Operationism, scientism, and the rhetoric of power

John A. Mills

pp. 67-82

in: Charles W. Tolman (ed), Positivism in psychology, Berlin, Springer, 1992

Abstract

Operational definitions are definitely alive and well within psychology. For example, Underwood wrote, "Most experimentalists in all disciplines tacitly or actively accept operational definitions as a means of specifying the empirical basis of a discipline. That is, they use operational definitions in order to define the phenomena of nature with which a discipline concerns itself (1966, p. 299). Several other authors of texts on experimental design echo Underwood's sentiments (e.g., Bachrach, 1965; Christensen, 1980; Kidder & Charles, 1986; Lyons, 1965; McGuigan, 1983; Myers, 1980; Neale & Liebert, 1973; Solso & Johnson, 1984).