251
candidate criterion should be independent of domain-specific strategies of design of
measuring instruments and implementation of measurement processes.
8.3.1 Different subject matters, different processes …
In the physical sciences, the properties intended to be measured are often already
embedded in a well-established body of knowledge—a nomic network, as discussed
in Sect. 4.3—and the actual work involved in the design and operation of measuring
instruments is usually aimed at the refinement of existing instruments or mathematical techniques. The term “instrumentation and measurement” (as found, for example, in the title of the IEEE journal Transactions on Instrumentation and
Measurement) clearly conveys this message, and the books on measurement systems in these fields are largely devoted to presentation of the features and modes of
operation of measuring instruments (e.g., Bentley, 2005; Doebelin, 2003). In the
human sciences, no such nomic networks exist, and thus activities aimed at measurement necessitate first of all the task of formally characterizing the properties of
interest, in such a way that information on them can be acquired and then mathematically processed. The key issue in these cases is the validity of the hypotheses upon
which the process of evaluation is based, which is the focus of measurement subdisciplines within specific human sciences such as patient-reported outcomes, educational and psychological assessments, and performance measurements in
management.
This multiplicity of perspectives reflects the fact that researchers operating in
different fields face quite different problems and challenges, and will thus have different associations with the concept of measurement. However, this does not preclude the possibility that there are common elements of the processes referred to as
measurements in different fields, and that identifying these common elements may
suggest paths towards the formulation of a conception of measurement applicable
across the sciences.
8.3.2 … with some structural commonalities …
A background commonality that has emerged in the development of this book
8
is
that measurement (1) is both an empirical and an informational process that (2)
produces information on empirical properties of objects (where objects can be
8 And from previous papers of ours, in which we have discussed the very definition of (e.g., Mari, 2013), and its epistemology (e.g., Mari, 2003), the stereotypes that surround
measurement (e.g., Mari, Carbone, Giordani, & Petri, 2017), and in particular the mistaken
assumption that measurement is identical to quantification (Mari, Maul, Torres Irribarra, & Wilson,
2017).
8.3 Can there be one meaning of “measurement” across the sciences?
candidate criterion should be independent of domain-specific strategies of design of
measuring instruments and implementation of measurement processes.
8.3.1 Different subject matters, different processes …
In the physical sciences, the properties intended to be measured are often already
embedded in a well-established body of knowledge—a nomic network, as discussed
in Sect. 4.3—and the actual work involved in the design and operation of measuring
instruments is usually aimed at the refinement of existing instruments or mathematical techniques. The term “instrumentation and measurement” (as found, for example, in the title of the IEEE journal Transactions on Instrumentation and
Measurement) clearly conveys this message, and the books on measurement systems in these fields are largely devoted to presentation of the features and modes of
operation of measuring instruments (e.g., Bentley, 2005; Doebelin, 2003). In the
human sciences, no such nomic networks exist, and thus activities aimed at measurement necessitate first of all the task of formally characterizing the properties of
interest, in such a way that information on them can be acquired and then mathematically processed. The key issue in these cases is the validity of the hypotheses upon
which the process of evaluation is based, which is the focus of measurement subdisciplines within specific human sciences such as patient-reported outcomes, educational and psychological assessments, and performance measurements in
management.
This multiplicity of perspectives reflects the fact that researchers operating in
different fields face quite different problems and challenges, and will thus have different associations with the concept of measurement. However, this does not preclude the possibility that there are common elements of the processes referred to as
measurements in different fields, and that identifying these common elements may
suggest paths towards the formulation of a conception of measurement applicable
across the sciences.
8.3.2 … with some structural commonalities …
A background commonality that has emerged in the development of this book
8
is
that measurement (1) is both an empirical and an informational process that (2)
produces information on empirical properties of objects (where objects can be
8 And from previous papers of ours, in which we have discussed the very definition of
measurement (e.g., Mari, Carbone, Giordani, & Petri, 2017), and in particular the mistaken
assumption that measurement is identical to quantification (Mari, Maul, Torres Irribarra, & Wilson,
2017).
8.3 Can there be one meaning of “measurement” across the sciences?