While it is common practice in the health field to use validated descriptors available in thesauri or glossaries, in other fields it is apparent that researchers use the terms they feel are most appropriate. By ignoring accepted terminology, their work may fall off the radar of database searches. An example of this is the choice of keywords that are not associated with validated descriptors. As a direct consequence, literature reviews in some areas, particularly in the social sciences, may produce results with increasing levels of error. I believe that this issue should be the subject of further reflection and debate.
Your observation raises an important point about the use of validated descriptors and terminology in research across different fields. While it is true that in the health field, using established descriptors from thesauri or glossaries is common practice, it may not be the case in other disciplines.
In some fields, researchers may choose to use their own terminology or terms they feel are most appropriate for their study. This can be due to various reasons such as the emergence of new concepts, evolving terminology, or the unique characteristics of a particular context being studied. However, as you rightly mentioned, there can be consequences for not using accepted terminology.
Importance of Validated Descriptors
Using validated descriptors has several advantages. Firstly, it enhances the findability of research. Validated descriptors are often linked to standardized vocabularies and indexing systems used in databases, making it easier for researchers to locate relevant studies in literature searches. This improves the chances of their work being discovered by other researchers and contributes to the overall visibility of their research within the academic community.
Secondly, using established terminology facilitates effective communication and understanding among researchers. When researchers adhere to a common terminology, it becomes easier to build upon existing knowledge, compare findings, and establish connections between different studies. This promotes collaboration and the advancement of knowledge in the field.
Individual Context and Flexibility
However, it is also important to acknowledge that research is a dynamic process that evolves with the changing needs of different disciplines. Some fields, such as the social sciences, may have more diverse and context-specific research topics that require flexibility in terminology selection. Researchers in these fields often draw from different theoretical frameworks and conceptual perspectives, which can lead to the use of non-standardized keywords and terms.
It is crucial to strike a balance between adhering to established terminology and allowing for flexibility in research. While embracing new terminology is valuable in advancing knowledge, it is also important for researchers to be mindful of the potential consequences, such as reduced discoverability of their work.
Reflection and Debate
The issue you raised regarding the potential impact of not using validated descriptors in literature reviews should indeed be a subject of further reflection and debate within the research community. There needs to be ongoing discussions about the trade-offs between using established terminology and the flexibility required in certain fields. Researchers, professional societies, and database creators can collaborate to find ways to bridge this gap and explore innovative solutions.
Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that research remains accessible, discoverable, and robust, while also accommodating the evolving nature of knowledge production across various disciplines.
- Badges
- Science topic