Abstract
This article presents a case for terminological research, a form of qualitative inquiry that systematically studies terminology within professional domains. Terminological research is a research method used to clarify the meanings of terms and concepts and to enhance professional communication, however, it is a method that has been underused. This paper offers examples and insights of such inquiry from literacy studies, a field already interested in concepts, meaning, and vocabulary, but one that has not utilized terminological methods. The authors argue that professionals in a variety of fields could benefit from terminological methods. In this article, the authors use their research on reading wars to illustrate the use of terminological methods for qualitative inquiry.
In 1954 Howard Becker, while arguing for a “vitalized sociological method,” also called for “freedom from gobbledygook, contempt for ‘layman’s language,’ cliquish esotericism, autistic reveries set down in print, and ponderous obscuring of otherwise obvious” (p. 380). Benson (1971) revitalized Becker’s challenge in his review of terminological confusion in sociology texts (see also Guba & Lincoln, 1989). And now, with little linguistic turf left unscorched, we intend to respond to Becker’s long-standing challenge. In fact, we agree with Becker’s (and Benson’s) call(s) for clarity. But rather than codifying and offering another new dictionary, we propose a method for dealing with ever-evolving language use in human-centered inquiry. In the following sections of this paper, we present terminological research methods as a systematic approach for studying the meanings, usage, and evolution of specialized terms within specific fields of inquiry. Terminological methods offer structure to inquiry within qualitative research about words and their meanings when used as professional terms, with the aim of clear and precise communication within the field of inquiry. Therefore, the purposes for this paper are to address the following questions: • What are terminological methods? • Why use terminological methods for qualitative research? • How is terminological research conducted?
Answers to these questions will be elaborated with examples from our own terminological inquiry on the reading wars (DeJulio et al., 2024).
What is Terminology and Terminological Inquiry
Participants within a professional field use words and/or phrases (i.e., terms) that become the de facto shorthand for the professional group. People within the field understand these terms because they link the words or phrases to the larger conceptual understanding, a framing that is shared by participating members in the profession. We define terminology as the corpus of specialized or technical terms used within a field or profession. These designated terms and the associated concepts that are shared within the field form a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) with the standard terms as tokens that are used in moving from the periphery toward the center of the profession. For example, the word research holds specific meanings for those completing doctoral studies or grant applications. It includes implicit links to theoretical models, methodologies, and ethical considerations. Use of significant terms can move a person from the edge to the middle of a paradigm. But membership does not rest on these initially acquired tokens of professional meaning. New terms emerge as gap filling through neologisms or coinage (borrowing, compounding, acronyms; Cabré, 1999; Sager, 1990); move on to dissemination and standardization (Wright & Budin, 2001); experience more wide-spread adoption and usage (frequency and contexts; Temmerman, 2000); stabilize through lexicalization (part of the domain lexicon) and documentation (in glossaries, dictionaries, and databases; Pearson, 1998); progress through term evolution (modification, specialization, and generalization; Kageura, 2002); and finally experience obsolescence (decline from replacement, irrelevancy, and perhaps archived for historical inquiry; Wright & Budin, 2001). Members of a profession must attend to these changes in lexicon to remain current in their respective fields. Terminological inquiry is sensitive to these lifespan changes in the use of terms within a profession. It is the process of “compiling, presenting, processing, and presenting the terms of special subject fields … it is not an end in itself but addresses social needs and attempts to optimize communication” (Cabré, 1999, p. 10).
Terminological inquiry is related to, but not identical with translation research (Hatim, 2012) and lexicography (Hartmann, 2016). Initially, terminological methods developed in response to advances in science and technology, which gave rise to new concepts and new fields of inquiry and various competing lexical instantiations especially in multilingual Europe. Scientists sought common conceptual understanding sponsored by consistent terminology especially across different languages (Wüster, 1968). It remains characteristic that terminological inquiry is more frequently used in multilingual professional contexts.
Terminological inquiry is also related to Document Analysis, also known as Qualitative Analysis (Morgan, 2022), Content/Document Analysis (Stahl et al., 2018), or Qualitative Content Analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Content Analysis focuses on “the characteristics of language as communication with attention to the content or contextual meaning of the text” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278). This type of analysis focuses on the text as a whole and it is useful for analyzing influences of political factors or bias related to politics, gender, ethnicity and more (Stahl et al., 2018). Terminological research tends to focus on singular concepts and the words used to represent them within a particular field or profession.
The purposes of terminological inquiry are multifaceted. Part of terminological inquiry includes defining terms within a particular field or profession, but also with situating those terms in relationship to larger, integrative concepts that constitute the disciplinary paradigm. That is, terms and their usage in a bounded professional context. In this way, terminological inquiry plays both radical and conservative roles; adding newer, change-oriented terms to a field; and then once a term is ensconced in the lexicon, holding a place for the construct, thereby clarifying and narrowing the agreed-upon set of terms for a professional field. Terminology “structures, produces, and reinforces knowledge of the specialized work ...terminology thus is the basis for the structure of thematically specialized knowledge” (Cabré, 1999, p. 43). Ultimately, these tasks are meant to serve the greater purpose of clear communication.
