I think that the question is NOT whether there are any alternative explanations, but rather whether the explanation you give is valid and also sufficient for the context in which you are using the term.  

In this case, the question is whether the definition of genocide you offer is sufficient to understand the way you use the term in your literature review, methodology, findings, and discussion.  

I would contend that by providing YOUR chosen definition, you are delimiting use of the term in your manuscript to those elements, considerations, and connotations present in your definition. 

I think that the question is NOT whether there are any alternative explanations, but rather whether the explanation you give is valid and also sufficient for the context in which you are using the term.  

In this case, the question is whether the definition of genocide you offer is sufficient to understand the way you use the term in your literature review, methodology, findings, and discussion.  

I would contend that by providing YOUR chosen definition, you are delimiting use of the term in your manuscript to those elements, considerations, and connotations present in your definition. 

scientifically speaking, if the term "genocide" is defined based on a scientific evidence or a shared agreement, we can say that the definition is ok; but, the word complete here is subjectively determined. In other words, to say that a definition of something is complete or not depends on the extent to which people are convinced about it. This is my opinion!!!

Dear Tom Venetianer,

It is often suggested that a valid definition should enjoy definitional adequacy- that is, every construct in the definition must be in turn clarified. Putting this aside, I believe you are right when you broach up the idea of refutability about definitions. Karl Weik, the German Philosopher , contends that the outcome of our experiences resulting from our interactions with the world should not be taken as if they are fixed and  absolutely true. As such, like other ideational /experiential outcomes, definitions should be subjected to a litmus test, which Popper calls "inter subjective- testability". In point of fact, a definition portrays one of the realities of life conceptualized by a certain individual. It is acceptable as long as it is not refuted by another definition.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Thank you Lydia, Michael and Reza for your excellent comments.

If I may summarize what you wrote, seemingly we are converging to the idea that a definition, no matter who formulated it, is an individual construct based on her/his conception of the term being defined, thus is subjective and within the context the person in question is willing to establish for his/her intent - proving or disapproving it.

Also, and this seems to be one very important point and as Reza put it, definitions should be subject to a litmus test of their validity/correctness and can be refuted and/or replaced by another that addresses the inadequacy of the previous.

But if I may, I would add that definitions can be well formulated but they may be incomplete, thus another definer can (should?) improve it without negating the validity of the previous one.

What do you think?

The validity of a definition is scale-dependent? How can definer A improve a definition of definer B, when definer A does not have access to the details of the scale of analysis of definer B? 

Dear Marcel thank you for your input.

You have an important point. I would say that there are cases in which A can challenge or improve B's definition even if s/he has no access to B's scale of analysis.

Take my example of defining the word "genocide" (deliberate extermination of a people or nation).. It could be improved by, for example, adding "who are perceived as a mortal threat to the genociders."

Here I am only arguing, maybe this is not a better definition then the original.

My main point when I raised this question is if from an academic standpoint, definitions can or should be challenged. Seemingly, so far, the answer is positive.

In the case of definitions social sciences can actually learn a lot from the natural sciences as in natural sciences one always has to look for definitions that are as simple as possible but are at the same time universal - but, of course, a good definition can be based on other definitions (actually, that will be the case mostly).

If one has found a good definition it should be used universally used until it is replaced by a better one - like, say, in mathematics. This is in fact the biggest advantage that the so-called "exact" sciences have over the other scientific branches - the use of universal definitions.

of course, exact sciences exist - mathematics is a good example, but this term is also defined very well, as you can see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences

Thanks for sharing. Not necessarily. Sometimes I have noticed that a clarification is needed for even a widely accepted clear definition. It may be a personal subject matter.

Regards

Maybe slightly out of topic (?).  From time to time a new word is created and 'everybody knows what it means'.  Still later such a word either disappears and is no longer used (fashionable buzz-words) or starts to be more widely recognizable and only then its various definitions are presented.  At this stage we are informed what the word really means but also what it does not mean.  This is a dynamical process with unpredictable time of full maturity.

Marek, very interesting point, not out of this question's topic.

What you wrote is true also for words invented by the high-tec technological industry. And the need to define them derives from that when writing an academic report it is extremely important to make sure that all neologisms are clearly explained/defined.

That also applies to obsolete words. For example, do you know what is a "transistor?"

If  you were born after 1980, it is quite unlikely that you will be able to answer this question. However, it is an important mark in electronics, being the precursor of all solid-state inventions that followed it..

So, in a scientific paper that will reach young members of a scientific community it would be mandatory to define what a transistor is and for what it was used in the old days (1948 on).

Thanks for your contribution

Tom

This is a bit out of the topic, but substantiates the above:

In the USA, every legal document, specially contracts, have an introductory clause which explains the meanings of or define the terms which belong to the legal jargon.

Legal jargon? How do you define 'quality' with precision?

Thank you David for your interesting aspect of the issue of definitions.

You raise a number of points which indeed are important.

If I may, (and this is just a note which does not quash or negates your comments),  along my MD term I took a discipline called "research methodology." By that time it was fully presential.  Once the instructor noted that "while writing a scholarly paper or report one should never assume that the audience is familiar with all concepts and terms employed." Her recommendation was to either use footnotes and/or create a glossary of terms that may be unclear/unknown to whoever would read that document.

More then that, still according to her, acronyms and abbreviations in such works were no-nos, unless they were really universally recognizable or the author was absolutely sure that the readers were familiar with them.

She also noted that scholarly works could and usually are translated into different languages from that of the original, so this would reinforce her recommendations.

Regards

Tom

I would say that legal jargon involving the definition of quality is important to protect consumers, but perhaps the criteria to define quality in this Framework will differ between cultures, countries, etc... For instance, a five-star hotel in country X will not provide the same services as a five-star hotel in country Y. Quality could in this case be defined via the number of stars indicated by an hotel or the true services provided. In addition, the impression/appreciation of the quality of the services received will differ between people (more or less critical), between cultures (in what conditions do they normally live), between countries, etc. I presume that law defines the rules how hotels will be classified in different categories.