What is the difference between concepts and constructs?

Some researchers consider them interchangeable. For me concepts are more abstract than constructs. In terms of variables to be considered in measurement there is no difference. Both should be operationalized in terms of dimensions and variables.

In line with the above answer, a construct is less abstract and it can be defined as a set of operational measures that allows for the study of a theoretical concept (see Yin, 2009, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, p. 40).

Construct is something in which you build knowledge by sharing ideas with others

I think construct is more abstract than concept. The key difference here is about observation. A concept is an abstraction from some phenomenon that can be observed while a construct is not something that you can observe. For instance, you can observe people's height, so height is a concept. But you cannot directly observe credibility, thus it is a construct (see Watt and Berg, 2002, Research Methods for Communication Science, p. 11).  

a construct is a concept that has been operationalized in order to be empirically studied and measured.

For more understanding, it is better to look how the notion of "Variables" connect with those two. Construct is mush specific where you can find relevant items to measure, say, motivation if a concept and job satisfaction is a construct, so, you may find measures to operationalize the job satisfaction like intention to retain, recommend to others...

I think concept is more abstract than construct. A construct has dimensions that you can measure empirically to quantify for analysis.

I agree with Markus Lamest

Concept is derived from theory whereas constructs are a way of bringing theory down to earth, helping to explain the different components of theories, as well as measure/observe. Example, Employee Motivation is a concept derived from Maslow theory, Motivation is not directly observable but whatever variables that can measure motivation such as reward, opportunities, recognition are considered as constructs

Concept is associated to a theory whereas constructs are there for explaining or measuring such concepts in different facets. For instance, Customer Satisfaction is a concept and service factors, product features, process of service delivery could be the constructs explain the aforesaid concept of "Customer Satisfaction". The theory relates to the concept of customer satisfaction may be "Utility Theory" or "Demand Theory"

Then what is the link between Idea, concept and construct?

A construct is a concept that cannot be measured directly.

Concept is phenomena when concept is operationalized for empirical measurement that is called construct.

I know I'm quiet late to this discussion, but if anyone is still willing to weigh in on the concept/construct distinction, I could use your insights. I'm teaching Social Science Methods for the first time and the text I'm using does NOT HELP clarify the confusion that is evidence in this thread.

To quote Bhattacherjee ("Social Science Research.." 2012) one sees the ambiguity, First he notes, :Explanations require development of concepts or generalizable properties or characteristics associated with objects, events, or people..." Then he speaks of concept's own possible varying levels of abstraction: "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 ..." But when he introduces construct, it doesn't get any clearer:, actually referring to same notion he referred to for concept: "

"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." Now he does attempt to clarify here, but to do so, he has to add a third factor -- dimensionality. "The former instance (weight) [which remember was a concept above] is a unidimensional construct, while the latter (communication skill) is a multi-dimensional construct (i.e., it consists of multiple underlying concepts)." OK that latter statement seems to imply that indeed constructs are more absract that concepts, but he continues...

"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." Not helpful, since above he said concepts themselves are subject to varying levels of abstraction.

No above, Mr. Lamest (5 years ago) cited Yin, "Case Study Research" as evidence that construct is less abstract than concept. I have a 2015 version of Yin, and I didn't find any discussion at all of Construct on it own. I saw a good deal of discussion of "construct validity". But what I found, actually contradicts Mr.. Lamest's read of Yin. Here's the relevant passage: "To meet the test of construct validity, an investigator must be sure to cover two steps: 1) define [the outcome/dependent variable] in terms of specific concepts (and relate them to the original objectives of the study) and 2) identify operational measures that match the concepts …: (215 epubpb.187).

So though I suspect I'm talking to empty space now, if anyone has new insights I'd certainly welcome them!

all the best Markus Lamest can you offer any further insights?

I have a slightly longish answer. My attempt to answer this important question draws upon a critical reading of Abraham Kaplan (The Conduct of Inquiry, pages 54-57). He believed that social scientists worked with four categories of terms:

A. Terms that can be observed easily, and hence inter-subjective verification becomes easy: For example, one can identify one's neighbor, and also report several instances of spotting one's neighbors. If someone questions how one identified these neighbors, the reporter can simply say: because they all live in the same apartment as I do. Hence the term "neighbor" is easily observed, reported, and can be verified.

B. Terms that can be still be observed, but not with that much ease: Taking the above example forward, the term "neighborhood" is more difficult to observe and report. Besides the obvious difficulty of having to cover a larger area to observe the neighborhood, some nagging questions arise in the process of understanding and conveying the meaning of neighborhood. Does neighborhood include the corner grocery shop, the fruit and vegetable vendor who comes in morning for only a few hours, and people may debate if that locked-for-years residence should be included in the meaning of neighborhood. So the term is not only more difficult to physically observe, but is also more complicated to understand, report and find agreement upon.

C. Even more complicated are the third types of terms. For example, "neighborhood quality" includes a plethora of parameters (such as helpfulness of neighbors, crime rate, cleanliness, quality of roads, regular availability of adequate water and power, greenery, and so forth). As one may sense, the difficulties inherent in observing, understanding and reporting the second category of terms are present in each of the parameters that constitute "neighborhood quality." Now the task of a social scientist is much more difficult in formulating its meaning, measuring it well, and convincing others about both. This is where, according to Kaplan, social scientists "construct" some terms. As one can see, there is not a single, unambiguous referent of the term "neighborhood quality" that the social scientist constructed.

D. And lastly, the business of construction reaches its epitome vis-a-vis terms that make sense only in a well-crafted theory. Kaplan gives the example of superego. To get the meaning of superego, one has to invoke Freudian theory of human psyche. If one says that some behavior of a person is governed by her/his superego, one has already invoked--at least to some extent--the theory of Freud. These terms--such as superego--are constructed by theoreticians to build a coherent theory.

So to summarize, the first two types of terms are concepts; they convey a family of meanings with relative clarity and can be observed with ease, or with some difficulty. But the last two are more naughty...they are constructs which require greater efforts before one can comprehend them. In the last case, one cannot understand the meaning unless one also understand the theory which was built with the help of such terms.

Hope it was useful!

Regards,

Rajiv

Rajiv Kumar that was incredibly useful. Intuitive and instructive. And it basically fits with what I came down to when I decided to test them on these terms by giving them a sample of journal article asking them to identify things like the research question(s), the concepts and constructs, etc. I think I will return to class with your contribution to further their understanding.

Many, many thanks Rajiv, for taking the time!

kindest regards,

Brett

Thanks a lot Brett for your kind remarks! I have found Kaplan's ideas very useful--and also missing in research practice--over the years.

I'd love to know your students's views too on Kaplan's ideas (about concepts and constructs). I want to understand how fresh eyes look at them.

Warm regards,

Rajiv

A concept is an idea that has been widely accepted by the scholars and may not rewards an empirical result while a construct is an idea that can be measure to provide a theoretical basis for further studies