Regrettably, clear communication has not always been the hallmark of members within professions. Professionals may use words that are neither entirely accurate, nor sufficiently delimiting when using discipline-specific words. Yet, professional communication may ensue while a given generation of researcher/writers is active in a current paradigm (Kuhn, 1996), while newer members to a professional community may not understand the nuances of the terms used or may have renamed what was already known. Meaning does shift and it may be lost or revised over time (Kuhn, 1996).
Additionally, as particular disciplines and professions become more familiar to the public, the words that are used within that professional context may be taken up by broader audiences. Consider, again, the term research when used outside of academia and science. The term may also be used by someone describing the research they did while locating separate internet sites for hotels within walking distance from an antiques expo. In other words, research used by an academic and research used by someone outside the academy often mean very different things. In contrast, consider the use of TM in a field such as policy analysis. Indeed, policy is a space where these terms originate, often in non-systematic ways, prompting Anderson and Holloway (2018) to call for “discussions across theoretical frameworks and methodological paradigms about how the concept of discourse lends itself to different epistemological vantage points on educational policy” (p. 188). We would urge to include terminology in these discussions. Likewise, Carpenter et al. (2014) suggest that the “inscription of these policy vocabularies” (p. 1110) deployed in educational policy documents tends to shift the interpretations of the initiative, and that critical analysis is needed.
As terms exceed disciplinary boundaries and become more widely used, their meanings may become diversified, diluted, or recast altogether. Riggs (1993) directly addressed the confounded uses for a term: … the proliferation of meaning for the words that have acquired special meaning in the social sciences is due not only to scholarly work, but it is compounded by journalists, politicians and other writers in ordinary language who often borrow words from technical writing to serve non-scholarly purposes. Thereby, they add new meanings to them, often, poorly defined and loaded with affective, usually pejorative, connotations. (p. 198).
Rey (1995) also identified the similar challenges and negative outcomes as terms are used differently outside of the field: The intense circulation of information, linked to socio-political and technical evolution, is associated with distributing side effects (e.g., deceitful popularization, ideological use of the facts of science, wrongly oriented debates, obstruction of the channels of communication literally and metaphorically caused by excess and confusion, collective neurosis created by partisan and even hazardous selection of information). (p. 21).
For Rey, it is the circulation of terms that creates terminological side effects. While reverberating from recent invocations of “fake news,” we offer the observation that when terms are used in vague and general ways, the precision of the disciplinary instantiation may be compromised. Extrapolated or subverted meaning is deployed to create confused participants who also use terms ambiguously. But outside of current political rhetoric, and inside professional niches, imprecise language may cause the users themselves to be devalued in professional circles (Riggs, 1993). It is important, then, for members within a profession to be clear with the terms that they use, delimiting both the concept and the term used to represent it within the field (Cabré, 1999; Pearson, 1998). The inside and outside professional usage necessitate a metacognitive awareness on the part of professionals who work within language-framed outputs (i.e., all of us).
Why Use Terminological Methods?
While not unique to the field of qualitative inquiry, inflating and changing terminology in a field significantly impacts the discipline, affecting communication, research interpretation, and methodological rigor. Let us consider several ways that terminology impacts our work within the field of qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry is grounded in various philosophical traditions, such as phenomenology, hermeneutics, and critical theory. Terminological research involves aligning specific terms with these foundations, ensuring that the epistemological and ontological assumptions of the research are accurately represented (Schwandt, 1998). New or revised terminology whether as part of Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) or Language for General Purposes (LGP) (Picht, 1987) can enhance clarity and precision in qualitative research by better capturing nuanced concepts and phenomena (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). For example, the shift from the term subjects to participants emphasizes the active role of all individuals in the research, aligning with the interpretive nature of qualitative inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018) and use of the latter term signals commonality with revised perspectives. Ensuring that terms are clearly defined and understood across the research community is crucial. For example, the distinction between methodology (the theoretical analysis of the methods) and methods (the techniques and procedures) has been explored to avoid confusion and improve precision in research reporting (Clarke & Braun, 2017). Terminological changes can also reflect evolving societal values, promoting (and sometimes preventing) inclusivity and cultural sensitivity, a recent focus and prolific in cultural studies. Terminological research addresses such needs for culturally sensitive language within qualitative texts. This revisionist work involves critically examining and revising terms to work against cultural biases to ensure that the terms used are inclusive and respectful of diverse participant perspectives. These efforts are clearly exercises in terminology. Adopting terms that acknowledge diversity and reduce biases helps create a more inclusive and accurate representation of participants’ experiences.
Changes in terminology can either facilitate or hinder communication across disciplines. The degree to which disciplines share terms can sometimes be a factor. Consistent and widely accepted terminology can promote better understanding across fields, while inconsistent use or excessive synonymy can lead to confusion and misinterpretation (Picht, 2011). Terminology usage evolves to reflect shifts in theoretical perspectives. As qualitative research evolves, new terms emerge, and existing terms may change in meaning. Again, using an example from the field of qualitative methods, the term triangulation is still regularly used, even as the underlying construct has evolved to include a broader range of strategies for ensuring credibility, such as crystallization, which emphasizes the complexity and multiple facets of phenomena (Ellingson, 2009). This premise holds not only for the LSP, but it is equally logical for the role of terminology in the LGP as found within and across societal classifications and organizations. Terms related to reflexivity and researcher positionality are central to qualitative inquiry, as they both require researchers to define their relationships to the research project at hand. Research in this area explores how researchers’ backgrounds, perspectives, and interactions with participants influence the research process and findings (Berger, 2015).
