INTRODUCTION

A definition describes the meaning of a word or term in a way that is exact and easy to understand. Defining terms so that they are clear is integral to reasoning and communication. Yet, despite this importance, it is difficult to find practical advice about how to craft good definitions—definitions that are meaningful, useful, and able to withstand scrutiny. This tutorial aims to remedy the situation.

As you may know, there is a vocation devoted to creating dictionaries and defining words. It’s called lexicography. Researchers like myself blow kisses at lexicographers because they make our job easier. This tutorial draws many ideas from their work. However, most lexicography publications provide little practical advice for those outside of the dictionary-making business. Guide books tend to focus on the creation of general-purpose dictionaries. They talk more about dictionary compilation and design than they talk about defining words. When discussing definitions, most authors wallow in the minutia of basic word usage and word variants. They explore arcane aspects of linguistics theory. Scant attention is given to how scholars and practitioners from various fields can improve the way they define. Little is said about terms that may contain more than one word. I intend to fill these gaps. And, as much as possible, I’ll spare you the discussion of lexemes, homophones, sememes and other sexual-sounding pieces of lexicographer-speak.

What about the research-methods literature? There are lessons here too. However, most research textbooks assume conceptual clarity. If you are familiar with the state of academic writing, you’d have to conclude that definitions tend to be very slippery indeed. Definitions used in technical professions are often full of jargon that is used absent-mindedly. And there is nothing more vapid than the typical definitions found in office documents, especially those written by habitually compromising committees. Well, there’s one thing that’s more vapid: the definitions used by business and management writers. Much of the research I’ve been doing over the last decade has been in that area and biz writers’ flagrant abuse of the language is driving me mad.

One of my day-job duties is to train young researchers. I find that, without some guidance about how to define complicated concepts, many will tie themselves into intellectual knots to the point of exhaustion. Or they’ll just adopt the first definition that resonates without critically examining what makes the definition so good. Over the years, I’ve compiled notes about how to define terms with the intention to turning it into a workshop. Then I got the bright idea of writing these ideas down here and have young grasshoppers just read the tutorial. I’m hoping a broader audience finds this advice useful.

I present the definition process as a series of nine steps. My objective is not to create a recipe. My objective is to help you think through a particular problem that I have to cope with every week—the problem of communicating your intended meaning for a particular term. I’ve summarized the key ideas into a series of questions (located in the call-out box at the beginning of each step) and summary tips (formatted as block quotations). If you want to skim read the tutorial, or quickly review it after reading, then you should jump through the questions and tips. I step you through a detailed example at the very end.

STEP ONE.
Assess the Audience’s Knowledge & Vocabulary

Who is in your audience?

What are most audience members’ knowledge of the subject area? (including views that need correcting)

What types of words must be excluded from the definition because they are probably not in the audience’s vocabulary? (e.g., jargon, regional terms, terms that are not in wide circulation)

Most communications advisors start by asking you to identify your audience. There is a reason for this. You want your messages to (a.) get your meaning across in a way that (b.) serves your goals. You may be thinking: “But my goal is to get my meaning across.” Fair enough. But conveying a message presumes that you want the audience to do something with that message. You may want to change the way others think about an issue. Or you may want them to do something with their new understanding. To those ends, communications wonks advise that you identify your core audience and speak to them specifically.

I advocate departing from this mainstream advice in one respect. You may craft your definition to resonate with a core audience. However, if your definition is a good one, it will likely be reused over and over again, transplanted from one document or presentation to another. This requires you to think a couple steps down that chain of reuse. So who will these other audiences likely be? You don’t have to answer that question with great detail. In fact, you should be interested mostly in one thing: determining how much these other audiences know about the subject.

Many people defining terms assume that audience members already understand the term intuitively. Authors of such definitions may think: “My audience already uses the term, therefore my definition only needs to tweak their understanding.” That assumes too much. Reframing the meaning of a term is about inviting your audience to take a step back to reevaluate their opinions. That involves having the audience consider the logic behind how you’ve defined a term differently.

Tip #1. Identify your core audience but write your definition in a way that is understandable to all of your likely audiences. You should think of your definition as part of an on-going conversation with your audience. That involves estimating the larger audience’s familiarity with the subject area and writing a definition that doesn’t over-estimate their existing knowledge.

All of this leads us to the main consideration: what is your audience’s vocabulary? You should only use words in your definition that your audience already knows. Or, if you absolutely need to use a complicated term in the definition, you’ll have to define that too. That is what Dirk Geeraerts calls writing controlled definitions: determining which words the audience knows on the subject and writing a definition using only those words, insofar as that is possible (2003, p. 91). In practice, this usually amounts to a conscious decision to leave out certain types of words. For example, you are better off leaving out words that are specific to a geographic region, are considered old-fashioned, or have a particular style, such as literary words (p. 85).

You can’t define your term clearly by using obscure, vague, and flowery words. Euphemism has no place in definitions either. So, as a general rule, you should be using plain words and phrases; that is, those words which are most likely to be understandable generally. (Learn more about plain language here.) There are many times when complicated words may be necessary. But you should be erring on the side of caution. Plus, if you can’t fashion a definition with plain words, there is a chance that there is a gap or error in your own thinking that you’re (consciously or unconsciously) covering up with an ambiguous word.

Even if you can assume a great deal about the audience’s vocabulary, as is the case in many highly technical pursuits, then it helps to have an alternate plain-language definition ready for when it comes time to broaden the conversation. For example, many scientists find themselves stuttering in front of a journalist’s microphone when reporting their findings to the public. Instead of cursing the cruel world for not appreciating their narrow niche, these specialists ought to learn how to define their terms using words that a broader audience can appreciate. Science popularizers are rightly praised because they do this well. The rest of us can learn something from their example.

Tip #2. Use plain words as much as possible. Your definition should not be understandable to only a narrow clique. That does not necessarily mean sacrificing precision. A definition should be understandable to the widest possible audience without having to dumb down the language. If you have to use complicated terms, make sure they’re understood by defining them too.

I’ll have more advice about how to deal with tricky problems in wording. For the moment, it is sufficient to think about crafting a definition in a way that is sensitive to the big audience, not just the small one.

STEP TWO. Determine Whether Existing Definitions Suit Your Purpose

What definitions already exist?

Does an existing definition suit your purposes? (Or can a definition be modified without too much fuss?)

When writing a new definition, how does that definition differ from what has come before? (And how can the reasons for your departure be communicated to the audience?)

A distinction is often made between lexical definitions and stipulative definitions. As the name suggests, a lexical definition comes from an authoritative source—a dictionary or other reference book—and attempts to describe the common meanings of a term. In contrast, a stipulative definition is written for a particular purpose or context. When making an argument or claim, you make yourself clear by stipulating what you mean when you use certain terms. In Western thought, this has been part of argumentation since Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greeks were fixated on identifying the attributes of salient objects in order to craft better arguments.

