Indicators ( meaning: "social"; "evaluative"; "impact"; "effectiveness"; "well-being"; essentially: whatever you like) are a nightmare for researchers and evaluators . There are more legends told about indicators than about the Loch Ness Monster, about what they really are, whether they can actually be qualitative, whether they are numbers, or techniques, or measures (and here I'm starting to feel sick...). Now, then, fresh from some wonderful conversations on this topic, I'll tell you what they are; let's start by saying that the term 'indicators' (the concept would be better, but then we're getting confused because indicators are concepts, and saying "the concept of a concept" isn't elegant) refers – although of sociological interest – to three distinct elements:
- linguistic (indicator as sign);
- logical (indicator as operator);
- operating (indicator as a tool).
In a linguistic sense, the indicator [1] is a sign that communicates a concept ; in this meaning – the most general – we can consider the meanings of sign, concept, indicator to be equivalent (this is not exactly true, but not quibbling allows us to understand, for now, the general picture); in this meaning “indicator” is very little used in the social sciences.
In a logical sense, the indicator [2] is an operator , in the sense that it serves to create relationships; the indicator is a concept that can be operationalised in semantic relation with a broader, non-operationalised concept; in this sense – typical of social research – indicators have a hierarchical relationship that is subordinate and tied to concepts; outside of this role as operators, indicators have no purpose or meaning.
Finally, in an operational sense the indicator [3] is a tool : the indicator is a number , the result of counting or measurement, which "warns" of the state of a property of the concept; in this sense "indicator" is commonly used in applied sciences (for example, in evaluation). The prevalent use is control.
These three meanings are naturally interconnected and partially overlapping ; upon closer inspection, the first meaning is extremely general, the second is more specific (but not at all in conflict with the previous one), and finally, the third is of a very low level of generality but still within a coherent logic. Since—as I've discussed extensively in this column—linguistic analysis is essential in social research, along with adequate reflection on the inferences produced, the following figure shows how these three indicators fit into linguistic analysis and the three main inferences.
In meaning [1] (the indicator as a sign) it is essential to address the topic of concepts (indicators, as mentioned, are concepts) and how these arise in our minds. I will dedicate a future post to this topic.
In meaning [2] (the indicator as an operator) we have already dedicated an episode to the Lazarsfeldian paradigm , which is the rational-deductive way to produce them.
As for the meaning [3] (the indicator as a tool) we can immediately say that the prevailing interest concerns monitoring and evaluation , where there is often the need to check whether the achievements (i.e. the activities foreseen by the project) have been implemented within the expected timeframes, costs and substance. In this sense, indicators are usually values (the result of measurements or calculations), such as:
- number of course participants (or, better: actual participants out of expected ones);
- kilometres of railway built (out of those planned);
- implementation times for action X (and therefore deviation from project times).
These elements therefore allow management to monitor costs , progress , and any deviations that may need to be investigated.
Claudio Bezzi
