally, they must embrace concept development in any scientific endeavour,

whether as a goal in itself or as part of theory-building exercises. As summarised by Toulmin (1972), it is

through concept development that scientists advance human knowledge.

Concept development, however, is not a one-off exercise, but instead must be ongoing… because

concepts are not fixed. On the contrary, a concept’s maturity is fleeting, always subject to revision or

replacement (Berthold, 1964). Indeed,

[n]ot all concepts exhibit the same level of maturity. Because knowledge is continually
developing, new concepts are being introduced, and accepted concepts continually being
investigated and refined, concepts exist at various levels of development. Some concepts are
poorly defined with characteristics that have not been described, related preconditions and
outcomes that are unspecified and that lack demarcation. Other concepts may be consistently
defined, yet when analyzed, inconsistency between the definition and its utilization in
research are revealed, so that the concept is not as mature as first thought (Morse et al., 1996,
p. 256).

The notion that the maturity of a concept is relative is captured in that which Rodgers (1989) called

the evolutionary view of concepts (See Figure 1.). Integrating the works of such modern philosophers as

Henry Price (1953) and Richard Rorty (1979), and the later writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1981), the

evolutionary view of concepts hold that a concept is in a continuous state of tentativeness, whose

significance, employment, and application of a concept are always in flux. The significance of a concept—

the evaluation of its importance (Becker, 1983)— ought to be reflected in the clarity of its use and in the

breadth of its application (Toulmin, 1972). Concept development, therefore, is critical to the evolution of a

concept, ensuring its “continual redefinition, analysis, and reinforcement” (Becker, 1983, p. 54).

!3
Concept Development: A Review

Batey (1977) contended, therefore, that any scientific endeavor ought to include a conceptual

research phase, which would define: 1. the phenomenon which is to be addressed by the research, 2. the

state of knowledge which exists about the concepts which are present in the phenomenon, 3. the scientist’s

logical construction or mapping of the concepts in light of that knowledge, and 4. the specific part of the

phenomenon which is to be examined through the empirical or interpretive phase of the research. This

conceptual research phase would demarcate both the scientific and philosophical boundaries of the

research (Becker, 1983), and serve the scientist…

… by providing the structure of thought for examining the meanings of the derived findings
in the context of the substantive and logical frame of reference. Further, the conceptual phase
guides the reviewer of a research proposal and the reader of a published report about the
dimensions of knowledge brought to bear on the phenomenon of study and about the
investigator’s image of how that phenomenon operates or exists in the empirical world
(Batey, 1977,p. 326).

Unfortunately, the conceptual research phase is often overlooked by scientists (Norris, 1982).

Implicit in both Batey’s conceptual research phase, and in the evolutionary view of concepts, is the

notion that the world can be conceptualised in many different ways (Berthold, 1964). The concepts of

science, in particular, are “specialized and are developed in limited domains. The scientist has been able to

isolate or abstract certain features of the world for intensive investigation, and has adapted concepts to

their special use” (Wartowsky, 1968, p. 7). Any concept of interest, therefore “whether or not it is also of

interest to other disciplines, needs to be submitted to an on-going process of development in the context of

the discipline” (Messias, 1996, p. 235). In other words, concepts are discipline-specific, and concept

development occurs in the context of a specific discipline.

As an illustration, Fournier and Mick (1999) argued recently that the dominant comparison

standards (CS) model of satisfaction had prevented the realisation of the concept’s full potential in the

marketing sub-discipline. This dominance, they continued, underscored very clearly that the “reliance on a

single paradigm or method may pose serious limitations for any marketing phenomenon” (p. 5). This

concern is especially acute in this instance because the concept of satisfaction stands at the very core of

marketing thought and practice (See Kotler [2003] and AMA [2003], for example.). In response, therefore,

!4
Concept Development: A Review

they developed a new conceptualisation of satisfaction which challenged the dominant CS model, and

which provided the basis for several theoretical extensions… and perhaps even an entirely new

satisfaction paradigm.

This type of conceptual research, however, is relatively rare in the management discipline. MacInnis

(2004 and 2011), for example, noted a precipitous drop off in recent decades of purely conceptual articles

in leading marketing journals. This is especially disconcerting because conceptual articles often have a

disproportionately high impact on the progress of a discipline (Yadav, 2010). This article attempts to

trigger a kind of conceptual ‘awakening’, by reviewing the literature on concept development. It provides

an example of concept development from the marketing sub-discipline which, like that of Fournier &

Mick (1999), challenged the dominant model. The article begins, however, by describing and discussing

the different approaches to concept development.

2. Approaches to Concept Development

An approach to concept development is a means of defining the use, properties, and nature of a

concept (Walker & Avant, 1983). According to Morse et al. (1996), it…

… refers to a process of inquiry that explores concepts for their level of development or
maturity as revealed by their internal structure, use, representativeness, and/or relations to
other concepts… [It] entails an assessment process using various techniques to explore the
description of a concept in the literature or to develop a concept from observational and/or
interview data. Thus, concept [development] is a term referring to the process of unfolding,
exploring, and understanding concepts (p. 255).

Aristotle, with his abstracted philosophy of concepts, set the groundwork for the first approach to

concept development, by seeking to define fixed sets of characteristics of the objects of the world. To this

day, psychologists still rely on his work for their approaches to concept development. Scientists in other

disciplines, however, have created their own approaches. They include Wilson (1963) and Klausmeier &

Goodwin (1975) in education, Sartori (1984) in sociology, Norris (1982) and her colleagues in nursing,

Kövecses (1986) in linguistic anthropology, and Hampsher-Monk et al. (1998) in historiography.

The different approaches to concept development are known variously as:

!5
Concept Development: A Review

• concept analysis (Bohman, 1992; Klausmeier & Goodwin, 1975; Meleis, 1991; Messias,
1996; Rodgers, 1989; Sartori, 1984; Walker & Avant, 1983; Wilson, 1963; Wuest, 1994),
• concept clarification (Berthold, 1964; Meleis, 1991; Morse, 1995; Norris, 1982),
• concept comparison (Morse, 1995),
• concept correction (Morse, 1995),
• concept delineation (Morse, 1995),
• concept derivation (Walker & Avant, 1983),
• concept development (Chinn & Jacobs, 1983; Meleis, 1991; Schwartz-Barcott & Kim,
1986),
• concept exploration (Messias, 1996),
• concept identification (Morse, 1995),
• concept integration (Meleis, 1996), and
• concept synthesis (Walker & Avant, 1983).

Some authors have suggested that these different approaches to concept development were designed

for different stages in the development of a concept and are inherently different (Gift, 1996). Walker &

Avant (1983), for example, distinguished between three approaches to concept development— concept

analysis, concept synthesis, and concept derivation— each having a different role in the development of a

concept. Despite the variant terminology, all the different approaches to concept development share the

same goal: concept development. That is to say, they all aim to increase the descriptive powers of a

concept and support its role as a building-block of theory. That which distinguishes the different

approaches to concept development is method.

Morse et al. (1996) categorised the different approaches to concept development by the four most

generally adopted methods: 1. Wilsonian methods, 2. quantitative methods, 3. interpretive (or qualitative)

methods, and 4. critical analysis of a concept using the literature as data. Hybrid approaches to concept

development which are based on combinations of two or more of these four methods are also possible.

The following section describes and discusses the different approaches to concept development according

to these five categories (See Figure 2.).

2.1 Wilsonian Approaches to Concept Development

In 1963, John Wilson, a teacher at a private secondary school in England, wrote a book entitled

Thinking with Concepts. The book was primarily rooted in his experience as a teacher. Indeed, the

problems which his students had suffered in understanding specialised concepts of peculiar secondary

!6
Concept Development: A Review

school subjects had led him to question the assumption that concepts somehow seep into a student’s mind.