With the notable exception of aural and visually oriented multimodal texts, the primary medium for communication is a linguistic one. Linguistic representation within qualitative inquiry is dependent upon words, and the words we choose to use serve at least two purposes: assembling the meaning we wish to convey, and signaling our membership inside a discursive community, such as that of qualitative researchers. The current authors work within qualitative/historical approaches to literacy studies and offer insight into terminological work in this area of human-centered inquiry. Literacy research methods texts provide little guidance for researching how professional terms are defined and used across time (e.g., Albers et al., 2014; Compton-Lilly et al., 2021; Mallette & Duke, 2020), even as this need for terminological clarity has been recognized and addressed across other professional fields (Cabré, 1999; Rey, 1995; Wüster, 1968). We argue that it is productive and necessary to scrutinize and clarify the meanings of terms used in a profession by situating their meanings in both historical and emergent contexts. Although literacy researchers spend considerable time defining and debating the meaning of words, scant effort has been spent on systematically understanding terms as they are used within the professional vocabulary as well as acknowledging how these meanings have shifted over time.
What are Examples of Terminological Inquiry?
Across multiple professional fields, researchers have considered what a term means and how it has changed over time. Terminological research has been used extensively as related to translation and linguistic studies. However, a review of the literature found no examples of terminological research methods applied outside of these fields devoted to language classification. In this section, we highlight some examples of work that review what a term has meant in the past and/or currently means within a professional field while acknowledging that none of these examples claims to use terminological methods.
Examples of Term Consideration from outside of Literacy Studies
Raffaeli and colleagues (2021) reviewed the term chronic pain in clinical settings. The authors asked what the term meant for clinical practice. They noted that the ambiguity of the meaning of chronic pain might lead to difficulties in communication between clinician and patient, “even producing frictions between the physician and the patient, assuming his/her clinical condition to be misinterpreted” (p. 828). The authors then offered a “historic reconstruction” of the term, emphasizing how the meaning has evolved since the 1950s. Following this detailed history of the term, the authors then listed what they referred to as “reflections” and “opinions” about the term.
Vaughn et al. (2020) conducted what they described as a “systematic review” of the term agency in the field of education, utilizing Cooper’s (2010) methods for meta-analysis. When describing their search process, they noted that they only used the word agency rather than searching for other words that might have been used in the same sense. Additionally, they limited their search to empirical, peer-reviewed publications that were published between 1975–2017. This review led them to conclude that agency has been defined in multiple ways, leading them to posit that agency is a multi-dimensional construct.
Examples of Term Consideration from Literacy Studies
There is not a body of work that specifies what terms have evolved within our field (literacy) or that provides a clear example for how we might conduct terminological work in literacy. Instead, we have a small collection of publications that call attention to words and usage, but these works do not rise to the level of methodologically rigorous study. We offer their descriptions to make the point that in most disciplines, term-related inquiry has occurred.
Worthy et al.’s (2021) examination of the term dyslexia provides an example of why literacy researchers and scholars study a specific term. Within the field of literacy studies, dyslexia has been a contested term designating non-readers who display at least normal levels of intelligence and who have experienced adequate instruction. Yet, these nonreaders do not learn to read efficiently. Outside of the professional field of literacy education the definitions of and uses for the term dyslexia vary within medical, familial, and special education contexts. Worthy’s choice of this term, as well as for the terms targeted in the other example studies that follow, arose from fraught, even contentious uses of a single term for multiple, conflicting purposes. Hence, there existed inherent motivation for terminological inquiry. In the case of Worthy et al. (2021), the authors found that many internet sources about dyslexia contained inaccuracies and misleading information. Using a priori frameworks from disability studies in education (DSE), disability critical race studies (DisCrit), and Bakhtin’s (1984) construct of ideological becoming, the authors evaluated various web pages, identifying significant issues with source credibility (Brante & Strømsø, 2018; Strømsø, 2017) and content reliability. They discovered that much of the online information was presented in an authoritative manner, which they argued, positioned the information as irrefutable, despite the lack of proper scientific support. The authors noted the variable uses of the term, argued for better evaluation criteria for online dyslexia information, and called for more collaborative and less divisive dialogues among stakeholders.
Shanahan’s (2020, 2023) work provides another recent example of literacy researchers studying their own terminology. Shanahan’s (2020) focus was the currently popular term science of reading, a catch-all term implying the use of systematic phonics instruction in beginning reading. Shanahan ultimately found that much of the current literacy research, or science, is inadequate to be translated into general pedagogy. The first element of his argument was a look at science of reading as a term with a unique historical past. Shanahan (2020) wrote: Science of reading is a term that has been used for more than 200 years. Throughout this history, it has been used most frequently to refer to the pronunciation and decoding of words on the basis of basic research. In this article, I situate the term historically (p. 1).
To provide the methodological context, Shanahan sought Ngrams within the corpus of Google Books to determine how long the term science of reading had been in use and to track multiple surges in use of the term. He also considered the socio-historical contexts that accounted for these surges, suggesting that science of reading has signified different things to various stakeholders across time. He challenged what the literacy field had defined as science based on this history. What is important to the current paper is the example Shanahan’s approach provides in the literacy field: a term is important because of its meaning, its history, and its implications for practice and research.
While Shanahan’s work is an important exemplar, it also highlights what may be missing from current systematic study of terms within the field. Shanahan began by using an Ngram. The use of the Ngram is limited by words used in books and scanned into Google Books. Such a search provides relevant information but also omits professional journals and popular media such as newspapers and magazines. Words and concepts within academic disciplines are often first introduced in journal articles or other shorter pieces. Delimiting search parameters has an impact on the results.
Bergeron’s (1990) inquiry into the term whole language is another case in support of the need for systematic terminological studies in literacy. Whole language was and is a term used to describe what are understood as naturally occurring language-based processes used to systematically teach beginning reading in classrooms. Across 64 journal articles, Bergeron was unable to find a common definition for whole language. Chosen over a ten-year span (1977–1987), with reliance on innovation, currency, and location for change agenda, the articles were analyzed on an a priori check sheet. Whole language was defined differently by each author. Likewise, there was no consistent set of instructional techniques that were related to claims of whole language. Bergeron cites differences between university researchers and classroom practitioners in their characterizations of whole language. In her summary, Bergeron concludes that whole language is both a philosophy about literacy instruction as well as an approach. Later, whole language would be taken up in popular media to provide a negative counterpoint for advocacy in phonics instruction.
These previous examples of efforts in defining key terms in the fields of medicine, education, and literacy demonstrate the inherent interest in terminological inquiry. Many additional fields are replete with articles in professional journals that ask some variation of “What does it really mean?” when considering a term (e.g., policy [Bacchi, 2000]; critical [Brooke, 2002]). What is common in all these explorations of term meanings is a description of the change of meaning over time. However, what is missing from these articles is a systematic process of review of the term that relies on clear methodological procedures. Professionals recognize the importance of words and their meanings to communicate with other professionals and beyond; however, a robust, systematic method that can be adopted by future researchers is needed to support our understanding of terms within research as they occur across multiple print and media outlets. The studies also serve as a reminder that inquiry into terms is often found in the literature for different disciplines.
Proposing a Terminological Method for Inquiry Across Disciplinary Fields
The terminological method (TM) offers systematic study of language-based items used as professional terms as well as their shifts in meaning and usage over time as indexed to the social groups that are innovating the term(s) (Wüster, 1968). TM acknowledges that language changes and meanings are not static, while also isolating and presenting shared understandings of words as terms within larger concepts and within disciplinary communities of practice. TM also offers opportunities to expand and contextualize the meaning of specific disciplinary terms with analysis of the discourse in which a term is embedded. TM tracks the history of usage for terms, noting how usage may have changed across time, locations, and interlocuters with a field. In tracking concepts and the terms used to represent them across time, connections between current ideas and the connections to their past lives become apparent in the research discourses. Awareness of historical connections provides for clearer communication between members of the field and communication with those outside the field. Attention to words we use as terms with discipline-specific meanings helps novices as they apprentice into the broader research community.
TM is focused on identifying those words or phrases that are useful within specific disciplines and that have an impactful functional load as designated terms. TM identifies the links that these terms have to larger concepts, understood as the technical language of a discipline. The process of identifying the words or phrases that are used as professional terminology can include monolingual and multilingual searches. Additionally, searches can be systematic or ad hoc (Cabré, 1999). A systematic search is defined as a search that covers the entire subject field or an explicitly defined part of the subject field for a term. An ad hoc search is restricted to a special set of terms within the larger special subject field. In sum, terminological inquiry can be one of four types: • Monolingual systematic: The search covers a subject field within a single language. • Monolingual ad hoc: The search is restricted to a special set of terms within the larger special subject field in a single language. • Multilingual systematic: The search covers a subject field across multiple languages. • Multilingual ad hoc: The search is restricted to a special set of terms within the larger special subject field across multiple languages.
Cabré (1999) identified three main components for ad hoc terminological methods:
Conducting Terminological Research
Step 1 - Query
The researchers begin with a query or question about a particular term used within the field to define research objectives. The purpose behind the question is increased clarity, leading to understanding and communication within the field. For example, in Bergeron’s (1990) investigation of whole language, she asks, “How is whole language defined in the educational literature?” (p. 302), supporting the question with her rationale for why the term is important.
Define Research Objectives
Researchers using TM clearly outline the objectives and scope of terminological studies. They often identify the specific terms or concepts for exploration within a particular field. In their study, Raffaeli et al. (2021) examined the term chronic pain in the clinical field. The authors recognized some potential problems that could result from how the term is used and understood in the field, which provided a rationale for their decision to investigate the term. Some authors decide to focus on a group of terms related to a particular topic. Others limit their focus to a single term.
Step 2 - Search
The search step includes multiple components such as locating the term, establishing limits for the search, documenting search strategies, and describing how the term is being used.