In practice, the difference between lexical and stipulative definitions isn’t that great. A good definition is written with regard to the way a term has been defined before. Many definitions found in ground-breaking studies are of this type. The author takes note of general-purpose definitions, analyses how other writers have defined the term, and then proceeds to offer her own definition. This hybrid is sometimes referred to as a programmatic definition.

With these distinctions in mind, the next step is to look up existing definitions for the term you intend to define. A lexical or programmatic definition may be adequate, in which case all you have to do is quote it and cite the source. Or you may want to stipulate a new definition that is a slight variation of an old one. Or you may find that several existing definitions each capture only part of the meaning you intend, and so your stipulative definition can combine these ideas. You may conclude that all existing definitions are unsatisfactory, in which case you can stipulate a new definition knowing that it is a departure from the prevailing usage.

Allow me to be a bit trite for a moment. As Isaac Newton put it, we stand on the shoulders of giants; that is, we build on the original ideas of great thinkers from the past. It’s worth investing time into looking up existing definitions and being humble about the originality of your own contribution. None of that means that you have to accept an existing definition written by an influential thinker. Many existing definitions violate the advice offered in the first step of this tutorial. I often find myself removing jargon from definitions and presenting a plainly worded alternative, even though the underlying meaning doesn’t change all that much in the process. But, that said, we should pay due deference to the hard work of others by doing our homework.

The simple act of doing your homework will make your own stipulative definition more credible. I was once tasked with writing a half-dozen definitions for a major report. These definitions had to be approved by a chamber of powerful manderines. I submitted my six-sentence list with an annex of alternative definitions. My annex indicated why I made the choices that I did. If a manderine thought that one of my definitions was inadequate, then she had three or four well-regarded alternatives to draw inspiration from. Instead of rewriting my definitions, the group accepted all of them without modification. Such a result almost never happens in such committees because executives are serial tinkerers. That is especially the case with definitions because powerful people usually see their role as the designated “framer of issues.” When faced with strong research, however, executives will often relent because they know that you didn’t just pull a definition out of your bum. If others do start tinkering, then at least you’ve informed them and the resulting definition will likely be better as a result. No matter what, don’t listen slavishly at the knee of an executive or pundit and then craft the definition around that person’s half-baked interpretation of a term.

This applies to written articles as well. When defining a term, quote older definitions and explain what you like and dislike about each one. That helps to underscore how you are trying to progress a field of study. Spelling out the logic behind your definitions also helps the reader understand your train of thought. Moreover, peer reviewers will be less likely to insist on modifications or quibble with your definition.

Tip #3. Look up existing definitions before stipulating a new one. An existing definition may do the job or may offer inspiration. Even if it doesn’t, a well-researched definition is easier to defend because the author knows the weaknesses of alternatives.

STEP THREE.
Break-down Multi-faceted Concepts

Is the term being defined a concept made up of two or more complicated concepts?

What are those other concepts and how can they be made clear?

In the research business, we make a distinction between simple and complex concepts. A simple concept encapsulates a single idea. A complex concept (or “umbrella term”) brings together several distinct ideas and labels them with a single term. In other words, a complex concept is made up of several simple concepts. If you’re writing a definition of a complex concept, you may have to break the concept down, depending on the level of generality you are speaking to.

There are several ways to break down the concept in a definition. One way is to identify the components and create a definition that is like a list, with each component spelled out. This list may be tidy enough to fit into a single sentence. When it isn’t, then present it as a bulleted or enumerated list. There is nothing that says your definition can’t be a list. The second approach is to define a complex term at a high level of generality. That means that the definition contains a number of other concepts. For some purposes, such as giving a speech, you may leave these underlying concepts undefined. Most of the time, however, you should define these other concepts too.

The term you’re defining may be a metaphor, euphemism, or analogy. You need to break down such concepts by analysing the reason for the word usage. What is the comparison being made and why is it useful? What is the unstated motive for this word choice? This involves being alert to the subtleties of language. You need to separate the figurative meaning from the literal meaning. Your definition should be as literal as possible while alerting the audience to subtle meanings that arise from the way a term is worded.

Let’s look at some examples. I have been writing about the concept of “organisational culture” lately. This is an idea from the field of sociology. Most anthropologists think that the term culture is being used metaphorically here. Sociologists disagree, as do I. The term also comes with a lot of baggage because it has long circulated as a management buzzword. Here are two definitions plucked from the literature.

Example #1. [Organisational culture] is an ordering characteristic reflected in the employees attributes and understanding, policy and practices implemented, and are frequently described as a deep, less conscious set of meanings about the context of work in an organization. (Saran et al., 2009, p. 12)

Example #2. Organisational culture is the shared rituals, norms, values and assumptions of a group of people. (based on an original definition by Edgar H. Schein)

The first definition is a disgrace. It is grammatically and logically flawed. It is written with generic catch-all terms and jargon. It contains a number of complex concepts that are left undefined. For example, how much clarity is achieved by defining organisational culture as an “ordering characteristic”? What does that mean? What does it mean to have something “reflected in the employee attributes”? The definition is a mess. And yes, it managed to get through a journal peer-review process.

The second definition is relatively straightforward. It lists a number of concepts (rituals, norms, values, and assumptions) and two qualifications (these things are “shared” by a “group of people”). Rituals, norms, values, and assumptions are common words. Yet, these words may need to be defined too. “Values”, for example, is a word often used by politicians in a loaded way (as in “family values” or “national values”). A term like “values” has more than one meaning. It may be confused with similar words, such as “principles”. The various meanings may be conflated in people’s minds. Adding a companion definition (e.g., “And by ‘values’, I mean …”) may be necessary to avoid confusion.

Note that, if a term isn’t a complex concept that summarizes a tidy set of underlying concepts, then it doesn’t need to be broken down. Lexicographers call the underlying concepts hyponyms. In this case, rituals, norms, values, and assumptions are hyponyms of the word culture. If the list is small and complete, then your decision to break down a concept may be the right decision. However, if you’re breaking the concept down into a very long list of examples, which may or may not be complete, then you’re on the wrong track.

Cognitive psychologists have long understood that we think in terms of hyponyms. However, the construction of these semantic hierarchies can be quirky. They don’t necessarily correspond to the prevailing wisdom. For example, biologists will tell you that sparrows, bluejays, flamingoes, ducks, and penguins are all examples of birds. Most of us automatically think of sparrows, bluejays, and flamingoes as falling directly under the category called “bird”. Ducks and penguins are birds too, but they are not as typical. When we were taught about ducks and penguins as children, it was pointed out to us that they are atypical in some way. We learned those words before we were taught about sub-species of birds. So, we tend to organise these concepts differently in our minds. We do not automatically think of these less typical cases as part of the subset called “birds”—at least not in the first few moments of pondering them.