The book also reflected his observations of society in general. “A great many adults who are concerned

with matters of general interest and importance— religion, politics, morality, social studies, science, or

even just personal relationships— would do better to spend less time in simply accepting the concepts of

others uncritically” (Wilson, 1963, p. viii). Moreover, the book attempted to popularise the works of

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1981) and of other linguistic philosophers who were in vogue at the time (Morse et

al., 1996b).

The goal of Wilson’s book was to outline a procedure (See Table 1.) which would enable students

and others alike to think critically about concepts. The procedure was designed to “handle and clarify

concepts in a particular way” (Wilson, 1963, p. vii). It drew on eleven techniques which Wilson had taught

himself, and which he had tested with his students.

Among these techniques are those which Wilson called cases. They are “ ‘constructed cases’—

often hypothetical cases— and single prototypical examples that support or contradict the concept or

represent an allied example or hypothetical ideal” (Morse, 1995, p. 32). These cases help scientists to

uncover the characteristics which define a concept. Five types of cases were outlined by Wilson:

• model cases (A case or instance which represents the concept best.),

• contrary cases (A case or instance which does not, in any way, represent the concept.),
• related cases (A case or instance which represents a related concept.),
• borderline cases (A case or instance which may represent the concept.), and
• invented cases (A case or instance which is invented in order to provide additional cases for
testing the concept.).

In addition to the use of cases, Wilson’s procedure relied on introspection for its principle method.

That is to say, scientists draw exclusively on personal experience to construct the cases. Development of a

concept, therefore, is a sort of self-awareness (Bohman, 1992). The result of Wilson’s procedure is an

essay, which attempts to explicate, in prosaic and logical form, the characteristics of the concept, framed

in the context of the original question of interest.

As an approach to concept development, Wilson’s procedure has many strengths:

!7
Concept Development: A Review

• The isolation of concepts occurs by first examining a situation or passage from literature or
scientific writings and then choosing the important concept which will be analysed.
• Although the cases are constructed, they are constructed from actual or everyday
• situations which not only use the concept, but are relevant to the analysis.
• Invented cases are only constructed when sufficient numbers of actual cases are not
available to adequately illustrate the concept.
• The conceptual features (attributes or characteristics) emerge from the cases.
• The intellectual rigour which is requisite in concept development is described (Hupcey et
al., 1996).

Additionally, Wilson’s book describes the procedure in great detail, and provides clear examples to

illustrate its application.

The major complaints against Wilson’s procedure, however, centre on the use of cases as the sole

source of data, and on the reliance on introspection for its principle method. Although the value of

introspection as a method has been claimed by such authors as Gould (1991), Holbrook (1995), Lehmann

(1987), and Wallendorf & Brucks (1993), “the use of confabulated or recalled experiences in place of data

interferes with the very substance of the development of concepts and places… researchers at par with the

armchair anthropologists of the 1920s” (Hupcey et al., 1996, p. 207).

A procedure very similar to that of Wilson appeared in Klausmeier & Goodwin’s (1975) text on

educational psychology. The authors did not cite Wilson directly, but their procedure, which is called

analysis of a concept, bears enough of a resemblance to that of Wilson to suspect that he had indeed

inspired them.

Klausmeier & Goodwin suggested that many teachers have attained the concepts of their specific

disciplines at a basic level. However, “they have not been taught concepts at the formal level or the many

uses of the concepts of their fields… Yet these are important precursors of effective teaching” (Klausmeier

& Goodwin, 1975, p. 286). Prospective teachers, therefore, ought to learn the concepts of their fields

while still in university. To do so, according to Klausmeier & Goodwin, they must learn to perform an

analysis of a concept, thereby enabling them to teach concepts effectively to students of different ages and

of varying abilities.

!8
Concept Development: A Review

Not unlike Wilson’s procedure, Klausmeier and Goodwin’s analysis of a concept involves a number

of steps (See Table 1.). The steps— which are actually presented in their book as purposes— are far more

prescriptive than those of Wilson’s procedure. They call for the teacher (or scientist) to identify very

specific characteristics and relationships of the concept. The analysis of a concept, like Wilson’s

procedure, uses cases, which Klausmeier & Goodwin termed examples. Dictionaries and professors are

also considered valuable sources of data. Their procedure also relies on introspection for its principle

method.

As an approach to concept development, the analysis of a concept has one obvious fault.

Klausmeier & Goodwin have failed to describe, in any detail, how to perform an analysis of a concept.

The procedure occupies only a few pages in what is otherwise a lengthy text, almost as if it were written in

passing. Two excellent examples, however— one of the concept equilateral triangle (See Figure 3.), the

other of the concept noun— were provided. Both illustrate neatly the intended result of an analysis of a

concept.

The discipline in which Wilson’s procedure has had the most impact is nursing. As early as 1973,

Hardy highlighted the importance of concepts in the development of nursing theory. Batey (1977)

subsequently raised concern for concept development as part of nursing progress. In 1983, however, both

Walker & Avant and Chinn & Jacobs (later known as Chinn & Kramer) published books on nursing theory

which included procedures for concept development. These procedures were based entirely on Wilson’s

procedure and were incorporated immediately into theory and research courses in doctoral-level nursing

programs throughout the United States.

Walker & Avant’s procedure (See Table 1.), however, is slightly different than that of Wilson. They

removed Wilson’s step which relates to the internal dialogue and also the step in which the question of

interest is re-visited. Wilson’s step in which the scientist isolates a concept became one of selecting a

concept in Walker & Avant’s procedure. They added the specification of antecedents, consequences, and

empirical referents. The most striking difference is that Walker & Avant placed characteristics before

!9
Concept Development: A Review

cases. That is to say, characteristics are identified first in their procedure, and then the cases are

constructed in order to illustrate the concept.

One positive aspect of Walker & Avant’s procedure is that it is presented in eight easy-to-follow

steps. This simplification, however, is also one of its flaws— in simplifying Wilson’s procedure, nursing

researchers were lead to believe that following these eight steps would lead to significant results (Morse et

al., 1996). Walker & Avant’s procedure is also poorly understood and lacks philosophical foundations

(Rodgers, 1989). A rationale for incorporating definitions is absent. Confusion is created between the

characteristics of a concept and its empirical referents. Synthesis steps are omitted and, more generally,

clear instructions which explain how to implement the steps at all are missing. As an approach to concept

development, therefore, Walker & Avant’s procedure fails to communicate the essential intellectual rigour

which is required in concept development (Hupcey et al., 1996). Moreover, Walker & Avant have

distorted Wilson’s procedure so that the results which are obtained from their procedure are not useful in

concept development (Morse et al., 1996b).

Chinn & Jacobs’ method is much closer to that of Wilson (See Table 1.). Characteristics of the

concept are identified from the cases which have been constructed by the scientist. After being identified,

these characteristics are tested in the cases in order to emphasise the context of the concept. One

difference between Chinn & Jacobs’ procedure and that of Wilson is step 3, in which definitions of the

concept are examined.

Chinn & Jacobs’ procedure, however, is less detailed than that of Walker & Avant. Little is said

about the rationale for examining definitions, or about what such an examination might entail. How cases

are constructed and tested is not described. And which form the characteristics of the concept assume is

not explained. As an approach to concept development, therefore, Chinn & Jacobs’ procedure, like that of

Walker & Avant, is also poor. It is vague, and this vagueness makes the procedure difficult to follow. It

lacks the intellectual rigour which is required in concept development (Hupcey et al., 1996).

!10
Concept Development: A Review

Both Walker & Avant and Chinn & Jacobs modified their procedures in the years which followed

the initial publication of their books. Additionally, off-shoots of their procedures were created by other

nursing scientists. Wuest (1994), for example, combined feminist theory with their procedures to form an

approach to concept development which she called feminist concept analysis. Its goal was to develop a

more contextually-situated concept which emphasises diversity, complexity, and relevance, and which

reflects the values which nurses endorse.

Haase et al. (1993) created simultaneous concept analysis as a procedure for developing multiple,

inter-related concepts, by expanding the procedures of both Walker & Avant and Chinn & Jacob to more

than one concept. It employs that which the authors called a consensus group— a number of nursing

scientists who all share an interest in the concepts— to construct cases for identifying the characteristics

of all the concepts simultaneously.

The modifications and off-shoots of the procedures of Walker & Avant and Chinn & Jacobs,

however, have likewise been criticised. As summarised by Hupcey et al. (1996), research which uses

approaches to concept development which are based on the procedures of Walker & Avant and Chinn &

Jacobs suffer from:

• incomplete and vague descriptions of the application of the method,

• a lack of clarity about what is a suitable concept for analysis or how one truly chooses a
concept,
• a lack of discussion about the intellectual rigour (internal dialogue) involved in concept
development (most approaches do not even have it as a step), and
• a failure to discuss how the steps are integrated with one another, despite assertions that the
process is iterative and not a cookbook or step-wise procedure.

Research which uses these approaches to concept development also frequently produce trivial and

insignificant results (Morse, 1995). These results are usually not integrated into a conclusive statement

and are left hanging without interpretation, thereby making it impossible to determine which purpose they

will serve or if they are useful at all (Hupcey et al., 1996). For example,

[a] concept [development] of hope by Stephenson (1991) resulted in the identification of four
attributes: 1. the object of hope is meaningful to the person, 2. hope is a process involving
thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and relationships, 3. there is an element of anticipation, and 4.
there is a positive future orientation, which is grounded with the past. Identifying these

!11
Concept Development: A Review

attributes has little pragmatic significance. Furthermore, their validity may be questioned, as
all of these attributes could be applied to other concepts, such as fear or anxiety (Morse,
1995, p. 32).

In summary, the research which uses approaches to concept development which are derived from

Wilson’s procedure “lack comprehensiveness, explanatory power, and are superficial. The research does

not elucidate phenomena, nor does it add to knowledge in general” (Hupcey et al., 1996, p. 206). The

articles which result from this research lack both substance and evidence of intellectual investment in

many instances (Morse et al., 1996). Continued dependence on these approaches to concept development

will fail to produce a useful theoretical base (Morse, 1995).

2.2. Quantitative Approaches to Concept Development

In contrast to Wilsonian approaches to concept development, which use cases as their sole source of

data and which rely on introspection for their principle method, quantitative approaches to concept

development are designed in conjunction with quantitative data which are collected using some type of

measurement instrument, and which are subsequently analysed using statistical methods. Most

quantitative approaches to concept development focus on the operations of aggregation and

characterisation (Fisher & Langley, 1986), which parallel the categorical and probabilistic philosophies of

concepts respectively. The categorical philosophy of concepts treats concepts as closed categories, and the

probabilistic philosophy of concepts treats concepts as open categories. They correspond to the two

questions ‘Which objects belong together in a category?’, and ‘How can the characteristics of categories

(and their objects) be defined?’ (Feger & De Boeck, 1993).

Quantitative approaches to concept development, therefore, seek to answer these two questions—

that is to say, to perform these two operations, either individually or simultaneously. They draw on

statistical methods (See Table 2.) which allow scientists to ascertain which objects belong to one and the

same category (out of a set of categories which are known in advance), which characteristics define a

category (which is known in advance), or which objects belong to one and the same (unknown) category

and which characteristics define that (unknown) category (Van Mechelen & Michalski, 1993).

!12
Concept Development: A Review

Cluster analysis, by definition, is an aggregation method (Feger & De Boeck, 1993). It starts with a

set of objects whose characteristics are known, and proceeds, object by object, with judgements of

similarity (Van Mechelen & Michalski, 1993). The judgements of similarity are then used to derive

categories (clusters) of objects (Murtagh, 1993).

Factor analysis, discriminant analysis, and regression analysis all explore the dimensionality of a

concept (Morse et al., 1996), answering questions about which characteristics are important in deciding on

category membership or, in the case of the probabilistic philosophy of concepts, the degree of membership

(Brannick, 1993). They do so by means of characteristic and category membership data of objects (Van

Mechelen & Michalski, 1993).

Hierarchical class analysis (De Boeck et al., 1993), Galois analysis (Guénoche & Van Mechelen,

1993), and latent class analysis (De Soete, 1993) are three statistical methods which achieve both

aggregation and characterisation simultaneously. They assume that all the categories are known in

advance, and that all the characteristics of the objects are also known in advance. For a given set of

objects, therefore, membership (or prototypicality) is observed for a number of categories. In combination

with object characteristic data, these methods define the given categories in terms of their characteristics

(Feger & De Boeck, 1993).

All the statistical methods which quantitative approaches to concept development use, rely heavily

on the quality of the data which they analyse. Criticisms of quantitative approaches to concept

development, therefore, revolve primarily around issues of measurement theory— specifically, validity

(including pragmatic validity, concurrent validity, content validity, construct validity, convergent validity,

and discriminant validity) and reliability (including stability and equivalence) (Churchill, 1979). After a

measurement instrument has been created, a variety of tests can be used to assess its validity and

reliability (Morse et al., 1996). Cronbach’s α, for example, is a very simple and popular test of reliability

(Maxim, 1999). It assesses the “degree to which the items of a given scale or subscale vary together, as

!13
Concept Development: A Review

would be expected if they were all indicators of the same concept or aspect thereof and if respondents

were consistent in their responses” (Morse et al., 1996, p. 267).

The assumptions which the statistical methods make with respect to the data, could also be

considered problems for quantitative approaches to concept development. First, cluster analysis requires

that all characteristics of the objects be known. Similarly, all characteristics and, additionally, category

membership of the objects, are required for factor analysis, regression analysis, and discriminant analysis.

Third, hierarchical class analysis, Galois analysis, and latent class analysis require that all the categories

and all the characteristics of the objects are known in advance. These requirements are difficult, if not

impossible, to achieve and, therefore, make the usefulness of these quantitative approaches to concept

development suspect.

A quantitative approach to concept development which is based on structural equation modelling,

has also recently appeared in the literature. Structural equation modelling attempts to define how concepts

are related to each others, and its akin to the theory philosophy of concepts which posits that a concept can

be thought of as a composite of the relationships between it and other concepts. First, a structural equation

model is formed using conceptual mapping (Artinian, 1982) or other similar method. The concepts of the

structural equation model are defined in terms of their characteristics. The structural equation model is

then tested with a data set, using LISREL, for example. The test might reveal that the definition of

characteristics does not make sense theoretically, pointing therefore to the need for a re-examination of the

structural equation model, or of the characteristics of its concepts, or of both (Morse et al., 1996).

Although popular, structural equation modelling is subject to the problems of measurement theory which

were outlined previously. The definition of the characteristics of the concepts are integral to the structural

equation model, and any omissions or errant additions jeopardise its use.

Klausmeier & Goodwin (1975) suggested another quantitative approach to concept development

which they called instance probability analysis. It was designed originally to test how well people classify

!14
Concept Development: A Review

series of objects, according to pre-determined defined concepts. It is also useful, however, in defining

examples and non-examples of a concept of interest. Instance probability analysis involves five steps:

1. Identify a concept of interest.

2. Define the concept.
3. Select a number of examples and non-examples of the concept.
4. Present the definition, examples, and non-examples to the members of a target group (with
no explanations and illustrations).
5. Tally the responses of the members.

In addition to the measurement issues which were outlined previously, instance probability analysis

as an approach to concept development suffers from the problem that the characteristics of the concept are

defined prior to the presentation of the examples and non-examples. Moreover, the target group is

presented with pre-selected examples and non-examples. An alternative might be a natural category

approach in which the members of the target group are asked to give examples of the concept which had

been identified. Similarly, they might be asked to categorise pre-selected objects and to explain how and

why they were categorised.

2.3. Qualitative Approaches to Concept Development

Whereas quantitative approaches to concept development are designed in conjunction with

quantitative data which are collected using some type of measurement instrument, and which are

subsequently analysed using statistical methods, qualitative approaches to concept development call for

the collection and analysis of qualitative data using interpretive methods. These interpretive methods

concentrate on two types of qualitative data: 1. primary qualitative data which are collected using

observational or interview methods, and 2. secondary qualitative data which are collected from literature

(Morse, 1995). With respect to primary qualitative data, different interpretive methods can be used for data

collection and analysis. These interpretive methods are rooted in the different interpretive traditions of the

social sciences, including grounded theory, phenomenology, and ethnography.

Grounded theory appears to be especially suited to qualitative approaches to concept development.

In grounded theory, “data are collected using both interviews and observations and analysed repeatedly for

patterns, categorising similar events, happenings, and objects which can then be given a common

!15
Concept Development: A Review

conceptual heading” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 103). That is to say, grounded theory calls for the

scientist to construct conceptual categories by comparing the events, happenings, and objects which are

described by the qualitative data. How these attributes are defined and interpreted determines the

categories which are constructed (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

A specific procedure along the lines of grounded theory was introduced to the nursing discipline by

Norris (1982). It consists of five steps:

1. After identifying the concept of interest, observe and describe the phenomena repeatedly,
and, if possible, describe the phenomena from the point of view of other disciplines.
2. Systematise the observations and descriptions.
3. Derive an operational definition of the concept.
4. Produce a model of the concept.
5. Formulate hypotheses.

The second step mimics Strauss & Corbin’s construction of conceptual categories; Norris defined

systematise as “establishing categories, continua, hierarchies, and the like… testing out ways to organize,

and speculating about types of relationships” (p. 16).

Chinn & Jacobs modified their Wilsonian-derived procedure in 1993 with the introduction of an

interpretive slant and of a focus on creating conceptual meaning. Similarly, Morse (1995) called for the

use of interpretive methods specifically in approaches to concept development. Few details, however,

were provided in either instance about the interpretive traditions in which they are rooted, or, more

importantly, about the methods which are used.

With respect to secondary qualitative data, the interpretive methods for both data collection and

interpretation share a common linguistic tradition. Sartori (1984), Kövecses (1986), and Hampsher-Monk

et al. (1998), all approached concept development from different disciplinary backgrounds— sociology,

linguistic-anthropology, and historiography respectively— but created qualitative approaches to concept

development which are largely linguistic in nature.

Sartori’s approach to concept development builds on the work of Ogden & Richards (1946) which

explored the meaning of meaning, and reflects, more generally, semiotics— the study of signs and other

symbolic systems. It focuses, specifically, on words, meanings, and referents, and on the relationships

!16
Concept Development: A Review

among them. It is presented as a three-step procedure involving: 1. the reconstruction of the concept using

textual literature, 2. the naming of the concept, and 3. the reconceptualisation of the concept. This

procedure was used to develop such key sociological concepts as consensus, ethnicity, political culture,

and revolution.

Kövecses, in his book, developed three concepts— anger, pride, and love— using what he called a

lexical approach. He continued the analytic traditions of Sapir (1949), Whorf (1956), and Wittgenstein

(1981), among others, using such tools as conceptual metaphors (love is a journey, for example), in order

to “uncover a portion of our conceptual system by studying the way we talk about various aspects in our

world” (Kövecses, 1986, p. 2).

The text by Hampsher-Monk et al. (1998) documents several more momentous undertakings, and

reinforces that “the growing recognition of the importance of language in understanding reality has

dramatically changed both the focus of the humanities and social sciences. A major feature of this has

been the development of histories of concepts, of political languages and discourse” (p. 1). In Germany,

for example, scientists have published the Geshichtliche Grandbegriffe, a seven volume historical lexicon,

and also a fifteen volume handbook of German socio-political concepts. Similar projects have been

undertaken in France, The Netherlands, and England. The goal of all these tomes was to chart or trace the

history of concepts which were considered crucial to the linguistic constitution of the worlds of law,

science, politics, social and economic life, and ideology— concepts on which various segments of society

relied to express their experiences, expectations, and actions (Hampsher-Monk et al., 1998).

The interpretive methods which undergird these histories of concepts rely on three linguistic

devices. The semantic field explores the concept not in lexical terms, but in terms of ranges of

characteristic synonyms, antonyms, and associated terms, forming a more or less unified part of a

vocabulary at a given time in history. Onomasiology studies the different words which are available for

designating the same concept. Semasiology seeks to uncover the various meanings which are connoted by

a given word.

!17
Concept Development: A Review

Criticisms of qualitative approaches to concept development overall tend to mirror academic and

disciplinary resistance to interpretivism as a whole (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). The war between

positivism and interpretivism still yields, on the part of positivism, the “desire to maintain a distinction

between hard science and soft scholarship” (Carey, 1989, p. 99).

The nature of interpretivism, however, does point to the need for its own brand of scientific rigour.

In this sense, therefore, qualitative approaches to concept development, have indeed been lacking. Their

methods for collecting and analysing qualitative data, whether primary or secondary, are neither explicit

nor concise. They have underestimated the skills required to maintain an abductive view throughout a

study (Morse et al., 1996). And, as evidenced by the procedure of Norris (1982), they have misunderstood

their purpose by introducing such positivist terminology and activities as hypotheses and

operationalisation.

2.4. Literature-Based Approaches to Concept Development

Literature-based approaches to concept development, as the name implies, use the literature as the

basis for concept development. They differ from the qualitative approaches to concept development in

which secondary qualitative data are collected and analysed using interpretive methods, in that they focus

on developing a concept of interest by summarising the literature on it critically.

The most common literature-based approach to concept development is the literature review.

According to Broome (1993), the primary purpose of any literature review is to gain an in-depth

understanding of a phenomenon of interest thought its literature. Several types of literature reviews are

common, however, which vary in purpose, scope, depth, breadth, and organisation of the literature. They

include:

• abbreviated literature reviews (These literature reviews focus on the variables of a

phenomenon of interest.),
• methodological literature reviews (These literature reviews critique the designs, methods,
and analyses which have been used in studying a phenomenon of interest.),
• theoretical literature reviews (These literature reviews develop models of a phenomenon of
interest.), and

!18
Concept Development: A Review

• integrative literature reviews (These literature reviews summarise the literature on a

phenomenon of interest, with a view to establishing some sort of conclusion about
substantive issues of the phenomenon.).

Most research includes some type of literature review, sometimes as a goal in itself, but more often

as the foundation of new research on the phenomenon (Jackson, 1980). There are no standardised

procedures for performing literature reviews, although most scientists categorise, order, or synthesise the

literature in narrative form (Broome, 1983), often aided by a map of the literature. Summary conclusions

and recommendations are also frequently presented (Cooper, 1998).

Scientists must aim for rigour in these activities, however, if the knowledge which is gained through

literature reviews is to be objective and believable (Cooper, 1982). Indeed, literature reviews ought to be

as uncompromising as methods for conducting primary research. For example, it is essential that the

documents which are chosen are as representative of the entire body of literature as possible (Broome,

1993). Additionally, the scientist must make explicit the methods by which the search is organised; the

documents are ordered; the documents are analysed; and the results of the analysis are organised,

synthesised, and presented.

Currently, however, the majority of literature reviews are executed poorly. Most generally, they lack

a clearly-explicated procedure (Morse et al., 1996b). Specifically,

… the rules for selecting the studies to be reviewed are rarely stated. Second, the narrative
summary typically does not include a systematic approach for resolving contradictory
findings among the studies reviewed. Third, the reviewer often uses private rules to integrate
the studies and draw conclusions. Finally, the reviewer’s bias may creep into the summary in
instances where methods or conclusions are contradictory to the reviewer’s point of view
(Curlette & Cannella, 1985, p. 293).

Additionally, the typical literature review ignores information about the magnitude and direction of the

relationships among variables (Cook & Leviton, 1980).

As an approach to concept development, literature reviews also tend to “leave the reader with a

bewildering discussion of specific studies that oftentimes is poorly integrated” (Curlette & Ramig, 1979,

p. 36). Moreover, scientists frequently only provide simple summaries of individual documents, and make

no attempts to summarise the literature as a whole, or to synthesise the individual documents.

!19
Concept Development: A Review

Another literature-based approach to concept development which has more recently made itself

available to scientists is based on an alternative to the traditional qualitative literature reviews (Stock et

al., 1982). Called meta-analysis, this alternative applies statistics to the results of previous studies

(Bangert-Drowns, 1986), thereby enabling scientists “to more closely approximate analytic methods of

primary researchers” (Broome, 1993, p. 209). Glass (1976) suggested that there are three levels of data

analysis: 1. primary analysis, 2. secondary analysis, and 3. meta-analysis. Primary analysis is the analysis

of original data which are collected in a study. Secondary data analysis is the re-analysis of this data with

different statistical methods, or for the purpose of answering different questions. Meta-analysis is the

analysis of a collection of analyses from individual studies.

Meta-analysis, therefore, goes beyond traditional qualitative literature reviews by imposing

statistical treatments on the results of previous studies, transforming their results into a common metric

which is called an effect size. It parallels the procedures of quantitative approaches to concept

development, with…

… scrupulous attention to the accounting for threats to internal and external validity, and
caveats against applying causal inferences when measuring properties of human
phenomena… Study characteristics potentially influencing the results are taken into account
as they relate to the effect… [I]t provides estimates of population parameters and accounts for
possible biases such as date or mode of publication, random sampling, and quality of study
(Smith & Naftel, 1984, p. 9).

Meta-analysis, as a systematic approach to summarising the literature on a concept of interest

(Strube and Hartmann, 1983), serves to integrate empirical research, synthesise research results, and

organise research results into coherent patterns (Glass et al., 1981). In doing so, it helps researchers to

build on the knowledge base of appropriate disciplines (Hedges & Olkin, 1986). By-products of meta-

analysis include the identification of multiple outcomes, an array of instruments which are used to

measure indicators, state of the art instrument sophistication, a comprehensive bibliography, and a

database of secondary data and analysis (Smith & Naftel, 1984).

Meta-analysis is not without its issues, however. Hunter & Schmidt (1990) cited availability bias as

the most significant methodological problem. That is to say, large, well designed studies are likely to be

!20
Concept Development: A Review

published, regardless of their results, whereas small, poorly designed studies are likely to be published

only if significant treatment effects are obtained (Mansfield & Busse, 1977). Meta-analysis, therefore, is

likely to be biased upward. The variety of measures and variables of different studies also creates a

problem of comparing apples and oranges (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Other issues are the lack of

representativeness in the studies which are reviewed and effect size calculations (Broome, 1993). Finally,

the textual richness of qualitative literature reviews is lost (O’Flynn, 1982).

The qualitative counterpart to meta-analysis is called meta-ethnography. Coined by Noblit & Hare

(1988) for the process of constructing new understanding of a phenomenon from multiple interpretive

studies of the same phenomenon or of related phenomena, meta-ethnography uses interpretive methods as

opposed to statistical methods (Schwandt, 1997). Three interpretive methods are common: 1. reciprocal

translation of one study into the terms of another, 2. refutational synthesis— opposing the claims of two or

more studies, and 3. lines-of-argument synthesis, in which the interpreter engages in something like

grounded theorising, combining parts of various studies into an integrated whole.

From a philosophical standpoint, the major problem of meta-ethnography centres on the temporal

and spatial boundaries to which interpretivism adheres. These boundaries raise doubts about the

possibility of interpreting across multiple studies, even when they are of the same phenomenon. On a

more practical level, meta-ethnography can be criticised when scientists avoid full exploration of the

variety of contexts in which the different studies were conducted, and when they fail to produce an

interpretive and explanatory synthesis of the studies (Noblit & Hare, 1988).

2.5. Hybrid Approaches to Concept Development

Although the previous approaches to concept development were designed in the first instance to use

a single method, the possibility of combining two or more methods in a single hybrid approach to concept

development does indeed exist. For example, one could create a hybrid Wilsonian/literature-based

approach to concept development, or combine both statistical and interpretive methods together in a single

approach to concept development. The challenge for the latter, of course, is that for many scientists

!21
Concept Development: A Review

interpretivism and positivism are not compatible (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998)— that they are based on

conflicting beliefs about reality which cannot be resolved.

One hybrid approach to concept development which does exist, was introduced by Schwartz-

Barcott & Kim (1986) to the discipline of nursing (See Figure 4.). It combines literature-based and

qualitative approaches to concept development. The hybrid model of concept development as it is known,

was designed to interface “theoretical analysis with empirical observation” (Schwartz-Barcott & Kim,

1993, p. 108).

The hybrid model of concept development consists of three phases. First, in the theoretical phase a

literature review is used to analyse existing definitions, investigate methods of measurement, and uncover

the essential nature of the concept, resulting in a working definition of the concept. In the second phase

which overlaps with the first phase, interpretive methods are used to collect and analyse primary

qualitative data for further development of the concept. The third phase interfaces the first two phases,

drawing together the results of both the literature review and the interpretive methods.

Schwartz-Barcott & Kim’s model of concept development, however, has been criticised harshly by

others. Hupcey et al. (1996) argued that the limited number of cases which were used by Schwartz-Barcott

& Kim raises doubts over the representativeness of the concept of interest and limits its applicability to

other situations. Morse et al. (1996) expanded this view, suggesting that,

[w]hile this method may be appropriate as a classroom demonstration, it has limited use for
the advancement of knowledge, as the model lacks rigor, an adequate database,
generalizability, and utility (p. 260).

3. An Example of Concept Development

As a reminder, concepts serve critical functions in science, through their descriptive powers

and as the building-blocks of theory. When concepts are immature, therefore, science suffers.

Consequently, concept development ought to be considered a fundamental scientific activity. In

order to illustrate this logical narrative, the following section provides an example of concept

development from the marketing sub-discipline. It stems from a doctoral dissertation (Branch,

!22
Concept Development: A Review

2004) which aimed to develop a new conceptualisation of consumer values.

