دوره 11، شماره 4 - ( 12-1404 )
جلد 11 شماره 4 صفحات 158-111 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shojaei M S. Conceptual Modeling in Behavioral Science Research:
A Critical Analysis of the Literature and Theoretical Formulation. فصلنامه تحقیقات بنیادین علوم انسانی 2026; 11 (4) :111-158
URL: http://frh.sccsr.ac.ir/article-1-702-fa.html
URL: http://frh.sccsr.ac.ir/article-1-702-fa.html
شجاعی محمد صادق. مدل مفهومی در پژوهشهای علوم رفتاری:
تحلیل انتقادی ادبیات و صورتبندی نظری. فصلنامه تحقیقات بنیادین علوم انسانی. 1404; 11 (4) :111-158
جامعه المصطفی العالمیه
چکیده: (4 مشاهده)
مدل مفهومی از مفاهیم پرکاربرد در پژوهشهای علوم رفتاری است، اما درباره تعریف، جایگاه و نسبت آن با مفاهیمی مانند نظریه، چهارچوب نظری، سازه و متغیر، هنوز ابهام روششناختی وجود دارد. پژوهش حاضر با هدف تحلیل انتقادی ادبیات، تبیین جایگاه مدل مفهومی در فرایند پژوهش و ارائه صورتبندی نظری منسجم از آن انجام شد. این پژوهش با رویکرد کیفی و روش تحلیل اسنادی انجام گرفت و منابع مرتبط با فلسفه علم، روششناسی پژوهش، علوم رفتاری، سیستمهای اطلاعاتی و مدلسازی علمی، بهصورت تطبیقی و مفهومی تحلیل شدند. یافتهها نشان داد که مدل مفهومی صرفاً نمودار روابط میان متغیرها یا معادل چهارچوب نظری نیست، بلکه بازنمایی انتزاعی، نظاممند و هدفمند از یک پدیده است که با سازماندهی مفاهیم، سازهها و روابط نظری، امکان فهم، توصیف، تبیین و تحلیل آن را فراهم میکند. همچنین، مدل مفهومی در علوم رفتاری خانوادهای از بازنماییهای نظری با گونههای متنوع و جایگاهی واسط میان مبانی نظری و پژوهش تجربی است. حاصل پژوهش، ارائه تعریف تلفیقی و اصولی برای تدوین و ارزیابی مدلهای مفهومی است که قابلیت کاربرد در پژوهشهای تجربی، نظری، اسنادی و مطالعات اسلامی را دارد.
فهرست منابع
1. حافظنیا، محمدرضا. (۱۴۰۰). مقدمهای بر روش تحقیق در علوم انسانی (ویرایش ۲۲). تهران: انتشارات سمت.
2. زینیوندنژاد، فرشته (1395). آزمون فرضیههای پژوهش با مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری: تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تأییدی، میانجی و تعدیلگر و تحلیل چندگروهی. تهران: انتشارات جامعهشناسان.
3. شومیکر، پاملا. جی؛ تانکارد، جیمز ویلیام؛ لاسورسا، دومینگ آل. (1390). نظریهسازی در علوم اجتماعی (محمد عبدللهی، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات جامعهشناسان.
4. محمدی، داود؛ رمضان، مجید؛ ابراهیمی، محمدرضا (1389). تجزیهوتحلیل سیستمها. تهران: انتشارات ققنوس.
5. هومن، حیدرعلی (1401). شناخت روش علمی در علوم رفتاری. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
6. Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 143-174. [DOI:10.1111/joms.12058]
7. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. [DOI:10.2307/258555]
8. Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2009). Scientific models in philosophy of science. University of Pittsburgh Press. [DOI:10.2307/j.ctt5vkdnq]
9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
10. Bartholomew Eldredge, L. K., Markham, C. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Kok, G., & Parcel, G. S. (2016). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
11. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320. [DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311]
12. Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2019). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (3rd ed.). Wiley.
13. Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (2003). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. Stanford University Press.