Tip #4. Avoid writing a definition for a complicated concept that is full of other complicated concepts. If that’s unavoidable, then define the other concepts too. If you use a word that has multiple meanings or connotations, and the intended meaning isn’t made clear by the context, then avoid those terms too (or define them).

This is a big challenge for experts. Experts often don’t pay attention to the complicated concepts they put into their definitions because they are too close to the subject matter. When a scholar politely says to you, “Let’s unpack that concept,” he means that the term you’re using needs to be broken down into components, with each component made clear. My advice is a way of preempting this objection.

STEP FOUR.
Choose A Narrative Format Before Brainstorming

Is the term simple enough for the meaning to be communicated with a few synonyms or examples? If so, what are they?

If not, what are the properties and characteristics that something must have (or not have) before it can be labeled with the term? How can this be turned into a description?

What subtle meanings are provoked by the term? Are these relevant to the definition?

So far, I’ve assumed that you will be writing your definition in the form of a full sentence. I think that a full-sentence definition is ideal because it forces the author to clearly indicate that they are stipulating a meaning. Plus, the full-sentence definition can be quoted easily. However, that’s not the only way to define a term. Multiple sentences can be used. Or you may define something with a simple phrase. Indeed, if you look at a typical dictionary definition, it is not a complete sentence. That’s why dictionary writers reserve the term normal definition for a phrase, whereas a complete sentences is called a sentential definition.

There are other approaches available to you. As mentioned, a definition can include a list of descriptors which may be contained within a phrase or sentence. They can be turned into a bulleted or enumerated list.

A very pragmatic approach is to define by example. These should be architypical examples, which is to say very typical ones; in other words, you are using exemplars to help a person understand what a term means ideally. The best way to use exemplars is to combine them with a descriptive definition in order to further clarify. Yet, in some cases, only the exemplar is required.

I mention these different narrative formats because they dictate how you think about and research the meaning of a term. Definitions that are in the form of brief phrases are often just a couple of synonyms. That involves thinking about all of the synonyms for a word and listing a few that are closest to the meaning that you intend to communicate. That is usually enough for very basic words or if you’re speaking in generalities. Most definitions attempt to describe the necessary properties or characteristics of a term (the “defining attributes”). Thus, you have to think about all of those characteristics that something is required to have and not have before it can be labeled with the term. That is a very different thinking process. Finally, defining with exemplars involves thinking of examples and sorting them according to how typical they are, or how they sort into distinctive types. Again, this is a different thinking process.

For some purposes, you may need to take the distinction between descriptors and exemplars a step further. There is a difference between defining a term by intention versus defining it by extension. Defining by intention requires that you list all of the properties or characteristics of the subject. For example, “a bird is an animal with a beak, two wings, feathers, … and so forth.” Defining by extension requires that you list all of the cases or examples that fall within a particular group. For example, “ducks, penguins, blue jays, ostriches … [full list] … are all ‘birds’.” These exhaustive approaches are particular useful when developing classification schemes that group things according to very discrete (mutually exclusive) definitions.

When you’re going through this process, it is often necessary to think about the emotional meanings of a term, or the feelings provoked by using a word. For example, a word might be considered derogatory, or masculine, or jokey. Likewise, the suggestive meanings, or connotations, need to be accounted for. Some audiences may interpret a word differently than other audiences. The subtler meanings of a term may influence your choice of wording or may signal the need to insert an additional qualification (such as an adjective, adverb, or clause) into your definition.

Tip #5. A couple of synonyms or a very typical example may be enough to communicate the meaning of a term. However, most of the time you will want to use full-sentence descriptions. That requires you to think about the required characteristics or properties that something must have (or not have) to be labeled with the term. You should also be mindful of the subtler meanings suggested by the term because they may influence the wording you choose.

STEP FIVE.
Consider Your Points of Reference

Is the term you’re defining a minor variant of another concept that the audience already knows well?

Is the term you’re defining a special exception to another concept the audience knows well?

How can the term be defined relative to these well-known words?

You can often define a concept by making a connection to a concept that audience members already understand. Indeed, cognitive psychologists have long known that we learn by drawing connections between new ideas and ideas that are already stored in our minds. There are several ways in which you can do this.

When a term is broadly understood but you want to define a minor variant, you can simply describe those variations. That’s what it means to define with differentiæ or differentiators. For example, “A duck is a bird with webbed feet and has a bill instead of a beak” and “A penguin is bird that can not fly and is native to the far south of the planet.” In both cases, the definition assumes that you already know what a bird is. Indeed, these definitions assume you have a typical bird in mind when the word “bird” is invoked.

Another approach is to define a term inclusively or exclusively. An inclusive definition describes a term as a special case of another term. An exclusive definition describes a term as not being a version of another term because of a special reason. To illustrate, I’ll use an example from the field of Canadian public administration.

Example #1. Like all arms-length agencies, a Parliamentary Agency is a type of government organisation that has a great deal of political independence. A Parliamentary Agency differs from other arms-length agencies insofar as it is directly accountable to the House of Commons instead of a Minister.

Example #2. A Central Agency is not an arms-length agency because it has very little political independence from a Minister and the Cabinet.

The first is an inclusive definition and the second is exclusive. Notice that the first definition doesn’t assume that the reader knows what an “arms-length agency” is, so it mentions it’s defining attribute (political independence). But the definition does assume the reader knows what a Minister, House of Commons, and Cabinet is, which is a weakness if the audience is unaware of the institutional context. The approach is a particularly useful way of distinguishing between concepts that have similar names or are easily confused with one another. This type of definition is most effective if mentioned along side a more conventional definition, particularly if you want to highlight one aspect of a term.

Tip #6. If the term you’re defining is a variant of a well known concept, then you can define by describing the distinction. If the term is an exception to a well known concept, then you can define by describing the reasons for the exception. You need to be sure that the audience understands the concept that the definition refers to. Otherwise, that concept must be defined first.

STEP SIX.
Consider How The Term Has Evolved Or Acquired Multiple Meanings

What are the origins of the term? How has the meaning of a term changed over time?

Does the term have a dated meaning you’d like to update? Conversely, is there a forgotten meaning that you’d like to revive?

Do different groups use the term differently? Can these interpretations be combined in a way that captures your intended meaning? (e.g., between different occupational groups or academic disciplines)

Words and terms don’t come out of thin air. They are coined by people and redefined by others. The meaning changes over time as populations use the term. Many things happen along the way. Terms acquire political and emotional baggage. They acquire multiple meanings. They get fuzzier or, conversely, get associated with a narrow agenda. Terms die. Terms are reborn. Terms are abused and misused. So the way that a term is used at one point in time can have a different meaning at another point. That’s how languages evolve.