Select Reliable Sources
Terminological researchers use authoritative references such as academic journals, books by recognized experts, reputable websites, and specialized databases related to their fields of study. Further, these searches undergo rigorous review processes that are accepted within the academic community. In her 1990 article, Bergeron explained her decision to focus on professional journals and exclude books and other print sources. She described her criteria thoroughly to ensure the search was pertinent to the focus of her inquiry.
Keyword Identification
Researchers who use terminological methods compile lists of keywords and phrases associated with the terminologies they are researching. These keywords are used to conduct efficient searches in chosen references. In their investigation of the term chronic pain, Raffaeli et al. (2021) considered related terms, including persistent, recurrent, unremitting, intractable, and longstanding. These were terms similar or related to chronic pain that the authors discussed in relation to the focus of their investigation. Vaughn et al. (2020) limited their keyword to only agency and did not include other words that might be synonyms.
Utilize Specialized Databases
Terminological researchers access specialized databases or terminological resources specific to a field (e.g., medical, legal, or technical dictionaries) to gather comprehensive information. Shanahan (2020) used Google Books to trace the focal term of his study in full-text books. Raffaeli et al. (2021) used Google Scholar to search professional journals and scholarly sources along with proceedings from conferences about pain.
Evaluate Source Credibility
Researchers who use terminological methods assess the reliability, credibility, and relevance of the sources they locate (Brante & Strømsø, 2018; Strømsø, 2017). Factors under consideration include author credentials, publication dates, peer-reviewed status, and the reputation of the source within the field. In their examination of dyslexia information on the Internet, Worthy et al. (2021) examined “the credibility of sources, the quality of information, and the discourse in which the information is presented” (p. 5). The authors specifically investigated Internet sources, rather than professional journals, to understand the credibility of information found about dyslexia that might be read by teachers or others looking for information about dyslexia. In the analysis section of their paper, the authors described their process for evaluating the credibility of the sources they investigated (pp. 11–13).
Collect Information
Terminological researchers extract definitions, explanations, examples, and usage contexts of the terminologies from collected references. Researchers take detailed notes and organize the information systematically, while checking for cross referencing within the compiled sources. Bergeron (1990) shared definitions and descriptors from her analysis in an appendix to support the findings presented in her paper.
Cabré (1999) does not address some of the digital forums and platforms that have gained popularity in recent years. We believe these are important for researchers to consider when undertaking terminological inquiry. Digital platforms, social media, hashtags, and other tools for communicating in virtual spaces must be included for consideration when employing TM.
Analyze and Synthesize
Researchers who use TM analyze the gathered information to understand variations in usage, different contexts, and any evolving meanings or usages of the terms. They synthesize the data to identify patterns, discrepancies, or evolving trends, both within and across source types. Bergeron presented findings from the different ways that whole language was used in the professional literature in the results and discussion section. The author synthesized the findings and described the significance of the findings for the field.
Document Sources Properly
Terminological researchers keep detailed records of sources and curate evolving, accurate citations according to the various citation styles to maintain academic integrity. Bergeron (1990) included an appendix with a list of the articles used for her analysis (pp. 324–326). There are few examples of ongoing curation and documentation of terms in most fields. This highlights one potential benefit of employing a terminological method.
Step 3 - Response to the Query
In the response to the query researchers synthesize the information and offer a response or solution to the original query. The response includes three components.
Create a Comprehensive Overview
Researchers who use TM compile findings into structured documents or presentations. These often include definitions, examples, variations in usage, historical contexts, and any relevant insights or controversies related to the terms. The authors cited earlier in this paper (Bergeron, 1990; Raffaeli et al., 2021; Shanahan, 2020, ; Worthy et al., 2021) shared their findings in professional presentations and publications.
Review and Refine
Terminological researchers review their research for accuracy, consistency, and completeness. They revise and refine their evolving findings to ensure coherence and clarity in presenting the terminological information. Like the dearth of ongoing documentation of the evolution of terms, there are few examples of ongoing refinement of terms. Most of the research we found was a snapshot and none of the authors appears to have revisited their inquiry of their term(s).
Ethical Considerations
Researchers who use terminological methods ensure proper attribution and citation of sources (Horowitz & Olson, 2007). They adhere to ethical guidelines in research and uphold academic integrity. This is consistent with other kinds of research and scholarly work.
Creating a Chronology/Considering a Historical Context
This step is not one explicitly proposed by Cabré (1999), however, we offer it to readers interested in conducting terminological inquiry in their fields. Terms, like all language, tend to evolve over time and across contexts. This can present challenges for those attempting to define the meaning of a term. One might ask, “What does this term mean?” but other useful questions might be, “How has this term been used in the past?” and “What has this term meant in other contexts?” Understanding a term’s use in the present can be enhanced by understanding its historical use and its changing use over time and/or across contexts. For example, in the literacy field, guided reading is a term whose meaning has shifted considerably over time. Today, it is sometimes used by professionals to signify teacher-supported reading in which the child decodes a text as the teacher provides structure, instruction, feedback, and guidance. However, the term is also used to refer to a specific approach to reading instruction based on adherence to text levels, a cueing systems approach to reading, and limited phonics instruction. This means that it could simultaneously represent an approach to teaching reading that is widely supported (teacher-guided instruction in reading) and an approach that has been met with considerable controversy (text levels and cueing systems instruction). This is an example of a term that needs further attention, but sufficient understanding of the different meanings of guided reading requires an inquiry into the history of guided reading.
