Chapter Two

Elements of a Scientific Research

Conducting good research requires visualizing the abstract from actual observations, identify hidden
concepts and patterns, and synthesizing those patterns into generalizable laws and theories that apply to
other contexts beyond the domain of the initial observations. Research involves constantly moving back
and forth from an empirical plane where observations are conducted to a theoretical plane where these
observations are abstracted into generalizable laws and theories. Some of the mental abstractions needed to
conduct a good research include unit of analysis, concepts, constructs, variables, hypotheses,
operationalization, theories, models, induction, deduction, and so forth. Therefore, this chapter examines
these elements that are important in scientific research.
Unit of Analysis
One of the first decisions in any social science research is the unit of analysis of a scientific study. The unit
of analysis refers to the person, collective, or object that is the target of the investigation. Typical unit of
analysis include individuals, groups, organizations, countries, technologies, objects, and such. For instance,
if we are interested in studying people’s shopping behavior, their learning outcomes, or their attitudes to
new technologies, then the unit of analysis is the individual. If we want to study characteristics of street
gangs or teamwork in organizations, then the unit of analysis is the group. If the goal of research is to
understand how firms can improve profitability or make good executive decisions, then the unit of analysis
is the firm. In this case, even though decisions are made by individuals in these firms, these individuals are
presumed to represent their firm’s decision rather than their personal decisions. If research is directed at
understanding differences in national cultures, then the unit of analysis becomes a country.
Understanding the unit of analysis is important because it shapes what type of data you should collect for
your study and who you collect it from. If your unit of analysis is a web page, you should be collecting data
about web pages from actual web pages, and not surveying people about how they use web pages. If your
unit of analysis is the organization, then you should be measuring organizational-level variables such as
organizational size, revenues, hierarchy, or absorptive capacity. Sometimes, it is possible to collect data
from a lower level of analysis and aggregate that data to a higher level of analysis. For instance, in order to
study teamwork in organizations, you can survey individual team members in different organizational
teams, and average their individual scores to create a composite team-level score for team-level variables
like cohesion and conflict.
Concepts, Constructs, and Variables
Although research can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory, most scientific research tends to be of
the explanatory type in that they search for potential explanations of observed natural or social phenomena.
Explanations require development of concepts. Concepts are generalizable properties or characteristics
associated with objects, events, or people. While objects such as a person, a firm, or a car are not concepts,
their specific characteristics or behavior such as a person’s attitude toward immigrants, a firm’s capacity
for innovation, and a car’s weight can be viewed as concepts.
Knowingly or unknowingly, we use different kinds of concepts in our everyday conversations. Some of
these concepts have been developed over time through our shared language. Sometimes, we borrow
concepts from other disciplines or languages to explain a phenomenon of interest. For instance, the idea of
gravitation borrowed from physics can be used in business to describe why people tend to “gravitate” to
their preferred shopping destinations. Likewise, the concept of distance can be used to explain the degree
of social separation between two otherwise collocated individuals. Sometimes, we create our own concepts
7
to describe a unique characteristic not described in prior research. For instance, technostress is a new
concept referring to the mental stress one may face when asked to learn a new technology.
Concepts may also have progressive levels of abstraction. Some concepts such as a person’s weight are
precise and objective, while other concepts such as a person’s personality may be more abstract and difficult
to visualize. In this such cases, we construct abstract concepts
A construct is an abstract concept that is specifically chosen (or “created”) to explain a given phenomenon.
A construct may be a simple concept, such as a person’s weight, or a combination of a set of related concepts
such as a person’s communication skill, which may consist of several underlying concepts such as the
person’s vocabulary, syntax, and spelling. The former instance (weight) is a unidimensional construct,
while the latter (communication skill) is a multi-dimensional construct (i.e., it consists of multiple
underlying concepts). The distinction between constructs and concepts are clearer in multi-dimensional
constructs, where the higher order abstraction is called a construct and the lower order abstractions are
called concepts. However, this distinction tends to blur in the case of unidimensional constructs.
Operationalization
Constructs used for scientific research must have precise and clear definitions that others can use to
understand exactly what it means and what it does not mean. For instance, a seemingly simple construct
such as income may refer to monthly or annual income, before-tax or after-tax income, and personal or
family income, and is therefore neither precise nor clear. There are two types of definitions: dictionary
definitions and operational definitions.
In the more familiar dictionary definition, a construct is often defined in terms of a synonym. For instance,
attitude may be defined as a disposition, a feeling, or an affect, and affect in turn is defined as an attitude.
Such definitions of a circular nature are not particularly useful in scientific research for elaborating the
meaning and content of that construct. Scientific research requires operational definitions that define
constructs in terms of how they will be empirically measured. For instance, the operational definition of a
construct such as temperature must specify whether we plan to measure temperature in Celsius, Fahrenheit,
or Kelvin scale. A construct such as income should be defined in terms of whether we are interested in
monthly or annual income, before-tax or after-tax income, and personal or family income. One can imagine
that constructs such as learning, personality, and intelligence can be quite hard to define operationally.
Variable
A term frequently associated with, and sometimes used interchangeably with, a construct is a variable.
Etymologically speaking, a variable is a quantity that can vary (e.g., from low to high, negative to positive,
etc.), in contrast to constants that do not vary (i.e., remain constant). However, in scientific research, a
variable is a measurable representation of a construct. As abstract entities, constructs are not directly
measurable, and hence, we look for proxy measures called variables. For instance, a person’s intelligence
is often measured as his or her IQ (intelligence quotient) score, which is an index generated from an
analytical and pattern-matching test administered to people. In this case, intelligence is a construct, and IQ
score is a variable that measures the intelligence construct.
As shown in Figure 2.1, scientific research proceeds along two planes: a theoretical plane and an
empirical plane. Constructs are conceptualized at the theoretical (abstract) plane, while variables are
operationalized and measured at the empirical (observational) plane.