The study of word origins and evolution is called etymology. Etymologists are word nerds—I say that lovingly—who ponder how a term has evolved since its origins. You may want to define a term in a way that retrieves some long-lost meaning. Looking at the ancient meaning of the root-words of a term may reveal interesting insights. You may want to associate or disassociate your definition from the way a term was understood within a particular era. You may want to complain about how a term is being misused or misunderstood. That’s where etymological definitions come in handy.

Example #1. Crony is a term that was coined at Cambridge University as slang that, at the time, meant long-standing friend. It is derived from the Ancient Greek khronois, meaning “long-lasting”. The word has since developed a pejorative connotation and is used to indicate an unseamly favouratism between close associates, regardless of how long they have been acquainted.

Funny how that works: the original meaning has only a slight baring on the contemporary usage. That curious evolution might be a good story that you can tell along side your definition.

This method can also be used to describe different meanings that have evolved in different places. Or it may be useful to simply draw attention to the way the same term is used by different groups of people.

Example #2. In North America, pants are an outer-garment worn on the lower part of the body to cover the area between the waist and ankles. In Britain, pants are an under-garment worn below the waist that covers the mid-section around the genitals and buttocks.

When conducting research across disciplines, it is often necessary to discuss how a term has a different meaning in different disciplines. Understanding how the term evolved in each discipline is part of the analysis. An interdisciplinary definition attempts to bridge a disciplinary divide by conveying a definition that people within each discipline will recognize. A good interdisciplinary definition also retains the relevant nuances introduced by the different specializations.

Tip #7. Look up the origins of a term. If feasible, look at how the term has evolved. You may discover an insightful meaning or story that you’d like to mention to your audience. You may discover groups that view a term very differently. That may offer additional insights.

As a side-benefit, when you mention the origins and evolution of a term, you will seem more learned. If you acquire an interest in etymology, then you will become more learned.

STEP SEVEN.
Consider Adding Imagery To Engage The Visual Mind

Would your definition be more exact if you used both words and images? (e.g., an illustration, photograph, or diagram)

If you are defining something complicated, is it easier to use an image that shows the relationship between the parts and the whole?

It used to be common to include an illustration as part of a formal definition. For example, the original Encyclopidie by Diderot & d’Alembert (1751-72) made extensive use of illustrations because the first readers (wealthy aristocrats) had very little first-hand knowledge of many of the subjects in the book (such as the practicalities of crafts and trades). Without an illustration, it was extremely difficult for these laypeople to imagine what the text referred to. An image—be it a photograph, illustration, or diagram—can describe some things more exactly than words. An image of some things can be interpreted faster than a block of text. Usually, an image plus words does the best job of communicating meaning. You occasionally see imagery in definitions, such as this illustration of a heart.

This is a typical black-and-white technical illustration that you will find in dictionaries.

There are other types of illustrations that can be used. Werner Hupka wrote a noteworthy essay (2003) on precisely this topic. Hupka lists several different illustration types that can help define a term. I’m going to focus on six of them, starting with these three.

The first illustration (the single or simple illustration) depicts a lamb. According to Hupka, such illustrations can depict objects, facts, processes, or actions. Note that this illustration is depicting an archetypical example. So the same logic that applies to exemplars applies to this type of illustration. Also notice the style of the illustration. The illustration isn’t as accurate as a photograph. Yet it also isn’t so stylized that you can’t recognize a real lamb if this illustration is your only guide. For purposes of defining simple objects, my recommendation is to avoid highly stylized illustrations, such as cartoonish drawings. Also avoid distracting details and embellishments. Keep the illustration straightforward and clean.

If you find that there is a wide variety of items falling under a term, then you may want to illustrate several of them to give the reader a sense of the range. That’s where the enumerating illustration comes in. In this particular case, given the variety of sword styles in existence, it is impossible to show every one. Showing the main types may be sufficient. When you see the range, you understand the defining features: it’s a weapon; it has a blade; the blade is long, unlike a knife; there is a handle; the hand holding the handle is partially protected by a piece, although that piece has a very different shape depending on the sword; and so forth. It follows that the curve and thickness of the blade, for example, do not have a bearing on the definition.

The third illustration (the sequential illustration) shows how processes, events, or actions unfold. This type of illustration can also be used to describe objects when a simple picture does not adequately show the defining features. Consider the neck tie example. You could define a four-in-hand knot with words but I suspect that the audience would have a hard time understanding you, especially if they have no first-hand experience with tying neck ties. If an audience does know how to tie a neck tie and they are familiar with the windsor knot, then you could describe the four-in-hand knot relative to the windsor knot. That, too, would be awkward. Showing a simple illustration may show the audience that a windsor knot is wider and more symmetrical, but these may be superficial differences. The particular way that the cloth of a tie is intertwined is the defining characteristic of a knot type. Thus, showing the stages of how the knot is tied reveals the defining characteristic in a way that doesn’t make assumptions about the audience’s knowledge.

The next three illustration types help to define more complicated items; items where the component parts may be important characteristics to include in the definition.

The structural illustration labels several parts of a larger object. Sometimes a definition is made clear by discussing the relationship between the parts and the whole. For example, if you were to define the term pupil, it would be difficult without first describing what an eye is. It may also be useful to distinguish between a pupil and an iris because the audience may get the two confused. This type of illustration doesn’t just show what something is but shows where it is relative to other objects the audience member may be familiar with.

Sometimes an item may be a “black box”; that is, a complicated object with inner workings that define it’s function, yet those inner workings are hidden from view. Breaking the item apart—”exploding it”, so to speak—allows the viewer to see all of the parts and learn about the function of each. That’s where the functional illustration comes in. The illustration above depicts an oil filter. The definition could state the purpose of the oil filter (it’s part of an engine) and, in reference to the illustration, discuss how the individual parts operate together. A functional illustration does not have be “exploded”. Nor does the object need to be “cut away” (having a surface-segment removed to show the innards of something, as if were sliced open). If the surface features show the object’s function, then it is simply necessary to indicate how they operate as a unit.

If an item is very complicated and not self-contained (unlike a machine or machine part), then a more sophisticated diagram may be required. This moves beyond simple labels and pointers. Symbolic indicators —arrows, flows, links, groupings, and so forth—show how the parts of something form a larger whole. Notice how the example illustrated above is more stylized than the others. Indeed, the scale of each of the devices in the illustration isn’t the same. The more abstract and diffuse and object being defined is, the more stylized (less literal) the diagram becomes. Indeed, I could have drawn this particular diagram in a very symbolic way, such as the following diagram.