14. Bock, C., Dandashi, F., Friedenthal, S., Harrison, N., Jenkins, S., McGinnis, L., … & Russell, B. (2017). Conceptual modeling. In Research challenges in modeling and simulation for engineering complex systems (pp. 23-44). Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-58544-4_3]
15. Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., Dalege, J., Kievit, R. A., & Haig, B. D. (2021). Theory construction methodology: A practical framework for building theories in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756-766. [DOI:10.1177/1745691620969647]
16. Brady, S. S., Slaughter, M. E., Acree, M. E., Vissman, A. T., Leere, J. S., & Schulz, A. J. (2020). Development of conceptual models to guide public health research, dissemination, and implementation: A how-to guide. Health Promotion Practice, 21(1), 26-34.
17. Bunge, M. (2012). Method, model and matter. Springer.
18. Bunge, M. (2013). Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & methodology II: Understanding the world. Springer.
19. Carl, N. M., & Ravitch, S. M. (2021). Addressing inequity through youth participatory action research: Toward a critically hopeful approach to more equitable schools. Action Research, 19(2), 433-448. [DOI:10.1177/1476750318804623]
20. Chen, P. P.-S. (1976). The entity-relationship model-Toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1), 9-36. [DOI:10.1145/320434.320440]
21. Coronel-Santos, M. A., & Reyes-Bossio, M. (2022). Integral definition and conceptual model of mental health: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, Article 978804. [DOI:10.3389/fsoc.2022.978804]
22. Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge University Press.
23. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
24. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302. [DOI:10.1037/h0040957]
25. de la Fuente, J., & Martínez-Vicente, J. M. (2024). Conceptual utility model for the management of stress and psychological wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1367214.
26. Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H., & Tegarden, D. (2015). Systems analysis and design: An object-oriented approach with UML (5th ed.). Wiley.
27. Duncan, J. (2025). Construction and use of mental models: Organizing principles for the science of brain and mind. Neuropsychologia, 207, Article 109062. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2024.109062]
28. Eaton, N. R., Bringmann, L. F., Elmer, T., Fried, E. I., Forbes, M. K., Greene, A. L., … & Wright, A. G. C. (2023). A review of approaches and models in psychopathology conceptualization research. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(10), 622-636. [DOI:10.1038/s44159-023-00218-4]
29. Elmasri, R., & Navathe, S. B. (2016). Fundamentals of database systems (7th ed.). Pearson.
30. Freud, S. (1925). The ego and the id. Hogarth Press.
31. Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2024). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
32. Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 742-752. [DOI:10.1086/425063]
33. Giere, R. N. (2010). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press.
34. Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
35. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine. [DOI:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014]
36. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. [DOI:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x]
37. Guizzardi, G. (2005). Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models (Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente).
38. Harun, M. F., & Taib, M. M. (2025). 'Putting an Islamic scholar's hat on psychologist': A framework for integrating Islamic concepts into psychological research. Asian Journal of Islamic Psychology, 2(1), 1-17. [DOI:10.23917/ajip.v2i1.7812]
39. Hempel, C. G. (1958). The theoretician's dilemma: A study in the logic of theory construction. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2, 37-98.
40. Hesse, M. (1965). Models and analogies in science. Philosophy of Science, 32(3/4), 316-320.
41. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
42. Iosifides, T. (2011). A generic conceptual model for conducting realist qualitative research: Examples from migration studies. Journal of Critical Realism, 10(1), 86-112.
43. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62. [DOI:10.1177/160940690900800406]
44. Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
45. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
46. Kaplan, A. (2017). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioural science. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315131467]
47. Kerlinger, F. N. (1966). Foundations of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
48. Khajeheian, D. (2019). Qualitative methods in media entrepreneurship research: Clarification of the terms framework, model and pattern. AD-minister, (34), 15-34.
49. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications.
50. Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Harvard University Press.
51. Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93-105. [DOI:10.1080/14703290601081407]
52. Iosifides, T. (2013). Qualitative methods in migration studies: A critical realist perspective. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
53. Luft, J. A., Bangera, G., Dauer, J. T., Dolan, E. L., Gillen, C. M., Harcombe, W. R., … & Wright, L. K. (2022). Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks in discipline-based education research: A guide for researchers. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 21(2), Article es3. [DOI:10.1187/cbe.21-05-0134]
54. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
55. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, Article 42. [DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42]
56. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
57. Milton, N. R. (2007). Knowledge acquisition in practice: A step-by-step guide. Springer.
58. Milton, N. R. (2008). Knowledge technologies. Polimetrica.
59. Morgan, M. S., & Morrison, M. (Eds.). (1999). Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511660108]
60. Mylopoulos, J. (1992). Conceptual modelling and Telos. In P. Loucopoulos & R. Zicari (Eds.), Conceptual modelling, databases, and CASE: An integrated view of information systems development (pp. 49-68). Wiley.
61. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World.
62. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
63. Nguyen, T. N. M., & Bazeley, P. (2022). The use of theory in qualitative research: Challenges, choices and a framework for application. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1-12.
64. Parkinson, J. A., Gould, A., Knowles, N., West, J., & Goodman, A. M. (2025). Integrating systems thinking and behavioural science. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), Article 403. [DOI:10.3390/bs15040403]
65. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511803161]
66. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press. [DOI:10.1037/11494-000]
67. Planing, P. (2014). Quantitative research approach. In Innovation acceptance: The case of advanced driver-assistance systems (pp. 141-247). Springer Gabler. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-658-05005-4_6]
68. Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
69. Robinson, S. (2008). Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: Definition and requirements. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(3), 278-290. [DOI:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602368]
70. Robinson, S. (2017). A tutorial on simulation conceptual modelling. In Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 565-579). IEEE. [DOI:10.1109/WSC.2017.8247815]
71. Robinson, S. (2025). Simulation: The practice of model development and use (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
72. Rocca, R., & Yarkoni, T. (2021). Putting psychology to the test: Rethinking model evaluation in psychological science. Psychological Review, 128(6), 979-1001.
73. Roman, F., & Hartmann, S. (2020). Models in science. ZALTA, EN The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring. ed.
74. Rosenblueth, A., & Wiener, N. (1945). The role of models in science. Philosophy of Science, 12(4), 316-321. [DOI:10.1086/286874]
75. Scheerens, J. (2016). Conceptualization. In Opportunity to learn, curriculum alignment and test preparation: A research review (pp. 7-22). Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-43110-9_2]
76. Sequeira, A. H. (2014). Conceptualization in research. SSRN Working Paper. [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2489284]
77. Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Addison-Wesley.
78. Sowa, J. F. (1992). Conceptual graphs as a universal knowledge representation. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(2-5), 75-93. [DOI:10.1016/0898-1221(92)90137-7]
79. Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Brooks/Cole.
80. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
81. Suddaby, R. (2024). What theory is, what theory was: Whence and whither theory. Organization Theory, 5(4), 1-15. [DOI:10.1177/26317877241293475]
82. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2021). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186. [DOI:10.1177/0735275112457914]
83. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199226290.001.0001]
84. van der Waldt, G. (2024). Constructing theoretical frameworks in social science research. TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 20(1), Article a1775. [DOI:10.4102/td.v20i1.1468]
85. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling-A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363-376. [DOI:10.1287/isre.13.4.363.69]
86. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495. [DOI:10.2307/258554]
87. Wilson, S., & Olino, T. M. (2021). A developmental perspective on personality and psychopathology across the lifespan. Journal of Personality, 89(5), 915-932. [DOI:10.1111/jopy.12623]
88. Zarghani, M., Nemati-Anaraki, L., Sedghi, S., Noroozi Chakoli, A., & Rowhani-Farid, A. (2024). Design and validation of a conceptual model regarding the impact of open science on healthcare research processes. BMC Health Services Research, 24, Article 309. [DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-10764-z]
ارسال پیام به نویسنده مسئول
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