8
Depending on their intended use, variables may be classified as independent, dependent, moderating,
mediating, or control variables. Variables that explain other variables are called independent variables,
those that are explained by other variables are dependent variables, those that are explained by
independent variables while also explaining dependent variables are mediating variables (or intermediate
variables), and those that influence the relationship between independent and dependent variables are
called moderating variables. As an example, if we state that higher intelligence causes improved learning
among students, then intelligence is an independent variable and learning is a dependent variable. There
may be other extraneous variables that are not pertinent to explaining a given dependent variable, but may
have some impact on the dependent variable. These variables must be controlled for in a scientific study,
and are therefore called control variables.

To understand the differences between these different variable types, consider the example shown in Figure
2.2. If we believe that intelligence influences (or explains) students’ academic achievement, then a measure
of intelligence such as an IQ score is an independent variable, while a measure of academic success such
as grade point average is a dependent variable. If we believe that the effect of intelligence on academic
achievement also depends on the effort invested by the student in the learning process (i.e., between two
equally intelligent students, the student who puts is more effort achieves higher academic achievement than
one who puts in less effort), then effort becomes a moderating variable. Incidentally, one may also view
effort as an independent variable and intelligence as a moderating variable. If academic achievement is
viewed as an intermediate step to higher earning potential, then earning potential becomes the dependent
9
variable for the independent variable academic achievement, and academic achievement becomes the
mediating variable in the relationship between intelligence and earning potential. Hence, variable is defined
as an independent, dependent, moderating, or mediating variable based on their nature of association with
each other. The overall network of relationships between a set of related constructs is called a nomological
network (see Figure 2.2). Therefore, a researcher requires not only being able to abstract constructs from
observations, but also being able to mentally visualize a nomological network linking these abstract
constructs.
Propositions and Hypotheses
Figure 2.2 shows how theoretical constructs such as intelligence, effort, academic achievement, and earning
potential are related to each other in a nomological network. Each of these relationships is called a
proposition. In seeking explanations to a given phenomenon or behavior, it is not adequate just to identify
key concepts and constructs underlying the target phenomenon or behavior. We must also identify and state
patterns of relationships between these constructs. Such patterns of relationships are called propositions. A
proposition is a tentative and conjectural relationship between constructs that is stated in a declarative
form. An example of a proposition is: “An increase in student’s intelligence causes an increase in their
academic achievement.” This declarative statement does not have to be true, but must be empirically
testable using data, so that we can judge whether it is true or false. Propositions are generally derived based
on logic or empirical observations.
Because propositions are associations between abstract constructs, they cannot be tested directly. Instead,
they are tested indirectly by examining the relationship between corresponding measures (variables) of
those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, is
called hypotheses (see Figure 2.1). Since IQ scores and grade point average are operational measures of
intelligence and academic achievement respectively, the above proposition can be specified in form of the
hypothesis: “An increase in students’ IQ score causes an increase in their grade point average.” Propositions
are specified in the theoretical plane, while hypotheses are specified in the empirical plane. Hence,
hypotheses are empirically testable using observed data, and may be rejected if not supported by empirical
observations. Of course, the goal of hypothesis testing is to infer whether the corresponding proposition is
valid.
Hypotheses can be strong or weak. “Students’ IQ scores are related to their academic achievement” is an
example of a weak hypothesis, since it indicates neither the directionality of the hypothesis (i.e., whether
the relationship is positive or negative), nor its causality (i.e., whether intelligence causes academic
achievement or academic achievement causes intelligence). A stronger hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores
are positively related to their academic achievement”, which indicates the directionality but not the
causality. A still better hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic
achievement”, which specifies both the directionality and the causality (i.e., intelligence causes academic
achievement, and not the reverse). The signs in Figure 2.2 indicate the directionality of the respective
hypotheses.
Also note that scientific hypotheses should clearly specify independent and dependent variables. In the
hypothesis, “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic achievement,” it is clear that
intelligence is the independent variable (the “cause”) and academic achievement is the dependent variable
(the “effect”). Further, it is also clear that this hypothesis can be evaluated as either true (if higher
intelligence leads to higher academic achievement) or false (if higher intelligence has no effect on or leads
to lower academic achievement). Statements such as “students are generally intelligent” or “all students can