Although highly symbolic diagrams are acceptable in many cases, I advocate using diagrams that attempt to show the item being defined in some sort of pictorial way, like the original diagram illustration. These are often called information graphics or infographics. Such diagrams are easier for audience members to imagine compared to a sterile diagram made up of basic shapes.

The diagram is a particularly useful technique for defining items that can’t be seen all at once. We usually can’t see an entire computer network at a single moment. Yet we may be familiar with the individual parts. Thus, drawing the connections is illuminating. In the case of the computer network, you can also see the variety of devices that may connect together. Thus, the audience gets a better sense of how multi-faceted a particular term or concept is.

I could add a few more illustration types. I could also go on endlessly about using visuals to aid understanding. The discipline of information design combines words and images in a calculating way to describe and explain things. I encourage you to learn more. In the meantime, heed this advice.

Tip #8. Use imagery if the subject is difficult to describe exactly with words alone. Oftentimes, an image is all that’s required to make your point. Make sure you are not using imagery that is too stylized (such as cartoonish imagery) if you are trying to define something in a very literal way. The more abstract the concept is, however, the more stylized your imagery will likely become.

Besides aiding cognition, there are other reasons to use illustrations. Definitions that use imagery are more memorable. Images break up the monotony of text and are more likely to get noticed. We rely heavily on visual media to communicate information these days. It helps to have illustrations at the ready when we want to present information using these media.

The popularity of visual media has made inexpensive imagery widely available. Stock-photography and illustration Web sites offer inexpensive imagery for quick download and legal use. Digital photography, scanners, and drawing programmes have made it easy to create your own imagery. The Internet makes it easy to contract illustrators for inexpensive custom-jobs. Old excuses for excluding imagery no longer cut it.

STEP EIGHT.
Check for Lapses in Logic and Clarity

Does your definition make sense logically?

Are there any leaps in logic or circular meanings?

So you’ve crafted a definition. You think it’s pretty good. Don’t pat yourself on the back just yet. You need to apply some checks. The first set of checks relate to the internal coherence of your definition. That’s where the discipline of logic offers some guidance, although I hope you’ve been crafting your definition logically up to this point.

First, did you use a term (or part of a term) in it’s own definition? If so, then you’ve failed. (Insert sound of game-show buzzer.) In the field of logic, that error is called a tautology. A tautology means that you’re repeating yourself in a way that obscures your meaning. For example, “A medical procedure is a procedure conducted by people trained in medicine.” Some tautologies are inherently contradictory: “A car is a vehicle with four wheels, although not every car has four wheels.” This error should be obvious. Yet I find it everywhere. Usually the problem occurs when a term is composed of two words. The author is focused on defining one of the words and absent-mindedly inserts the other word into the definition. For example, “A medical procedure is a procedure that attempts to heal a person.” Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Likewise, if you make two separate definitions dependent on each other, then you have created a circular meaning. For example, “A bird is a duck with a beak. A duck is a bird with a bill.” That’s another lapse in logic because your set of definitions is self-referential. Even if the terms used are well understood, it’s still bad form.

Of course, your definition should be grammatically correct. There is one grammatical error that suggests a fundamental mistake in logic. If you are defining a noun, make sure that your definition is based on a noun. If you’re defining a verb, make sure that your definition is based on a verb. If this is not the case, then another game-show buzzer should sound.

Tip #9. Check for logical inconsistencies and grammatical errors that suggest logical inconsistencies. Don’t use a term in its own definition. Don’t make two definitions dependent upon one another. Nouns are defined with nouns. Verbs are defined in a way that may use nouns, but rely on another verb (or verbs).

STEP NINE.
Test People’s Understanding of the Definition

What does a sample of your audience think about your definition?

Do different parts of your audience understand the definition differently?

Given that your definition is expected to be understood by an audience, test the definition by asking for the interpretations of a small sample of audience members. This is the second type of check you need to perform—the check of a term’s real-world understandability. You don’t have to conduct elaborate focus groups or the like. This can be a very casual process. But you shouldn’t just check the term with your immediate colleagues, or others who are too close to the subject matter to offer a detached or disinterested opinion. The test should include those who are not familiar with the jargon you and your colleagues use.

You may want to check to see if the definition depends on the context in which it is presented. For example, is the definition meaningful only if the audience member reads the passage of text that appears immediately before the definition? Do members of some groups understand the definition while members of other groups do not? This is a check to see if the definition is self-contained. If the definition is dependent on a longer explanation, then perhaps you should change the definition so that it’s meaning is encapsulated in a sentence or two.

Tip #10. Ask a sample of your audience for feedback about your definition. If your meaning isn’t clear to them, then you need to make changes.

EXAMPLE
Defining “Cloud Computing”

Now that we’ve covered each step in detail, lets review by taking a look at a fuzzy concept that needs a better definition. Again, here are the steps.

The term I will define has been mentioned a lot in the popular media in the last few years. The term is cloud computing. It’s from the fields of computer science, information technology, information technology management, and high-tech industry. There seems to be some frustration with the ambiguity of the term. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently published an article entitled “Overuse of the Term ‘Cloud Computing’ Clouds Meaning of the Tech Buzz Phrase” (Worthen, 2008). I found several like-minded articles from the punditry. These are potentially helpful commentaries that I’ll refer to later. A quick check of an article database (e.g., EBSCO, JSTOR, or Emerald) should reveal this type of article fairly quickly (assuming you have access to such a database). Plenty of doubting commentaries are available on the Web too. One article claims: “Ask any five [information technology] specialists what cloud computing is, and you’re likely to get five different answers.” (Kay, 2008) That smells like an opportunity to me.

I’m going to pitch this definition to a broad audience. I usually provide advice to managers and executives, who tend to be older than the median age of the population in most economically developed countries. That means that I shouldn’t assume the audience has a strong familiarity with computer jargon. Even if I were targeting a young audience, I wouldn’t want to make too many assumptions about their knowledge. Many adolescents and young adults refer to “cloud computing” but do not perceive it as all that different from “conventional computing”, whatever that is. It’s all a mishmash to them. That suggests an “inside-the-fishbowl/outside-the-fishbowl” problem: the fish swimming in the water do not perceive the water and, therefore, don’t know what water is; those outside of the water have little experience with the water and, therefore, don’t know much about it either; yet both groups come from different vantage points that you may have to speak to in order to make yourself understood.

My early investigations tell me that the term is used by tech-geeks who are not shy about dumping jargon into their definitions. No surprise there. I’ll have to cope with that. Plus, some business interests are deliberating trying to stretch the boundaries of the term. These companies try to rebrand their products and services using the very fashionable term, whether or not the term is accurate. I’ll have to cope with that source of noise too.