Some of the examples we have shared have given considerable attention to the historical use of the terms the authors investigated. For example, Raffaeli et al. (2021) looked at the use of chronic pain in journals going back to the year 1900 and traced its use to the present. Their inquiry considered how the term’s use and meaning has evolved and what the implications are in the present.
An exploration of the history of a term is not required for terminological inquiry, however, we encourage readers to consider the history of a term as part of any investigation of a term or group of related terms. Considering the history of a term does not necessarily require a comprehensive accounting of the term but rather accounting for selected points of history that can illuminate (or mislead) meanings of the term. For some, the focus on the history of the term(s) at the center of the inquiry might be a small part of the research. For others, the history might take on a greater role. For example, in our own work (DeJulio et al., 2024) we organized findings around different eras of usage of the term that we were investigating.
A Terminological Method Example from the Reading Wars
In this section, we present a precis narrative describing a terminological study of the literacy-related term reading wars as one example of how terminological research can be used within a professional field, in our case, literacy. As qualitative researchers in literacy, we noticed that different groups of people used the term reading wars, including journalists, parents, preservice teachers, and literacy colleagues. At the same time, we determined that not everyone was using the term to refer to the same thing. Some used it to refer to a debate between phonics and whole language. Others used it to describe a debate between phonics instruction and a literacy teaching approach called balanced literacy. Still others referenced an older skirmish in the reading wars of beginning reading instruction, between a visual memory approach (the look-say approach to beginning reading instruction) and systematically teaching the sounds of letters (a phonics approach). We considered these to be important distinctions, at least for professionals in the field of literacy. Amongst the variety of its deployments, we began to wonder when the term first entered the lexicon and how it had been used across time.
Reading wars as a term has always been situated within the larger concept of beginning reading instruction. Understanding a term in relation to a larger concept is an essential component of TM. Concepts are anchored in webs of linked terms. Participants within a profession develop a complex web of associations to support meaning making. For example, literacy professionals understand the places that whole language and look-say approaches occupy in the larger concept of approaches for teaching beginning reading. Miscommunication can occur when people do not share the same conceptual webs, as pointed out in terminological inquiry (Temmerman, 2000).
We were not interested in the corpus of words associated with the concept of beginning reading. Instead, we focused on the way that the term reading wars was used within the field of literacy and specifically, in referring to beginning reading. Thus, the method that we will describe focuses on a monolingual ad hoc terminological study. We used Cabré’s (1999) three broad divisions (query, search, and response to the inquiry) to organize our terminological study on the term reading wars. These follow.
Query
The work began when we noticed the diverse ways people were using the term reading war or reading wars. Thus, we began with a query: How has the term reading wars been used in the field of literacy? As we conducted our search, we came back to our query and expanded it to: How has the term reading wars been used to describe beginning reading instruction?
Search
Conducting a terminological study includes finding the origin of the term and tracing it across history. However, to search for origins, we needed to specify searching strategies, a necessary and systematic accounting of techniques. Searching includes delimiting what should and should not be included in results. In the case of reading wars, we used “reading war” and “reading wars” as part of our search. However, we excluded such results as “reading. War” or the often mentioned “reading War and Peace.” Next, we conducted a general search using JSTOR, AllAcademic, and EBSCO Host for traditional scholarly print materials. We also used Google Scholar to identify articles that we accessed through our respective university libraries. We began consulting experts in information studies. To gain additional ideas and serve as a method of checking our searches, we each consulted the research librarians at our institutions for suggestions of databases to search popular press and media, as well as ways to limit, or enhance searching with Boolean commands and advanced searches. Simultaneously, we posed the question about the earliest use of the term to the members of the Literacy Research Association (LRA), members of the Reading Hall of Fame, and other individuals who we emailed personally because of their familiarity with literacy and its history. We began hand-searching books as far back as Horace Mann and his writings in the 1820s.
Once we established sources specific to the discipline, we expanded our search beyond sources deemed reliable by the profession. We established that reading wars was a term used in professional literature. However, we discovered that the term was first used in a newspaper (Hodenfield, 1961) and was subsequently adopted by professional sources. At first, this innovation of term and uptake seemed counterintuitive, as often professionally crafted and sanctioned terms subsequently make it into popular media. In the case of reading wars, much of the use in professional sources has been in response to its initial deployment in popular and social media. We later understood the significance of this terminological reversal.
Example Coding
Response
We began with a query: How has the term reading wars been used in the field of literacy? And subsequently expanded our question to: How has the term reading wars been used to describe reading instruction? Our research identified three findings in response to our query. Finding one identified how the term has been introduced in the literacy field. Finding two focused on ways the term has been used in its discursive functions. Finding three described how the referents in the war have shifted across time, from the first documented use of the term reading war in 1961 until the present period.
These three overall findings describe how and when the term entered the field of literacy, how the term is used as a language function, and that the term’s meaning has shifted over time. The first finding regarding how and when the term entered the field is descriptive and specific. That is, we can identify a specific point of time when reading wars was first used and we can observe that this use was from a journalist rather than an educator. The latter two findings highlight the ways in which a protean meaning shifts to communicate and/or confuse. Without recognizing how the term is being used or that the term may refer to one of at least four separate debates, multiple uses of the term can conflate meanings and add layers of misinformation to the confusion, which does little to promote thoughtful professional debate or clear communication. Our second two findings are examples of what Shanahan (2023) referred to as the “plague of vagueness” that inhibits progress in a field of study. As a final step in the TM process, we shared these findings in a presentation of research at a professional conference (DeJulio et al., 2023) and in a published journal article (DeJulio et al., 2024).
These findings are an example of how terminological research can serve a professional field. In the literacy field, the term reading wars has been used rather uncritically for decades. For doctoral students or early career scholars just entering the profession, the term might appear to be a relatively unambiguous concept. After all, everyone in the literacy field seems to understand what the reading wars refers to. However, by highlighting the nebulous, sometimes contradictory nature of the term’s usage, we disrupt this notion. Furthermore, we call attention to the different debates about how to teach beginning reading and position these as distinct and multilateral rather than an ongoing, bilateral tug-of-war. For professional members of the field, it is important to understand the nuanced differences between whole word, whole language, and balanced literacy. Some members of the field must support preservice teachers in learning about methods of teaching reading and which aspects of those methods are supported by research. Without an understanding of these distinctions, educators can simply buy into a repackaged version of the method, literacy education’s version of the old wine, new bottle metaphor. In our study, we do not call on literacy professionals to use the term reading wars in any particular way. Instead, we share our findings about how it has been used and offer suggestions for how members of the profession might approach the term in the future. We believe this attention to the terms in our field can ultimately make a difference in our collective endeavors.
Why Use Terminological Methods in Qualitative Research?
Why do qualitative researchers need TM? TM helps identify what a term means, with what concepts the term is linked, how meaning shifts over time, who uses the term, where the term is used, and for what purposes the term exists. TM supports communication with precision. TM inquiry reminds professionals of the multiple, and historic meanings that may be at play for a single term. While TM grafts readily on literacy’s focus on vocabulary inquiry, it is also an important method to shape and define the vocabulary in all professional groups, and as such can be used as a qualitative research method for diverse disciplines of inquiry.
In our examples used herein, literacy researchers had frequently considered what a term meant (e.g., Bergeron, 1990, on whole language; Worthy et al., 2021, on dyslexia; Shanahan, 2020, on science of reading; DeJulio et al., 2024, on reading wars). We established the historical precedent among literacy researchers for systematic inquiry focused on terms, whether they are coined internally or externally to the reading profession. However, missing from all the examples except reading wars is a consistent set of methods that promote trustworthiness and transparency between researcher and readers (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
TM creates the possibility for explicit kinds of research findings. Specifically, TM helps us examine when a term becomes a part of the professional literature, who uses terms, and for what purposes. TM provides a systematic way to document how meanings change across time. The recursive, anachronistic use of terms in the profession and press is itself an important finding as it underscores how terms can evolve to mean many things to many different participants and consequently lack the conciseness of a term useful in a professional field (Cabré, 1999).
These types of findings provide a foundation for larger questions. For example, our terminological approach to studying the reading wars answered the query of how reading wars as a term has been used in and outside the field of literacy. But the inquiry also surfaced questions. Should reading wars, a term introduced from outside the profession, be part of our professional lexicon? And do literacy scholars want to further the use of bellicose language in connection with early reading? In the use of “reading wars,” we are repeating its citations in the literature. But in so doing we must own the very propagation of the term. It is perhaps cold comfort to be reminded by Pratt (2009) that “violence erupts when language fails, violence is called forth by the failure of language, violence puts an end to dialogue” (p. 1529). So, it is perhaps better to focus on the combativeness of reading advocates than to ignore it. Flusberg et al. (2018) suggests that the very ubiquity of the war metaphor may be its undoing suggesting the war metaphor is “threatening to become a reductio ad absurdum against the use of warfare metaphors in public discourse” (p. 2). With both rationales, and consistent with TM’s method, we have chosen mindful use of a problematic term.
Despite the usefulness of TM, there are challenges to conducting this research. Some of these challenges stem from new technologies and the spread of information. TM emerged in Europe for use with print-based materials to detail advances in science and technology in multiple languages that challenged coherence in disciplinary knowledge. However, as new technologies and media emerge, future researchers will need to consider how terms are used across multiple sources and modes of communication. For example, in the #commoncore project, Supovitz et al. (2015) studied the use of #commoncore on Twitter (now X). The researchers used many elements from TM, including looking at definitions, tone, users, and transfer of ideas using the term. Among their findings was that there was an elite, linked group including both transmitters (those who posted the most) and transceivers (those who reposted content created by others), and that this interactive group was outside of education but was having significant impacts on those within the education profession. Unlike traditional TM that reviews terms across as much history as possible, Supovitz and colleagues limited their search to two years of Twitter posts that included the exact hashtag #commoncore. Even with these limitations, the research collated almost 1 million tweets for researchers to comb through. Similarly, Evans (2020) examined #scienceofreading on Twitter for only two months and found 2,691 tweets. Both Evans (2020) and Supovitz et al. (2015) were able to draw conclusions about how the terms were being framed/defined, who was using the terms (which in these cases were hashtags), and for what purposes the terms were used. Dialogues such as those on Twitter (X) blur lines between social and academic communities. But these vague spaces are also used to shape public perception and governmental policies (Supovitz et al., 2015). The social influences created by crowd sourcing of language form the backdrop for research and writing within the profession, and to some degree, influence what terms come to mean within our profession. These two examples represent the new challenges to and uses of TM in the future. We have included a focus on digital spaces as part of our presentation of TM to capture the professional conversations, adaptations, and evolution of terms that modern technology facilitates at an ever-increasing rate.
