Mediation, Indirect relationship, or Mechanism whatever we call, but its there in minds (as a need may be), in theories as well as empirical evidences. In the context of basic research, a difference of opinion exists on the reasons in having mediation in a research model. So, what actually enables a researcher to establish indirect relationship(s) in a research project, is it previous statistical evidence or simply Strong Theoretical Argument???
Hope to have to good discussion on this matter. Tq
When I posted this question I thought many would be interested in knowing the answer and our kind experienced veteran researchers would guide novice researchers like me on this issue. Surprisingly, however, until today when one colleague at least recommended (which somehow reminded me again), I thought at least I can share my own quest about this important question I always see haunting graduate researchers :)
Though implicitly the answer is always there in all good journal articles, it is still rare to find EXPLICIT logic to support a mediator in a study.
Hayes and Scharkow (2013), luckily however :), mentioned three logical and scientific reasons to establish a mediation or indirect effect i.e.,
1) Strong Theoretical Argument
2) Good Measurement (definition and operationalization), and
3) A Good Research Design
Hope it would be useful. Regards,
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis: Does Method Really Matter? Psychological science.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning