193
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
L. Mari et al., Measurement across the Sciences, Springer Series in
Measurement Science and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65558-7_7
Chapter 7
Modeling measurement and its quality
7.1 Introduction
Despite—or perhaps, to at least some extent, because of—the ubiquity of measurement-related concepts and discourse, there remains a remarkable lack of shared
understanding of these concepts across (and often within) different fields, perhaps
most visibly reflected in the vast array of proposed definitions of measurement
itself, as discussed in Sect. 4.2. It would seem, then, that the clarification of foundational measurement concepts should (continue to) be a high priority, in terms of not
only the definition of, but also the identification of those features of
measurement that justify its epistemic authority, i.e., its commonly afforded degree
of public trust and social prestige. Justification of the epistemic authority of measurement results, in turn, depends on identifying those features of the measurement
process that ensure (or, at least, confer high likelihood upon) the quality of its
results. We argue that these features are independent of the domain of application,
and thus in principle apply equally to the measurement of physical and psychosocial
properties; as such, this topic is a key component of our endeavor towards a conceptual framework of measurement across the sciences.
As described in Chap. 4, since the second half of the twentieth century, scholarly
treatment of the foundational aspects of measurement has largely focused on mathematical criteria rather than the concrete realization of the process, as exemplified
by claims such as that “we are not interested in a measuring apparatus and in the
interaction between the apparatus and the objects being measured. Rather, we
attempt to describe how to put measurement on a firm, well-defined foundation”
(Roberts, 1979: p. 3) and “the theory of measurement is difficult enough without
bringing in the theory of making measurements” (Kyburg, 1984: p. 7). This emphasis on formal characterizations of measurement may be in part explained by the
expansion of measurement into new domains and the related need to abandon characterizations and requirements that were needlessly tied to specific areas. In particu-
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
L. Mari et al., Measurement across the Sciences, Springer Series in
Measurement Science and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65558-7_7
Chapter 7
Modeling measurement and its quality
7.1 Introduction
Despite—or perhaps, to at least some extent, because of—the ubiquity of measurement-related concepts and discourse, there remains a remarkable lack of shared
understanding of these concepts across (and often within) different fields, perhaps
most visibly reflected in the vast array of proposed definitions of measurement
itself, as discussed in Sect. 4.2. It would seem, then, that the clarification of foundational measurement concepts should (continue to) be a high priority, in terms of not
only the definition of
measurement that justify its epistemic authority, i.e., its commonly afforded degree
of public trust and social prestige. Justification of the epistemic authority of measurement results, in turn, depends on identifying those features of the measurement
process that ensure (or, at least, confer high likelihood upon) the quality of its
results. We argue that these features are independent of the domain of application,
and thus in principle apply equally to the measurement of physical and psychosocial
properties; as such, this topic is a key component of our endeavor towards a conceptual framework of measurement across the sciences.
As described in Chap. 4, since the second half of the twentieth century, scholarly
treatment of the foundational aspects of measurement has largely focused on mathematical criteria rather than the concrete realization of the process, as exemplified
by claims such as that “we are not interested in a measuring apparatus and in the
interaction between the apparatus and the objects being measured. Rather, we
attempt to describe how to put measurement on a firm, well-defined foundation”
(Roberts, 1979: p. 3) and “the theory of measurement is difficult enough without
bringing in the theory of making measurements” (Kyburg, 1984: p. 7). This emphasis on formal characterizations of measurement may be in part explained by the
expansion of measurement into new domains and the related need to abandon characterizations and requirements that were needlessly tied to specific areas. In particu-