It’s time to look for existing definitions. Given that the term is fairly new, many traditional reference books won’t include it. Some time must pass before a term becomes popular enough to be deemed worthy of inclusion. Each dictionary and encyclopedia has its own set of decision-rules for determining inclusion. Academic publications have little to say too because the publication cycle is a slow one. Frustratingly, many bloggers, magazines, and trade publications don’t include a definition of the term for the opposite reason: the term has been bandied about long enough that writers assume their readership understand it. We’re in the eye of the storm: the initial fad has crashed through and broken everything, yet the mainstream guides have yet to arrive on the scene to tidy up. Roll up your sleeves.

I’ve come up with examples from several types of source. I won’t claim that my search was anything close to exhaustive. Yet each of these definitions is telling for one reason or another.

Example #1 (web encyclopedia). Cloud computing is a style of computing in which typically real-time scalable resources are provided “as a service” over the Internet to users who need not have knowledge of, expertise in, or control over the technology infrastructure (“in the cloud”) that supports them. (Wikipedia.org, February 2, 2009)

This definition is presumably intended for a general audience, yet it is full of jargon. Some of the jargon is footnoted but the footnotes contain equally cryptic companion-definitions. The phrase “real-time scalable resources” is a howler because it’s three buzzwords in one and, if you know what it means, you’d have to conclude that it isn’t very relevant (it’s a minor technical detail, at best). The definition is also tautological because it includes one of the words of the term. Does the audience know what is meant by computing in this sense? The computing part of the definition is rather critical, it seems to me. This definition is very typical of those developed by a quarrelsome committee.

Example #2 (computer vendor). The definition of Cloud computing is the use of a 3rd party service to perform computing needs on a publicly accessable IP basis. [1]

This is a vendor definition. As noted, this is the type of definition we should be wary of because of the rampant commercial opportunism surrounding the term. The phrase “3rd party service” is the most opportunistic part (it basically means “buy from a company”). This is an incompetent definition for other reasons. Again, it’s tautological. The inclusion of an acronym is a sure sign of expert hubris. Does “IP” stand for “Internet protocol”, “integrated planning”, “intellectual property”, “information processing”, “in person”, or “Ipswich postal-code”? Terms like “on the basis of”, “with regard to”, and “with respect to” are signs of weaselly wording. Avoid these connector phrases (and, again, invest some time to learn about plain-language usage).

Example #3 (trade publication). Cloud Computing describes a system where users can connect to a vast network of computing resources, data and servers that reside somewhere “out there,” usually on the Internet, rather than on a local machine or a LAN or in a data center. Cloud computing can give on-demand access to super-computer-level power, even from a thin client or mobile device such as a smart phone or laptop.” (Kay, 2008)

We seem to be getting a bit closer here. The author has defined cloud computing as a system that includes a “machine” that is “local”, as distinct from a “large” and “vast” source of “resources”, “data”, “servers”, and “power” that is elsewhere (“out there”). This definition is somewhat hyperbolic (“vast” and “super-computer-level power”), jargonistic (“on-demand access”, “thin client”, “resources”, and “data center”), and vaguely indicative (“out there”). But we’re getting closer to identifying the underlying concepts. Again, there is an acronym (LAN). And if you have to bracket a pivotal phrase with quotation marks (“out there”), then you’ve probably chosen the wrong phrase. That’s a sign that the author is resigned to conveying only the gist of a term.

Example #4 (business consultants). Cloud computing refers to the sourcing of some capability—hardware, software, execution of a business process—from somewhere “out there.” The users of the capability don’t know and don’t care exactly where it comes from or how it’s put together, much the same way a grateful farmer in a drought doesn’t know or care which cloud a given raindrop comes from. (Swaminathan, 2008)

I had a good chuckle when I canvassed the business consultancies and found this definition. After reading it, I hope you get a sense of what I have to put up with on a daily basis. Cloud computing is about … “the sourcing” … “of some capability” … [any type of capability] … “from some where” … “out there.” And Mr. Swaminathan calls himself as a scientist. Tisk, tisk. It’s not exactly the model of scientific precision.

Example #5. (blogger) Cloud Computing is the realisation of Internet (“Cloud”) based development and use of computer technology (“Computing”) delivered by an ecosystem of providers (Sam Johnston, 2008).

There are a lot of definitions of cloud computing in the blogosphere. Few bloggers are as ambitious as the bloke who wrote this definition and (questioningly) dubbed it a “consensus definition”. The original article deserves credit for breaking the definition down, phrase by phrase, and offering justifications for each. Equally praiseworthy is the author’s list of definitions of similar terms that are often confused with cloud computing. He even used a diagram to describe his definition in technical detail. All of this is very good form.

This definition has its shortcomings, however. The mixing of metaphors is the most troubling one (an “ecosystem” is part of a “cloud”?). Metaphors are too slippery to include in a definition, although they can serve as a companion to a definition to help convey a connotation. They are a big no-no if the term itself contains a metaphor. Given that both metaphors relate to the natural environment, there is an added confusion as the reader wonders whether there is some sort of literal connection being made (“Clouds are part of a natural ecosystem, so why is the author telling me that it’s the other way around?”). Environmental metaphors are just so darned de rigueur these days. The term “realisation” is also a problematic catch-all term given that it is the noun that anchors the whole definition. So many meanings exist. Is it the achievement of something? Or the embodiment of a set of things? Or the form that something takes? These are all possible meanings. None of them is precise. That’s what makes “realisation” such a good weasel word. And that’s why politicians love using it.

I could go on but I’m getting diminishing returns from my search. Normally, I dive deep into the literature in order to find that perfect peril. After finding so little consensus and no outstanding articles on the subject, however, I conclude that it’s time to write my own definition. Tally-ho!

Let’s break the concept down. Our look at the literature suggested a few things about how to go about doing this.

First, one of the words in the term is a metaphor. The word “cloud” suggests several things about the nature of this technology. It is “up there” or “out there” or “away from” the beneficiary, much like a cloud is a distant object. It is perhaps diffuse, like clouds spreading across the sky. It is light, as opposed to something heavy and cumbersome that has to be carried around. It is part of the background that we can readily see when we want to, much like clouds are when we look in the sky (when it isn’t a clear day). As Worthen (2008) suggests, there is an additional connotation. Clouds have a whimsy that helps make the notion of cloud computing not seem intimidating, even among those who find computers intimidating or frustrating. Thus, the term conveys an “approachable” technology.

Some have suggested that cloud computing is a meaningless notion because of the metaphor. To the contrary, the suggestive meanings of the metaphor indicate a great deal. Suggestive meanings are inherently imprecise but they help explain why the term is very catchy. Popular coinages are often metaphors of this kind. The term cloud computing has some interesting connotations indeed.

The other term, “computing”, is literal but very general. The technology involved in “cloud computing” processes strings of ones and zeros just like every other computer does: nothing different there. But we’re speaking at a higher level of abstraction. The definitions I’ve cited have mentioned computer programmes, computer infrastructure, and computer systems, among other things. This is the level of abstraction in which cloud computing can be thought of in a tangible way.