The dissertation began by claiming that the concept of consumer values had been accorded a

position of great importance by marketers and marketing scientists alike, and consequently, an extensive

consumer values literature had emerged in the marketing sub-discipline. The author’s critique of this

literature, however, concluded that the importance which the concept of consumer values had been

accorded had, to a large extent, failed to materialise, largely because one specific conceptualisation of

consumer values— that of Rokeach— had come to dominate the discipline of marketing. The author

argued that Rokeach’s conceptualisation of consumer values suffered from several weaknesses. First, it

lacked empirical grounding, having been derived from intuition. Second, it was philosophically naïve,

heeding little to the axiological literature. Third, its nomothetic quest rendered culture and context void.

Fourth, its reductionist thrust negated meaning. And fifth, its static view failed to explain why and how

values come into existence.

The consequence of these weaknesses, according to the author, was that understanding of the

phenomenon of consumer values had been limited. Indeed, basic questions about consumer values,

including if, how, why, and in which ways consumers value, remained largely unanswered. Based

on the evolutionary view of concepts, it appeared that the weaknesses of Rokeach’s

conceptualisation of values had also resulted in:

1. a narrow application of the concept of consumer values to theoretical and practical

marketing problems, with only nominal results; and thereby
2. a low employment of the concept of consumer values among marketers and
marketing scientists, and a subsequent shift to research on methodological
shortcomings of the dominant conceptualisation of consumer values; and, ultimately
3. an insignificance with respect to the ability of the concept of consumer values to
resolve practical and theoretical marketing problems.

The author suggested, therefore, that in order to re-ignite the evolution of the concept of consumer

values and, in turn, broaden its application, increase its employment, and, ultimately, raise its significance,

a new conceptualisation of consumer values which improves understanding of the phenomenon of

consumer values was needed. The purpose of his research, therefore, was to develop a new

!23
Concept Development: A Review

conceptualisation of consumer values. In order to do so, he aimed to address the weaknesses of Rokeach’s

conceptualisation of values, by conducting a qualitative approach to concept development. It was both

exploratory and descriptive in nature. It took a decidedly phenomenological perspective, and drew heavily

on axiology— the philosophy of value. It adopted the postmodern notion of consumer microcultures. And

it followed hermeneutic data analysis procedures.

Specifically, his concept development explored the phenomenon of consumer values in the high-

fidelity audio microculture. More specifically, he interviewed eleven members of the high-fidelity audio

microculture several times during the period July 1998 to February 1999. The interviews followed the

phenomenological interviewing method and allowed research participants to articulate the meanings of

high-fidelity audio, in the context of their lifeworlds. During the interviews, he made observations of the

research participants, of their audio equipment, and of their other belongings. He also took photographs of

the research participants’ audio equipment and other belongings. Additionally, he collected audio

magazines, audio equipment catalogues, and other audio-related documents. He entered verbatim

transcriptions of the interviews, the notes, the photographs, and the other documents into a computer-aided

qualitative data analysis software package.

The author analysed the interview transcripts and other data in three separate but inter-related

phases. First, he performed individual— or emic— level analyses of the interview transcripts in order to

understand the meanings of high-fidelity audio for the research participants, in the contexts of their

lifeworlds. In the second phase, he moved up to the microcultural level, with the goal to understand the

distinct pattern of meanings of the high-fidelity audio microculture. And in the third phase, he explored

the phenomenon of consumer values among the research participants, in service of developing a new

conceptualisation of consumer values.

The result of his analysis was a meaning-based conceptualisation of consumer values which

suggested that consumer value is the degree to which a product satisfies a consumer’s interest. It is the

meaning which is ascribed to a product as the result of the consumer’s valuation of the product. Valuation

!24
Concept Development: A Review

is a judgement process in which the consumer considers the characterisation of the product vis-à-vis his/

her interest. Characterisation is a descriptive/appraisive process. Both valuation and characterisation are

components of attention— the intentional meaning-making activity which is a result of the person’s

encounter with the product. And interest is the temporarily-fixed constraint structure with respect to the

specific object. It is a personal pattern of meaning about the object which is constructed within a cultural

context, and which guides attention toward the product.

The concept development contributed to the marketing sub-discipline first by adding to the

discourse on the phenomenon of consumer values. Indeed, the meaning-based conceptualisation of

consumer values which was offered, by addressing the weaknesses of Rokeach’s conceptualisation of

values, improved understanding of the phenomenon of consumer values, in terms of both the property of

value and the process of valuation. This meaning-based conceptualisation of consumer values provided a

viable alternative to the economics-oriented conceptualisations of consumer value which had dominated

the discipline of marketing. And in combination with a microcultural analysis, it constituted a workable

approach for understanding the links between products and consumers’ motivating structures. In summary,

the concept development increased the descriptive power of the concept of consumer values.

The new conceptualisation of consumer values which resulted from his concept development also

contributed to the marketing sub-discipline in terms of its role as the building-block of theory. Indeed, the

this conceptualisation of consumer values lent support to the constitutive relationship between the distinct

pattern of meanings of a microculture, and the broader historical context of postmodern consumer culture.

Additionally, it afforded a richer understanding of how consumers use the distinct pattern of meanings of a

microculture as a frame of reference in the valuation of products, and conversely, how this valuation, in

turn, helps to shape this distinct pattern of meanings.

4. Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to review the literature on concept development. It began by

establishing the link between concepts and science. It then described and discussed the different

!25
Concept Development: A Review

approaches to concept development. Finally, it provided an example of concept development from the

marketing sub-discipline, which demonstrated concisely the importance of concept development as a

fundamental scientific activity.

In closing, I urge management scientists to defy the dominant, and question the very concepts on

which the discipline is based. Indeed, I challenge them to consider the taken-for-grantedness of many of

the concepts in the management discipline as “a flashing yellow light serving as a warning to look closer

at status quo conceptualisations” (Iacobucci, Grayson, and Ostrom, 1994, p. 53). And likewise, I challenge

them to seek out management literature which has calcified into specific beliefs and methodological

leanings which might have limited understanding of management phenomena.

References

AMA. “Marketing.” http://www.marketingpower.com/welcome.php Accessed 4 March 2015.

Artinian, B. “Conceptual Mapping: Development of the Strategy.” Western Journal of Nursing Research,

Vol. 4, No. 4, 1982, pp. 379-393.

Bangert-Drowns, R. “Review of Developments in Meta-Analytic Theory.” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 99,

No. 3, 1986, pp. 388-399.

Batey, M. “Conceptualization: Knowledge and Logic Guiding Empirical Research.” Nursing Research,

Vol. 26, No. 5, September-October 1977, pp. 324-329.

Becker, C. (1983). A Conceptualization of Concept. Nursing Papers, Vol. 15, pp. 51-58.

Berthold, J. (1964). Theoretical and Empirical Clarification of Concepts. Nursing Science, Vol. 2, Iss. 5,

pp. 406-422.

Bohman, S. What is Concept Analysis? Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1992.

Branch, J. A Phenomenology of Consumer Values in the High-Fidelity Audio Microculture. An

unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge, 2004.

!26
Concept Development: A Review

Brannick, M. “Regression and Discriminant Analysis for Analyzing Judgements.” In: Van Mechelen, I.;

Hampton, J.; Michalski, R.; & Theuns, P. (Eds.). Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and

Inductive Data Analysis. London, England: Academic Press Limited, 1993, pp. 247-263.

Broome, M. “Integrative Literature Reviews in the Development of Concepts.” In: Rodgers, B.; & Knafl,

K. (Eds.). Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications.

Philadelphia, U.S.A.: W. B. Saunders, 1993, pp. 193-234.

Bulmer, M. (Ed.). Sociological Research Methods. London, England: The Macmillan Press, 1984.

Carey, J. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Boston, U.S.A.: Unwin Hyman, 1989.

