Respectful operationalism

I first argue that there are three major currents in the contemporary debate on operationalism. These are: (a) methodologists who criticize operationalismquaphilosophy, (b) psychologists who practice operationalization that is allegedly philosophically noncommittal, and (c) critics who claim that psychologists' validation practices commit them to stronger operationalism than psychologists realize. I then outline respectful operationalism and argue that it avoids the main criticisms of operationalism while incorporating some of the epistemic benefits of operational definitions. I show how respectful operationalism aligns with other operationalism-friendly theories, such as generalizability theory and Michael T. Kane's argument-based approach to validity.

Automated summary

The contemporary debate on operationalism can be divided into three major currents: methodologists criticizing operationalism as a philosophy, psychologists practicing operationalization without commitment to a philosophical stance, and critics claiming psychologists' validation practices commit them to a stronger form of operationalism than they realize. In addition, a concept of respectful operationalism is proposed, which avoids main criticisms of operationalism while incorporating the epistemic benefits of operational definitions.