The terms covered by the AntConc query ‘homoerot*’ showed that the use of the words homoeroticsm or homoeroitic was mostly limited on the discussion of theatre plays, musical shows, literature and poetry, and similar or related topics. See for example:
- If Mr. Winston never answers that “delicate, perhaps crucial, biographical question” that his widow sidesteps in her Afterword, he examines Mann’s homoeroticism more candidly than any observer has before. “Never in his whole life was he to admit openly to that defect,” Mr. Winston records, “except in the deep privacy of his diaries.
- His [Paul Cadmus’] work, frankly erotic, often homoerotic, has ever since been identified with controversy — a later picture, titled “Sailors and Floozies,” again stirred up a ruckus, this time at an exhibition in San Francisco.
This section, if it does not contain much information regarding the discourse on homosexuality during the early HIV/ AIDS crisis, sheds some light on the usability of a hybrid methodological approach. Especially the first example (the text glossing over Thomas Mann’s homosexuality by calling it a defect) could only be found by a qualitative, closer reading of the text, since the position of ‘defect’ is too far away from the position of ‘homoeroticism’ and thus the quantitative approaches could not catch it. However, only a text-mining approach in combination with an electronic search for the relevant terms could make this discovery viably possible.
 “Books of the Times.” New York Times 8 Dec. 1981: C/13. Print.
 Brown, Joe. “Capturing Cadmus.” Washington Post 14 Nov. 1984: Style/D9. Print.