I found Adcock and Collier’s piece “Measurement Validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research to be the most worthy of note this week. Their task, in and of itself, is quite unique. Rarely are political science articles so loose in focus; the topic of measurement validity is such a vast and diverse one. Often, papers will be considered with simply critiquing the critique of one other paper’s particular operationalizing of a concept, and its validity, not the entire issue of validity en masse. Adcock and Collier confront this daunting task by taking a thematic approach. First, they seek to “establish a shared framework that allows qualitative and quantitative scholars to assess more effectively, and communicate about issues, of valid measurement. This deals directly with the aforementioned instances of one author critiquing another author’s work based on its validity. Adcock and Collier’s piece seeks to establish some kind of common ground that will circumvent the fruitless back and forth that often occurs.

Secondly, Adcock and Collier bring to the forefront of the discussion the need to draw a clear distinction between measurement issues and disputes about concepts. Again, this speaks to the perpetual back-and-forth between political scientists, by suggesting that, in some cases, there may exist an intrinsic disagreement between authors regarding the conceptualization of any given concept, as opposed to the measurement of it.  Thirdly, the authors capitalize on the conceptual specificity of measurement claims, and suggest that claims can be more generalized without losing their validity oif greater attention is paid to matters of context. Finally, Adcock and Collier address alternative measurement validation procedures and give three examples of types of measurement validation, namely, (1) content validation), (2) convergent/ discriminant validation, and (3) nomological/ construct validation.

They assess each as serving different purposes, and emphasize the usefulness in differentiating between these three types of validation. Adcock and Collier sought to present an “understanding of measurement validation that can plausibly be applied in both quantitative and qualitative research.” They achieved this purpose by reframing each type of validation so as to create basic questions that can be utilized in both quantitative and qualitative analysis. In this way, they are hoping that qualitative and quantitative researchers can resolve their differences and learn from one another.