There are a couple of underlying concepts that need to be considered. Let’s look at the substance of the term.

In computer science, on the topic of computer networks, an important distinction is made. It’s the distinction between server and client computers. A server is a computer that links other computers together and makes the sharing of data possible on a broad scale. For example, the computer delivering this Web page to you is a server. It doesn’t matter where the server is located. I’ve stored this tutorial there and you’ve accessed it with a more commonplace type of computer somewhere on planet Earth. Your computer may be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a mobile phone, or a hand-held Internet device (et cetera). These computers are the client computers; that is, computers that are directly accessible to the average users. A “thin client” is a client computer that doesn’t have much power and functionality. Yet, such a computer may appear to have a great many capabilities because of the way that it links to a powerful server—the server does most of the work and delivers data to the “thin client”. These are crucial distinctions because cloud computing involves relying more heavily on servers. The client computer (the one you are sitting in front of) may be powerful, yet cloud computing involves a reliance on servers nonetheless.

The involvement of both clients and servers is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of cloud computing.

Let’s talk history. This type of relationship between computers has existed for a long time. In the earliest days of computer networks, “thin clients” were as thin as possible. They were so thin that they were called “dumb terminals”. Indeed, computer scientists used to call it a “master-slave” relationship. But the so-called Personal Computer (PC) Revolution changed everything. Desktop and laptop computers became extremely capable. These computers (the clients) could connect with each other to form networks. To the extent that servers were involved, they did relatively rudimentary functions to exchange data between the client computers. The World Wide Web was then invented. That allowed servers to run programmes that were very useful, doing so with very little burden on the user. For example, the user didn’t have to install a programme on a computer in order to use it. The programmes could be updated without the user’s involvement. These programmes on the server are accessed by the client computer using a Web browser, such as the the browser you are currently using. As time goes on, more and more programmes on clients are accessing data stored on a server.

But this isn’t what the term “cloud computing” is reserved for.

Early on, these “server-side” applications were mostly used by businesses and governments. Access was (and still is) tightly restricted in such cases. Cloud computing is usually reserved for the popular usage of this type of technology through the Internet. As everyone was given access to these server-side applications—and novel applications were invented—it gradually came to be considered something new. Each of us could access e-mail with an on-line application (such as G-Mail or Yahoo! Mail). We could write documents using on-line word processing programmes (such as Google Docs). We could post photos onto servers so that other could easily see them (with services like Flickr and Mobile Me). We could put other forms of data on servers (such as the contact information of our acquaintances). New services are emerging all of the time. The data that these services use may or may not be on your client computer. But a copy is put on the Web so that these server-side programmes have access to it. This opens up new possibilities for sharing data with others. It opens new possibilities for accessing your data where ever you happen to be located.

Some people felt that we needed a new term for that. Hence: cloud computing.

In sum, we need to communicate the notion of accessing, from a variety of devices, programmes that run on a server. That’s a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be labeled cloud computing. The programmes have to be accessible to the masses via the Internet. This is something that gives ordinary people greater opportunity to access their documents and data, regardless of where they are.

I could have discussed a number of technical developments that made this technology possible. If I were talking to a technical audience, those developments may be germane to the definition. For a broad audience, crafting a good definitions is about knowing what can be left out without doing violence to the term.

So what did I just do? I just broke down the big concept into its defining elements. In this case, I didn’t have to break the concept down into hyponyms. My breakdown is focused on looking at the workings of the technology (in historical perspective) to identify it’s most salient features. If the term refers to something technically complicated, you need to understand that thing very well before you can define it. That’s why I stress the importance of doing your homework.

Tip #11. Know the thing that you’re defining very well. If that means doing extra homework about the technicalities involved, so be it. Those technicalities will probably not be included in the definition but they will inform the definition. Avoid inserting technical details that are of secondary importance because those are an unnecessary distraction.

We now need to find a way to articulate this technical terminology in a way that is tidy, broadly understandable, and exact.

What narrative form will this definition take? I usually write full-sentence definitions. If the sentence becomes too unwieldy, then I will break it down into a list or add companion definitions. Synonyms and examples are not appropriate as a primary definition because this is a fairly complicated term. There are many popular examples that we will want to use in support of our definition, however. Many audience members have first-hand experience with this technology, even though they are unfamiliar with the term. Examples may help to draw the connection between their experience and the term.

Before crafting a sentence, it helps to list the characteristics that something must have or not have in order to be considered a case of cloud computing. I prefer to work using sticky notes. That allows me to add and subtract ideas, as well as move them around, during the brainstorming process.

This collection of sticky notes gives you some idea about how I separated the individual components in my mind. I’m not committed to the wording at this point. The wording will almost inevitably change as I’m crafting the actual sentence. Here’s a first attempt.

Cloud computing is the use of an Internet-connected device to run programmes and manipulate data that are located on computers elsewhere.

There is a risk that this definition encompasses another (unrelated) form of computing called remote computing. That’s when a person uses a computer to directly command another computer via the Internet. For example, you may be traveling with a laptop and forgot a file on your desktop computer at home. Remote computing allows you to access the home computer and retrieve the file, provided you have the right software installed. By mentioning “Web servers” or “Internet services” I might get around that problem. However, I have to be careful about introducing too much jargon into the definition. I’m also concerned about using the broad term “manipulate” as a substitute for storing and retrieving data (or files).

In my second attempt, I’m going to try to make the definition more specific without lapsing into jargon. I’m also going to add some clarifying examples.

Cloud computing is the use of an Internet-connected device to run programmes and manipulate data that are located elsewhere (on computers called Web servers). For example, cloud computing includes using a laptop computer to run a Web-based e-mail programme or to post photographs to a Web-based photo-sharing service.

We’re getting closer. Using Web-based e-mail and photo-sharing services are the most popular examples of cloud computing, so I’ve used those. In some cases, it may be useful to cite examples of specific programmes and services, such as Google’s G-Mail or Yahoo!’s Flickr services. These may be more familiar to audience members. Those can be added in parentheses.

I’m thinking that this definition can be made more precise with the use of differentiators. The current definition uses the term “Internet” to differentiate cloud computing from more restricted forms of server-side computing (such as using a company’s computer network to host applications). This distinction is debatable. For example, Gibson (2008) argues that the main differentiator is that cloud computing uses self-serve Web applications, which is a slightly different way of putting it. I’m not sure Gibson is correct because people are increasingly storing and retrieving data located “in the cloud” using programmes that aren’t Web browsers (e.g., through iPhone applications). Moreover, by adding the term “Web servers”, we have also excluded notions such as “remote computing.” However, we might want to make these distinctions more apparent. That involves breaking the definition into two parts: a general definition and an important qualification.

