What Should You Do When a Construct Has No Widely Accepted Definition?

How Do You Measure a Construct When Researchers Do Not Even Agree on What It Means?

You search the literature expecting to find a standard definition of your construct. Instead, different authors emphasize different dimensions, theoretical traditions use the same term differently, and measurement instruments appear to operationalize somewhat different phenomena.

Perhaps the construct is relatively new. Perhaps it has developed independently across disciplines. Or perhaps disagreement is substantive because researchers genuinely conceptualize the phenomenon differently. Whatever the reason, you still need a definition before you can determine what should count as evidence about the construct.

No Consensus Means You Need a Stronger Conceptual Argument, Not an Arbitrary Definition

How to Work With a Conceptually Contested Construct

First Confirm That the Literature Really Lacks Consensus

Finding several definitions does not necessarily mean that a construct has no accepted conceptual core. Authors may use different wording while referring to substantially similar phenomena. Some definitions may be disciplinary adaptations of a common underlying concept.

Before declaring a construct contested, review the relevant theoretical and empirical literature broadly enough to identify recurring definitions, dimensions, boundaries, and measurement traditions.

You may discover:

• a dominant definition with several minor variants;
• two or more competing theoretical traditions;
• agreement on a core concept but disagreement about peripheral dimensions;
• the same term being used for genuinely different constructs; or
• a developing field in which conceptual boundaries remain unsettled.

Those situations require different responses.

Separate Differences in Wording From Differences in Meaning

Definitions should be compared conceptually rather than sentence by sentence.

Suppose one author defines AI literacy around understanding and using AI systems, while another includes critical evaluation, ethical judgment, and responsible application. The difference is not merely stylistic if the second definition expands the construct's substantive domain.

Conversely, two definitions may use different terminology while identifying essentially the same underlying dimensions.

A comparison matrix can help distinguish these possibilities.

This process resembles the analysis needed when different studies define the same variable differently, but here the disagreement exists at the conceptual level itself.

Identify the Construct's Core and Its Contested Boundaries

When definitions differ, look for areas of convergence. Several frameworks may agree that certain features are central while disagreeing about whether other dimensions belong inside the construct.

For example, imagine that nearly every definition of a hypothetical construct includes A and B, while some also include C and others include D. That pattern is more informative than saying simply that “there is no standard definition.”

You can then explain:

• what appears to constitute the conceptual core;
• which dimensions remain contested;
• which theoretical position your study adopts; and
• why those boundaries fit the research problem.

This makes the disagreement analytically useful rather than treating it as an inconvenience.

Define the Construct Before Selecting the Measure

Clear conceptualization is a foundational part of measurement development. Scale-development guidance emphasizes defining the target domain and its boundaries before generating or selecting items, particularly when theory provides the construct structure.

Similarly, construct-validity scholarship emphasizes that researchers need an articulated conceptual account of what they intend to measure before they can evaluate whether observable indicators represent it appropriately.

This order becomes even more important when the literature lacks consensus. Starting with an available instrument can allow that instrument's item content to decide silently what your construct means.

Your Definition Should Be Explicit Enough to Evaluate the Measurement

A one-word label is rarely sufficient for a contested construct. COSMIN guidance on content validity emphasizes that a construct should be described clearly enough for reviewers to judge whether measurement items are relevant and whether the construct is comprehensively covered. For broad labels such as pain or physical function, specifying the intended aspect of the construct may be necessary before content can be evaluated.

The same principle applies outside patient-reported outcome measurement. Readers need enough conceptual detail to determine whether the operationalization fits.

You Are Not Required to Combine Every Existing Definition

A common response to conceptual disagreement is to create a “comprehensive” definition containing everything that every author has ever associated with the term.

That can produce a construct so broad that its boundaries become analytically unhelpful.

If one tradition treats a variable as a cause of the construct while another treats it as a component, simply including both positions without resolving the distinction does not create conceptual clarity. It creates a larger list.

Your definition should be broad enough to represent the phenomenon you intend to study but sufficiently bounded to distinguish it from antecedents, consequences, neighboring constructs, and background conditions.

