Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

The Foundations of Social Research 41
authoritarian than Buddhism. We cannot evaluate the level of anger in an
urban community over perceived abuses by the police of their authority, or
compare the level of that anger to the anger found in another community in
another city.
Operational definitions specify exactly what you have to do to measure
something that has been defined conceptually. Here are four examples of operational
definitions:
1. Intelligence: Take the Wechsler Adults Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and administer
it to a person. Count up the score. Whatever score the person gets is his or her
intelligence.
2. Machismo: Ask a man if he approves of women working outside the home,
assuming the family doesn’t need the money; if he says ‘‘no,’’ then give him a
score of 1, and if he says ‘‘yes,’’ score him 0. Ask him if he thinks women and
men should have the same sexual freedom before marriage; if he says ‘‘no,’’
score 1 and score 0 for ‘‘yes.’’ Ask him if a man should be punished for killing
his wife and her lover; if he says ‘‘no,’’ score 1; score 0 for ‘‘yes.’’ Add the
scores. A man who scores 3 has more machismo than a man who scores 2, and
a man who scores 2 has more machismo than a man who scores 1.
3. Tribal identity: Ask American Indians if they speak the language of their ancestors
fluently. If ‘‘yes,’’ score 1. If ‘‘no,’’ score 0. Ask them if they attend at least
one tribal pow-wow each year. Score 1 for ‘‘yes,’’ and 0 for ‘‘no.’’ Ask them
eight other questions of this type, and give them a score of 1 for each answer that
signifies self-identification with their tribal heritage. Anyone who scores at least
6 out of 10 is an ‘‘identifier.’’ Five or less is a ‘‘rejecter’’ of tribal heritage or
identity.
4. Support for trade barriers against China: Ask workers in a textile factory to complete
the Support of Trade Barriers against China Scale. Add the four parts of the
scale together to produce a single score. Record that score.
These definitions sound pretty boring, but think about this: If you and I use
the same definitions for variables, and if we stick to those definitions in making
measurements, then our data are strictly comparable:
We can tell if children in city A have higher intelligence scores than do children in
city B.
We can tell if older men in Huehuetenango have higher machismo scores than do
younger men in that same village.
We can tell if people in tribe A have higher cultural identity scores than do people
in tribe B.
We can tell whether the average scores indicating level of support for trade barriers
against China is greater among workers in the factory you studied than it is
among workers in the factory I studied.
I find the ability to make such comparisons exciting, and not at all boring.
But did you notice that I never said anything in those comparisons about eth-