Cautions for Researchers Using Terminological Methods
The primary propose of this article has been to make the case, provide guidelines, and share the story on how TM can be used to expand the practices in qualitative research. Trusting we have adequately done so it is also appropriate to share several cautions that were borne out through our investigation of the use and impact of the term reading war(s).
The first caution should not come as a complete surprise to anyone who has undertaken a document/content analysis, a historical study, or a comprehensive literature review. Our work was dependent upon locating and analyzing hundreds of newspaper articles and columns; social media posts; scholarly books, articles, and gray matter reports; and popular press books. Having access to the collections and resources which included special databases of four academic libraries was of great support for our work. We had the depth and the breath of both human and technological resources not always available. The first caution we put forth is that the researcher should be cognizant of the tenacity of purpose required to analyze a comprehensive data set found in a multitude of resources often necessary to undertake a TM project.
Once the availability of resources is secure there is a second caution associated navigating those same data bases. Hand searching of collections is an important component of TM research, but only a first step. Our difficulties in accessing appropriate search engines could have led to piecemeal sourcing with cherry picked examples, and thus an incomplete analysis of the impact of a particular term. In our work we utilized data bases that would likely be common for academics such as Google Scholar and JSTOR, databases common to education professionals such as ERIC and ProQuest Dissertations, and databases that were new to us being ProQuest Digitized Newspapers and ProQuest Federated among others. Each database required a specific learning curve as the protocols for use were different. These resources were of great assistance, but it came clear that each database brought its own set of limitations as to what it offered. Hence, we offer the caution that a TM researcher should carefully choose the technology that assists with the search and master the protocols for each data base before beginning the search process. Here we found invaluable assistance from reference librarians in identifying databases and training in their use.
The third caution we share with researchers utilizing TM is to be aware of the principle that language is constantly changing and evolving. Any target term, its underlying concept, and its use in various forms will have evolved across time as we found with the term reading wars and are now finding with the term developmental reading. The evolvement of a term is influenced by individual factors as well as the interaction of factors with/upon each other: current or historical contexts of the sources along with the author’s dominant language and linguistic community, cultural background, economic status, profession and disciplinary allegiance. We learned that the term reading war(s) had explicit meanings but also subtle differences when used by journalists, researchers, or members of the public. More recently we find that the term developmental reading has morphed to mean the very opposite of the original meaning of the term. The third caution we share is that there is complexity in every definition built upon a complex arrangement of factors that go beyond languaging or specialized knowledge.
Another caution focuses on the variability in definitional meaning and writers’ uses of a term, particularly as it is drawn from a specialized discipline. Such might require a sophisticated level of domain knowledge to fully comprehend how the term is utilized in either a technical or figurative manner. As an example, from across the fields of special education and literacy research, the former group views the term science of reading as closely associated with the narrowly defined synthetic approach to the teaching of phonics while the latter group proposes that the meaning of the term, both currently and historically, is associated with rigorous use of research methodology to build the foundation that guides all instruction. Hence, we caution investigators to anticipate variability in how a term is used between both kindred and more broadly defined disciplines (as well as by media). Careful analysis of such variability can lead to an important finding of a TM study.
Our final caution is one that is central to the standards that guide qualitative research. We urge the researcher to be constantly aware of the two roles subjectivity plays in TM investigations. First when evaluating use or definition(s) of a term it is imperative to understand that the writers of documents are individually subjective in their uses of a term. No two writers will use a term in perfect harmony of meaning. Indeed, determining difference in use is a fundamental purpose of TM research. As noted elsewhere in this article, use and meaning are dependent upon several factors – all of import to consider when analyzing the use of the target term in a given source. On the other hand, there is the TM researcher’s own subjectivity. All researchers must be aware that any definitions or classifications that evolve through TM analysis will be influenced by the TM researcher’s worldview, professional allegiances, personal biases, and desired goals for the overall endeavor. TM is not without issues associated with subjectivity, and researchers using TM should follow the general procedures and standards that are foundational to qualitative research.
In this paper we have provided an overview of terminological methods, described an updated terminological methods process, and provided a rationale for using terminological methods. Although terminological methods have been used in multiple fields, they have not yet been included as part of the traditional canon of research methods available to qualitative researchers. We invite readers to consider terminological methods in their professional work and hope this article will serve them toward that end.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.