Cloud computing is the use of an Internet-connected device to run programmes and manipulate data that are located on computers elsewhere. The computers located elsewhere are Web servers dedicated to delivering services over the Internet, as distinct from servers in an organisation’s internal computer network. For example, cloud computing includes using a laptop computer to run a Web-based e-mail programme (such as G-mail or Yahoo! Mail) or to post photographs to a Web-based photo-sharing service (such as Flickr or Picasa).

That definition explicitly excludes a type of network computing that is often confused with cloud computing. There is still something missing from this definition. Perhaps we could add a tertiary sentence explaining why the Web servers are called “The Cloud.”

Cloud computing is the use of an Internet-connected device to run programmes and manipulate data that are located on computers elsewhere. The computers located elsewhere are Web servers dedicated to delivering services over the Internet, as distinct from servers in an organisation’s internal computer network. These Web servers are collectively referred to as “The Cloud” because, from the user’s point of view, they seem distant and intangible. For example, Cloud computing includes using a laptop computer to run a Web-based e-mail programme (such as G-mail or Yahoo! Mail) or to post photographs to a Web-based photo-sharing service (such as Flickr or Picasa).

Four sentences may seem too long. I haven’t imposed any length restrictions on myself. I’ve also written a core definition in one sentence that is expected to stand alone. Using the first sentence alone may be suitable for many purposes. The existence of the other qualifications, however, makes that definition more precise and easier to grasp. Trying to fit all of those ideas into a single sentence will just create an unintelligible run-on sentence. This modular design is more flexible. It is more akin to the definitions found in encyclopedias.

[Sentential Definition:] Cloud computing is the use of an Internet-connected device to run programmes and manipulate data that are located on computers elsewhere.
[Technical Qualification:] The computers located elsewhere are Web servers dedicated to delivering services over the Internet, as distinct from servers in an organisation’s internal computer network.
[Qualification About Terminology:] These Web servers are collectively referred to as “The Cloud” because, from the user’s point of view, they seem distant and intangible.
[Clarifying Example:] For example, cloud computing includes using a laptop computer to run a Web-based e-mail programme (such as G-mail or Yahoo! Mail) or to post photographs to a Web-based photo-sharing service (such as Flickr or Picasa).

Although the definition may be close to complete, we still have four more steps that may prove useful.

Looking up the origins of the two words in cloud computing is not helpful in this case. There’s no reason to speak of cloud as a derivation of the Old English word clud, meaning “mass of earth.” That’s irrelevant. Cloud is used metaphorically and refers to an archetypical fluffy white cloud. Nor is it worth breaking down computing into it’s root word computer, a French term derived from the Latin computare, meaning “to reckon.” That’s the wrong level of abstraction. Thus, I’ve focused on nuances in the modern usage of the term.

That’s not to say that a bit of historical analysis can’t be useful. My research suggests that the term became considerably more popular after the company Amazon used it to describe one of its products. We know that a company called NetCentric tried to trademark the term in May of 1997. According to John Willis, an employee of Google named Eric Schmidt used the term as early as August 1996 (Willis, 2008). There is a citation on Wikipedia that shows the term “cloud” was used as early as 1993 to describe how self-serve banking machines operate. That doesn’t exactly fit the current meaning. It does suggest that the cloud metaphor is a popular way of thinking about accessing data from various convenient locations, with that data stored somewhere remote and unknown. That may be an original meaning that is not tied to the World Wide Web and Web programmes. I might cite this example if I were defending a broader, more generic definition of cloud computing.

Thus, multiple meanings have been associated with the term. Most of these, however, are the opportunistic meanings assigned by businesses. I’m mostly concerned with making sure these meanings don’t contaminate my definition unless it’s clear that a particular meaning has had a major influence on popular thinking. The use of cloud computing by Amazon helped to popularise the term but does not seem to have change the prevailing meaning (as vague as that has been).

Given that the definition refers to cloud computing generally, an image may help animate the term in people’s minds. Showing a picture of Google’s G-Mail or Yahoo!’s Flickr services may help to illustrate the examples. However, such pictures don’t fully capture the meaning of the definition. The best type of illustration is probably the diagram.

Notice that there is an enumerating illustration within the diagram. There are many types of devices that can be used for cloud computing. Thus, it is useful to show several examples of some of the typical devices that are used. I would have to label each type of device if audience tests determined that the illustrations are too stylized.

This diagram also adds information not present in the definition. The diagram shows that Web programmes and data “run inside” programmes on the client computers. The client programme is usually a Web browser, another programme that has Web-browser functionality, or (increasingly) another programme that drags data off of the servers. Knowing the technicalities of how this happens isn’t necessary—that’s too much detail. In most cases, the Web programme “runs inside” a Web programme in a fairly literal way; much like a client programme “runs inside” an operating system such as Apple’s Macintosh operating system. There is no abuse of language there, it seems to me.

I’m prepared to argue that are no logical lapses in this definition. The presence of the word “computer” in a definition about “computing” is not a problem. I am specifying a commonplace object that is analytically distinct from the process that is being described. If you don’t think so, then the two qualifications clears up the meaning of the term. And if that still isn’t satisfactory, then I could just use the term “Web server”. I think that’s too much jargon given the way I’ve defined my audience but I acknowledge that others may disagree. Alternatively, I could use a generic term like “machine”, but that seems a bit too vague.

I am still a bit uncomfortable with the term “manipulate”. That strikes me as too much of a catch-all term. However, there are many computational functions that would fall within the term if I spelled them all out. It would be more than just “access” and “store”, even though those are the only ones I’ve mentioned. Moreover, this is a growing list as the technology evolves. If I were presenting this definition to a group to scrutinize, I would point out this potential weakness. Others could then offer suggestions. It’s more important to get things right than to be right.

After doing my internal-coherence check, I would ask others about their interpretations. I would probably ask a technically versed audience to make sure that my definition doesn’t make a technical mistake. I would also ask a variety of users, from experienced to inexperienced ones. Asking people of different ages would be part of that.

CONCLUSION

I’ve listed nine steps to help you improve the way you define terms. I’ve also discussed an example in great detail. The point is not to create a perfect definition. But this tutorial does help you think through the process of defining a term in a systematic way. Even if the definition isn’t accepted by others, then you have carefully considered your choices and can defend them.

I like to think of these steps as a way of thinking about ambiguous terms. After stepping yourself though the process a couple of times, I think you’ll find that this analytical approach becomes second nature.

By Peter Stoyko

NOTES

[1] This definition comes from an on-line glossary called “Glossary of Dedicated Server Hosting Terms” by a company called ServePath, which is in the cloud computing business. [www.servepath.com/support/definitions.php; accessed on February 2, 2009].

REFERENCE