Chinn, P.; & Kramer, M. Theory and Nursing: A Systematic Approach. 4th ed. St. Louis, U.S.A.: Mosby-

Year Book, 1995.

Churchill, G. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February 1979, pp. 64-73.

Cook, T.; & Leviton, L. “Reviewing the Literature: A Comparison of Traditional Methods with Meta-

Analysis.” Journal of Personality, Vol. 48, No. 4, December 1980, pp. 449-472.

Cooper, H. “Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews.” Review of Educational

Research, Vol. 52, No. 2, Summer 1982, pp. 291-302.

Curlette, W.; & Cannella, K. “Going Beyond the Narrative Summarization of Research Findings: The

Meta-Analysis Approach.” Research in Nursing and Health, Vol. 8, 1985, pp. 293-301.

Curlette, W.; & Ramig, C. “An Overview of Meta-Analysis.” Georgia Journal of Reading, Vol. 4, Spring

1979, pp. 36-39.

De Boeck, P.; Rosenberg, S.; & Van Mechelen, I. “The Hierarchical Classes Approach: A Review.” In: Van

Mechelen, I.; Hampton, J.; Michalski, R.; & Theuns, P. (Eds.). Categories and Concepts:

Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis. London, England: Academic Press Limited, 1993,

pp. 265-286.

!27
Concept Development: A Review

De Soete, G. “Using Latent Class Analysis in Categorization Research.” I In: Van Mechelen, I.; Hampton,

J.; Michalski, R.; & Theuns, P. (Eds.). Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive

Data Analysis. London, England: Academic Press Limited, 1993, pp. 309-330.

Denzin, N.; & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, U.S.A.: Sage

Publications, 1998.

Feger, H.; & De Boeck, P. “Categories and Concepts: Introduction to Data Analysis.” In: Van Mechelen,

I.; Hampton, J.; Michalski, R.; & Theuns, P. (Eds.). Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views

and Inductive Data Analysis. London, England: Academic Press Limited, 1993, pp. 203-223.

Fisher, D.; & Langley, P. “Conceptual Clustering and Its Relation to Numerical Taxonomy.” In: Gale, W.

(Ed.). Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. Reading, U.S.A.: Addison-Wesley, 1986, pp. 77-116.

Fournier, S.; & Mick, D. “Rediscovering Satisfaction.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, Iss. 3, October

1999, pp. 5-23.

Gift, A. “Introduction.” Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3,

1996, pp. 179-183.

Glass, G. “Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 5, No. 9,

November 1976, pp. 3-8.

Glass, G.; McGaw, B.; & Smith, M. Meta-Analysis in Social Research. London, England: Sage

Publications, 1981.

Gould, S. “The Self-Manipulation of My Pervasive, Perceived Vital Energy through Product Use: An

Introspective-Praxis Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, September 1991, pp.

194-207.

Guénoche, A.; & Van Mechelen, I. “Galois Approach to the Induction of Concepts.” In: Van Mechelen, I.;

Hampton, J.; Michalski, R.; & Theuns, P. (Eds.). Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and

Inductive Data Analysis. London, England: Academic Press Limited, 1993, pp. 287-308.

!28
Concept Development: A Review

Haase, J.; Leidy, N.; Coward, D.; Britt, T.; & Penn, P. “Simultaneous Concept Analysis: A Strategy for

Developing Multiple Interrelated Concepts.” In: Rodgers, B.; & Knafl, K. (Eds.). Concept

Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications. Philadelphia, U.S.A.: W. B.

Saunders, 1993, pp. 175-192.

Hampsher-Monk, I.; Tilmans, K.; & Van Vree, F. (Eds.). History of Concepts: Comparative Perspectives.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press, 1998.

Hedges, L.; & Olkin, I. “Meta Analysis: A Review and A New View.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 15,

No. 8, October 1986, pp. 14-21.

Holbrook, M. Consumer Research: Introspective Essays on the Study of Consumption. Thousand Oaks,

U.S.A.: Sage Publications, 1995.

Hunter, J.; & Schmidt, F. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings.

London, England: Sage Publications, 1990.

Hupcey, J.; Morse, J.; Lenz, E.; & Tasón, M. “Wilsonian Methods of Concept Analysis: A Critique.”

Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp.

185-210.

Iacobucci, D.; Grayson, K.; & Ostrom, A. “The Calculus of Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction:

Theoretical and Empirical Differentiation and Integration.” Advances in Services Marketing and

Management, Vol. 3, 1994, pp. 1-67.

Jackson, G. “Methods for Integrative Reviews.” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 50, No. 3, Fall

1980, pp. 438-460.

Klausmeier, H.; & Goodwin, W. Learning and Human Abilities: Educational Psychology. 4th ed. New

York, U.S.A.: Harper and Row Publishers, 1975.

Kotler, P. Marketing Management. 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall, 2003.

Kövecses, Z. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts.

Philadelphia, U.S.A.: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1986.

!29
Concept Development: A Review

Lehmann, D. “Pumping Iron III: An Examination of Compulsive Lifting.” In: Wallendorf, M.; and

Anderson, P. (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, 1987, pp. 129-135.

MacInnis, D. “Where Have All the Papers Gone?” Association for Consumer Research Newsletter, Spring

2004, pp. 1-3.

MacInnis, D. “A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75,

July 2011, pp. 136-154.

Mansfield, R. & Busse, T. “Meta-Analysis of Research: A Rejoinder to Glass.” Educational Researcher,

Vol. 6, No. 9, October 1977, p. 3.

Maxim, P. Quantitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press, 1999.

Meleis, A. Theoretical Nursing. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, U.S.A.: J. P. Lippincott, 1991.

Messias, D. “Concept Development: Exploring Undocumentedness.” Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing

Practice: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 235-252.

Morse, J. Exploring the Theoretical Basis of Nursing Using Advanced Techniques of Concept Analysis.

Advances in Nursing Science, Vol. 17, Iss. 3, 1995, pp. 31-46.

Morse, J.; Hupcey, J.; Mitcham, C.; & Lenz, E. “Concept Analysis in Nursing Research: A Critical

Appraisal.” Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996,

pp. 253-277.

Murtagh, F. “Cluster Analysis Using Proximities.” In: Van Mechelen, I.; Hampton, J.; Michalski, R.;

Theuns, P. (Eds.). Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis.

London, England: Academic Press Limited, 1993, pp. 225-245.

Noblit, G.; & Hare, R. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, U.S.A.: Sage

Publications, 1988.

Norris, C. Concept Clarification in Nursing. Rockville, U.S.A.: Aspen, 1982.

O’Flynn, A. “Meta-Analysis.” Nursing Research, Vol. 31, No. 5, September/October 1982, pp. 314-316.

!30
Concept Development: A Review

Ogden, C.; & Richards, I. The Meaning of Meaning. New York, U.S.A.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1946.

Price, H. Thinking and Experience. London, England: Hutchinson, 1953.

Rodgers, B. “Concepts, Analysis, and the Development of Nursing Knowledge: The Evolutionary Cycle.”

Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 14, 1989, 330-335.

Rodgers, B. Philosophical Foundations of Concept Development. In Rodgers, B.; & Knafl, K. (Eds.).

Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications. Philadelphia,

U.S.A.: W. B. Saunders, 1993, 7-34.

Rorty, R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, U.S.A.: Princeton University Press, 1979.

Sapir, E. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Orlando, U.S.A.: Harcourt Brace and

Company, 1921.

Sartori, G. (Ed.). Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. London, England: Sage Publications,

1984.

Schwandt, T. Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, U.S.A.: Sage Publications,

1997.