You Also Do Not Need to Choose the Most Popular Definition Automatically

A dominant definition deserves serious consideration because it may provide theoretical continuity and comparability. But prevalence alone does not establish that it fits your question or context.

The decision about whether to use the most common approach in the literature should consider conceptual fit and measurement evidence rather than popularity alone.

This is particularly important in emerging interdisciplinary fields, where the most cited framework may simply come from the discipline that entered the conversation earliest.

Use Your Research Question to Help Set the Boundaries

A construct definition should serve the inquiry rather than attempt to settle every theoretical dispute in the field.

Suppose “research impact” has been defined variously in terms of scholarly influence, policy influence, societal benefit, economic contribution, or changes in professional practice. If your study concerns how published research enters subsequent scholarly work, a definition centered on scholarly influence may be appropriate. You should not claim that it represents every form of research impact.

A narrower explicit definition is often more defensible than an expansive definition that the study cannot operationalize adequately.

Theoretical Commitments Should Be Visible

If competing definitions arise from different theories, your choice should acknowledge that theoretical disagreement.

For example, one framework may conceptualize a construct as an individual capability, another as a behavior, and another as an interaction between individuals and environments. These are not interchangeable descriptions. They imply different units of analysis and different operationalizations.

Explain which perspective your study adopts and why it is appropriate for the research question. Readers can then evaluate your reasoning without needing to agree that the chosen definition is universally correct.

Consider the Population's Perspective When the Construct Is Experience Based

For constructs concerning lived experiences, attitudes, perceptions, identity, quality of life, or culturally situated behavior, expert literature may not be the only relevant source of conceptual information.

Depending on the research tradition, qualitative interviews, focus groups, cognitive interviews, stakeholder consultation, or participatory approaches may help identify aspects of the construct that established academic definitions overlook.

This does not mean that participant opinion automatically determines the construct. It means that content relevance and comprehensiveness may require evidence from people who experience the phenomenon being measured.

Decide Whether You Are Adopting, Adapting, Synthesizing, or Developing

Researchers facing conceptual disagreement usually make one of several moves:

None is automatically superior. What changes is the burden of argument and evidence.

Developing a New Definition Should Solve a Real Problem

Construct proliferation is already substantial across the social and behavioral sciences. Scale-development scholarship has cautioned that not every potentially nameable human attribute represents a sufficiently distinct or important construct to warrant a new measure.

Before proposing a new construct definition, ask whether the apparent novelty reflects a genuinely distinct phenomenon or merely a renamed combination of established constructs.

A new definition is more defensible when existing conceptualizations systematically fail to represent something theoretically or practically important.

Once the Definition Is Set, Operationalization Must Follow It

After establishing the conceptual definition, identify what observable evidence would represent its components or dimensions.

If the construct contains several important dimensions, multiple indicators may be necessary. If only one dimension is relevant to the research question, a narrower operationalization may suffice.

The critical point is traceability. Readers should be able to move from conceptual definition to dimensions, from dimensions to indicators, and from indicators to the actual measurement procedure.

Do Not Claim to Have “Solved” the Definition Unless the Evidence Warrants It

A single study rarely settles a contested construct permanently. If you propose or synthesize a definition, present it at the appropriate epistemic level.

You might describe it as the definition adopted for the study, a working definition, a theoretically derived conceptualization, or a proposed framework requiring further evaluation.

That wording is not weakness. It accurately reflects the state of the literature. Academic fields have survived more than one unresolved definition, occasionally with entire conferences devoted to the privilege.

Defining an Emerging Construct Without Pretending Consensus Exists

The researcher does not claim that this is the universal definition of AI literacy. The methodological achievement is smaller but more defensible: the study has a transparent conceptual position from which its measurement and conclusions can be evaluated.

Common Mistakes When a Construct Lacks Consensus

Make Your Conceptual Choice Explicit and Traceable

When the literature does not provide a single accepted definition, your responsibility shifts from finding the “correct” definition to constructing a transparent and defensible conceptual argument.

Define a Contested Construct Without Making the Choice Arbitrary

Questions About Constructs With No Accepted Definition

You Do Not Need Universal Agreement, but You Do Need a Defensible Definition

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.