3 Ways to Balance Prescriptive Vs. Descriptive Approaches When Defining Controversial Terms
Defining controversial terms can be a delicate balancing act between prescriptive and descriptive approaches. This article explores effective strategies for navigating this linguistic tightrope, drawing on insights from leading experts in the field. Discover how to strike the right balance between clarity, accessibility, and the ever-evolving nature of language usage.
- Balance Definitions for Clarity and Accessibility
- Combine Formal and Practical Perspectives
- Navigate Tension Between Standards and Usage
Balance Definitions for Clarity and Accessibility
The balance comes from recognizing that prescriptive definitions set boundaries while descriptive ones reflect lived use, and both are necessary for clarity. An instructive example arose when managing a client's content strategy around the term "sustainability" in fashion. The prescriptive view emphasized strict criteria such as verified supply chain transparency, fair labor certification, and quantifiable reductions in waste. The descriptive side showed that customers often used "sustainable" more loosely, applying it to anything from durable materials to secondhand resale platforms. If the brand leaned only on the prescriptive framing, it risked alienating customers whose intent was genuine but less technical. Yet leaning too heavily on the descriptive risked diluting credibility. The solution was a layered definition: leading with the standards the company upheld, but also acknowledging broader consumer language and showing how the brand fit within that spectrum. This dual framing preserved authority while keeping the message accessible to the wider audience.
Combine Formal and Practical Perspectives
Balancing prescriptive and descriptive approaches is always a challenge. I encountered this while developing a glossary for a tech ethics initiative and had to define the term "AI bias." Prescriptively, we wanted a clean definition—"systematic unfairness in algorithmic outcomes"—but descriptively, the field used it much more loosely, covering everything from unintentional data skews to outright discriminatory design. In the end, I included both perspectives: the formal definition alongside notes on how practitioners commonly use the term. This compromise made the glossary both precise and practical, giving readers clarity while still reflecting the complexity of real-world debates.
Navigate Tension Between Standards and Usage
The balancing of prescriptive and descriptive approaches generally means that there is a tension between how a term should be used and how it actually is used in everyday language. While the prescriptive definition attempts to establish boundaries and enforce norms, the descriptive approach reflects real-world usage. This raises the question: When does clarity require structure, and when does inclusivity require flexibility?
A good example of this dilemma is the term 'affordable housing.' To create a standardized threshold, policymakers often link it to a percentage of area median income. Descriptively, however, we see that communities use it more flexibly, for instance, relating it to local families' perceptions of whether they can afford rent or mortgage payments. The conflict arises when the official standard designates housing as affordable, but residents still can't afford to live there. An appreciation of both viewpoints facilitates more honest debate, even if it complicates policymaking.