Schwartz-Barcott, D.; & Kim, H. “A Hybrid Model for Concept Development.” In: Chinn, P. (Ed.).

Nursing Research Methodology: Issues and Implementations. Rockville, U.S.A.: Aspen Publishing,

1986, pp. 91-101.

Smith, C.; & Naftel, D. “Meta-Analysis: A Perspective for Research Synthesis.” Image: The Journal for

Nursing Scholarship, Vol. XVI, No. 1, Winter 1984, pp. 9-13.

Stock, W.; Okun, M.; Haring, M.; Miller, W.; Kinney, C.; & Ceurvorst, R. “Rigor in Data Synthesis: A

Case Study of Reliability in Meta-Analysis.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 11, No. 6, June/July

1982, pp. 10-14, 20.

Strauss, A.; & Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing

Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, U.S.A.: Sage Publications, 1998.

!31
Concept Development: A Review

Strube, M.; & Hartmann, D. “Meta-Analysis: Techniques, Applications, and Functions.” Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1983, pp. 14-27.

Tashakkori, A.; & Teddlie, C. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.

Thousand Oaks, U.S.A.: Sage Publications, 1998.

Toulmin, S. Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton, U.S.A.:

Princeton University Press, 1972.

Van Mechelen, I.; & Michalski, R. “General Introduction: Purpose, Underlying Ideas, and Scope of

Book.” In Van Mechelen, I.; Hampton, J.; Michalski, R.; & Theuns, P. (Eds.). Categories and

Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis. London, England: Academic Press

Limited, 1998, pp. 1-8.

Walker, L.; & Avant , K. Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing. Norfolk, U.S.A.: Appleton-

Century-Crofts, 1983.

Wallendorf, M.; & Brucks, M. “Introspection in Consumer Research: Implementation and Implications.”

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December 1993, pp. 339-359.

Wartowsky, J. Conceptual Foundations of Scientific Thought: An Introduction to the Philosophy of

Science. New York, U.S.A.: Macmillan, 1968.

Whorf, B. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings. Edited by: Carrol, J. Cambridge, U.S.A.:

The MIT Press, 1956.

Wilson, J. Thinking with Concepts. London, England: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Wittgenstein, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by: Pears, D; & McGuinness, B. London,

England: Rutledge and Kegan-Paul, 1981.

Wuest, J. A Feminist Approach to Concept Analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 16, Iss. 5,

1994, pp. 577-586.

Yadav, M. “The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge Development.” Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 74, January 2010, pp. 1-19.


!32
Concept Development: A Review

Figure 1. The Evolutionary View of Concepts

Application

Significance
Time

Employment

Adapted from: Rodgers, 1989

!33
Concept Development: A Review

Figure 2. Approaches to Concept Development

Literature-Based
Qualitative
Approaches to
Concept

Hybrid
Quantitative
Wilsonian

Adapted from: Morse et al., 1996

!34
Concept Development: A Review
Figure 3. The Concept of the Equilateral Triangle
1. Definition: a plane, simple, closed figure with three
equal sides and three equal angles.
2. Defining attributes: plane, simple, closed, three equal
sides, and three equal angles.
3. Irrelevant attributes: size, orientation on page.
triangle
isosceles
right equilateral other
6. Statement of principles:
a. All equilateral triangles are similar (in shape).
b. If the three angles of a triangle are equal in the number
of degrees, the sides of the triangle are equal in length.
c. If the three sides of a triangle are equal in length, the
angles of the triangle are equal in number of degrees.
d. The perimeter of an equilateral triangle is three times the
length of any side.
Adapted from: Klausmeier and Goodwin, 1975
4. Examples: equilateral triangles of various sizes in
various spatial orientations. Non-examples: right,
isosceles, scalene triangles; rectangles; and squares of
various sizes in various orientations.
5. Taxonomy:
polygon
polygon
quadrilateral other
scalene
right other
7. Sample problems:
a. The three sides of a triangle with angles a, b, and c are
equal. How many degrees are in angle a?
b. If a line, which bisects angle c, intersects the side which is
opposite to angle c at ninety degrees, how many degrees are
in each of the angles which the bisecting line creates?
8. Vocabulary: angle, closed figure, equal, equilateral
triangle, side, simple figure, triangle.

!35
Concept Development: A Review

Figure 4. The Hybrid Model of Concept Development

Theoretical Phase
1. Selecting a concept
2. Searching the literature
3. Dealing with meaning and
measurement
4. Choosing a working Fieldwork Phase
definition 1. Setting the stage
2. Negotiating entry
3. Selecting cases
4. Collecting and
analyzing data

Final Analytical Phase

Weighing, working, and
writing up findings

Adapted from: Schwartz-Barcott and Kim, 1986

!36
Concept Development: A Review

Table 1. Wilsonian Approaches to Concept Development

Approach Wilson (1963, 1969) Klausmeier (1975) Walker and Avant Chinn and Jacobs
(1983) (Chinn and
Kramer) (1983)

Purpose To help teach secondary To prepare oneself for To distinguish between To arrive at a tentative
school students and others teaching concepts to students the defining attributes definition and a set of
to think critically about of a concept and its tentative criteria of the
concepts irrelevant attributes concept

Concept From the question of From instructional materials According to interest According to interest
Selection interest

Data Personal experience Personal experience; Personal Personal

Source dictionaries; professors experience; experiences;
dictionaries; definitions; cases
thesauri;
colleagues;
literature

Procedure 1. Isolate a concept from 1. Define the concept 1. Select a concept 1. Select a concept
the question of interest 2. Identify the defining 2. Determine the 2. Clarify the
2. Apply analysis characteristics of the aims or purposes of purpose of the
techniques: concept and also some of the analysis analysis
• construct model, irrelevant characteristics of 3. Identify all uses of 3. Examine
related, borderline, and the concept the concept definitions
invented cases of the 3. Identify examples and 4. Identify the 4. Construct cases
concept non-examples of the concept characteristics of the 5. Test cases
• explore the social for instruction concept 6. Formulate the
context of the concept 4. Identify the taxonomy of 5. Construct a model characteristics of the
• investigate the which the concept is a part case concept
underlying anxiety of and indicate the 6. Construct related,
the concept• examine supraordinate-coordinate- borderline, invented,
the practical subordinate relationships of and illegitimate cases
significance of the the concept to other 7. Identify the
concept concepts antecedents and
• choose the meaning of 5. Identify some of the consequences of the
the concept principles in which the concept
3. Conduct an internal concept is used 8. Define the
dialogue about the 6. Identify kinds of empirical referents of
concept problems whose solution the concept
4. Revisit the question of will involve the use of the
interest concept
5. Formulate the essay 7. Identify the names of the
6. Write the essay characteristics of the
7. Edit the essay concept

Outcome Essay A definition of the concept; A basic understanding A tentative definition

characteristics of the concept;
a taxonomy, principles, and
problems involving the
concept; a vocabulary of the
concept
of the concept’s of the concept; a set of
characteristics, its tentative characteristics
antecedents, its
consequences, and its
empirical referents

Adapted from: Morse et al., 1996; Van Mechelen & Michalski, 1993

!37
 Concept Development: A Review

Table 2. Statistical Methods of Quantitative Approaches to Concept Development

Method Operation Data

Cluster Analysis Aggregation Characteristics of objects

Factor Analysis Characterisation Characteristics of objects;

Regression Analysis category membership of
Discriminant Analysis objects

Hierarchical Analysis Aggregation and Characteristics of objects;

Galois Analysis Characterisation Categories
Latent Class Analysis

Adapted from: Hupcey et al., 1996; Knafl and Deatrick, 1993

!38

View publication stats