10
achieve academic success” are not scientific hypotheses because they do not specify independent and
dependent variables, nor do they specify a directional relationship that can be evaluated as true or false.
Theories and Models
A theory is a set of systematically interrelated constructs and propositions intended to explain and predict
a phenomenon or behavior of interest, within certain boundary conditions and assumptions. Essentially, a
theory is a systemic collection of related theoretical propositions. While propositions generally connect two
or three constructs, theories represent a system of multiple constructs and propositions. Hence, theories can
be substantially more complex and abstract and of a larger scope than propositions or hypotheses.
A good scientific theory should be well supported using observed facts and should also have practical value,
while a poorly defined theory tends to be lacking in these dimensions. Famous organizational research Kurt
Lewin once said, “Theory without practice is sterile; practice without theory is blind.” Hence, both theory
and facts (or practice) are essential for scientific research.
Theories provide explanations of social or natural phenomenon. These explanations may be good or poor.
Hence, there may be good or poor theories. Nevertheless, it is important for researchers to understand that
theory is not “truth,” there is nothing sacrosanct about any theory, and theories should not be accepted just
because they were proposed by someone. In the course of scientific progress, poorer theories are eventually
replaced by better theories with higher explanatory power. The essential challenge for researchers is to build
better and more comprehensive theories that can explain a target phenomenon better than prior theories
A model is a representation of all or part of a system that is constructed to study that system (e.g., how the
system works or what triggers the system). While a theory tries to explain a phenomenon, a model tries to
represent a phenomenon. Models are often used by decision makers to make important decisions based on
a given set of inputs. For instance, marketing managers may use models to decide how much money to
spend on advertising for different product lines based on parameters such as prior year’s advertising
expenses, sales, market growth, and competing products. Likewise, weather forecasters can use models to
predict future weather patterns based on parameters such as wind speeds, wind direction, temperature, and
humidity. While these models are useful, they may not necessarily explain advertising expenditure or
weather forecasts. Models may be of different kinds, such as mathematical models, network models, and
path models. Models can also be descriptive, predictive, or normative. Descriptive models are frequently
used for representing complex systems, for visualizing variables and relationships in such systems. An
advertising expenditure model may be a descriptive model. Predictive models (e.g., a regression model)
allow forecast of future events. Weather forecasting models are predictive models. Normative models are
used to guide our activities along commonly accepted norms or practices. Models may also be static if it
represents the state of a system at one point in time, or dynamic, if it represents a system’s evolution over
time.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
They may involve in the process of theory or model development. Deductive reasoning is the process of
drawing conclusions about a phenomenon or behavior based on theoretical or logical reasons and an initial
set of premises. As an example, if a certain bank enforces a strict code of ethics for its employees (Premise
1) and Jamie is an employee at that bank (Premise 2), then Jamie can be trusted to follow ethical practices
(Conclusion). In deduction, the conclusions must be true if the initial premises and reasons are correct.
In contrast, inductive reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions based on facts or observed evidence.
For instance, if a firm spent a lot of money on a promotional campaign (Observation 1), but the sales did

11
not increase (Observation 2), then possibly the promotion campaign was poorly executed (Conclusion).
However, there may be rival explanations for poor sales, such as economic recession or the emergence of
a competing product or brand or perhaps a supply chain problem. Inductive conclusions are therefore only
a hypothesis, and may be disproven.
Deductive conclusions generally tend to be stronger than inductive conclusions, but a deductive conclusion
based on an incorrect premise is also incorrect. However, inductive and deductive reasoning go hand in
hand in theory and model building. Induction occurs when we observe a fact and ask, “Why is this
happening?” In answering this question, we advance one or more tentative explanations (hypotheses). We
then use deduction to narrow down the tentative explanations to the most plausible explanation based on
logic and reasonable premises (based on our understanding of the phenomenon under study). Therefore,
researchers must be able to move back and forth between inductive and deductive reasoning if they are to
post extensions or modifications to a given model or theory, or built better ones, which are the essence of
scientific research.

12