Assessing the Validity of Different Approaches to Operationalizing Cultural Theory in Survey Research
Assessing the Validity of Different Approaches to Operationalizing Cultural Theory in Survey Research
复制标题
评估调查研究中文化理论运作的不同方法的有效性
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.2860961
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
H. Jenkins‐Smith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Swedlow;J. Ripberger;Li‐Yin Liu;Carol L. Silva;H. Jenkins‐Smith
文化理论（英语：Cultural Theory，CT）是由涂尔干、玛丽、道格拉斯、维达夫斯基等人提出的一种社会和政治理论，在社会科学领域引起了广泛的关注。本文解释了CT是什么，并比较了各种方法的有效性，操作CT在调查研究。评估其表面和内容有效性的方法包括（1）最初由Karl Dake和Wildavsky开发的世界观测量，（2）Hank Jenkins-Smith及其同事最近创建的关系排名和评级测量，（3）Dan Kahan及其同事的关系“文化认知”测量，以及（4）Joe Ripberger，Brendon Swedlow，和同事。最后三个关系的方法的收敛有效性进行评估的程度，这些措施收敛在原来的达克和Wildavsky世界观的措施，而他们的预测有效性进行评估，以及他们如何预测人们的关注，在9个政策领域。我们发现，所有这些方法都缺乏表面和内容的有效性，因为它们充其量只是操作CT的一个组成部分。但是世界观的测量特别缺乏，因为世界观不对应于CT的任何组成部分。相比之下，新的关系措施表现出很好的面子和内容效度方面的关系模式假设的CT。詹金斯-史密斯及其同事开发的新的关系评级措施也表现出非常好的收敛性和预测有效性，但由Ripberger，Swedlow和其他人开发的新的网格组关系措施的可比结果充其量是混合的，但如果进一步发展，并非没有希望。[The Kahan及其同事的关系测量的收敛性和预测有效性仍有待评估。基于这些研究结果，我们建议适当使用这些措施和进一步的研究方向，以提高CT的概念化和操作化的调查研究。
Cultural Theory (CT) is a social and political theory developed by Emile Durkheim, Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky, and others that has attracted significant attention across the social sciences. This paper explains what CT is and compares the validity of various approaches to operationalizing CT in survey research. Approaches assessed for their face and content validity include (1) the worldview measures originally developed by Karl Dake and Wildavsky, (2) the relational ranking and rating measures recently created by Hank Jenkins-Smith and colleagues, (3) the relational “cultural cognition” measures of Dan Kahan and colleagues, and (4) the brand new relational grid-group measures developed by Joe Ripberger, Brendon Swedlow, and colleagues. The convergent validity of the last three relational approaches is assessed by the extent to which these measures converge on the original Dake and Wildavsky worldview measures, while their predictive validity is assessed by how well they predict people’s concerns in nine policy areas. We find that all of these approaches lack face and content validity because they at best only operationalize a component of CT. But the worldview measures are particularly lacking because worldviews do not correspond to any component of CT. By contrast, the new relational measures exhibit very good face and content validity with respect to the relational patterns hypothesized by CT. The new relational rating measures developed by Jenkins-Smith and colleagues also exhibit very good convergent and predictive validity, but the comparable results for the new grid-group relational measures developed by Ripberger, Swedlow, and others are at best mixed, yet not without promise if developed further. [The convergent and predictive validity of the relational measures of Kahan and colleagues remains to be assessed.] Based on these findings, we suggest appropriate uses for these measures and directions for further research to improve the conceptualization and operationalization of CT in survey research.