naming the proposed "Recipes" system

[Jeffrey Warren]

We've been cooking up (har har) a new interface for SpectralWorkbench where users would be able to post step-by-step instructions on how to do specific tests, for example oil pollution testing, specific types of food testing or soil testing or anything else. 

Each "recipe" as we've envisioned it, would list the materials you need, estimate the time it'd take, and list a # of steps, each of which could be illustrated with an image and could include references/links to more information about that step. Each might also display comments for feedback from folks trying to put the recipe into use.

Stevie and I were talking about the name of this feature, and weren't sure if it should perhaps be named for its close parallel to the "Methods" section of a scientific paper, or called "Protocols" as it might be in a formal lab. I liked "Recipes" because (as an enthusiastic cook) food recipes very accessible, illustrated, stepwise, and usually include a list of ingredients and timeline. But would calling this system "Recipes" be confusing or ambiguous? Is it better to name it after the practice in formal science which we are modeling?

We'd love your input!

Jeff

[Dave Stoft]

While a recipe is just a non-scientific protocol the term usage points to a more important difference. I believe a protocol generally assumes the materials and related procedure have been reviewed in some way, like peer review, such that their validity and repeatability is assured. A recipe tends not to evoke such standards. This is why cooking is such an 'art' even though 'kitchen chemistry' suggests a recipe should always produce the same result. Even when the ingredients of a recipe are 'correct' the procedure may be missing sufficient detail to accurately reproduce the expected result. This is much less true with scientific protocols. Eg: Recipe: "Cook on medium till done..." vs Procol: "Heat at constant 345 deg-F in-pan surface temp for 4.5min..."

Perhaps you could use both terms. User entries would start their lives as recipes and only when full baked (validated or peer reviewed) would they become protocols.

Cheers,
Dave

[Jeffrey Warren]

My hesitation had been that: 

* Methods is a bit generic -- it could even mistakenly evoke JavaScript methods :-/

* Procedures and protocols both sound a bit... unfriendly. To me, I mean! I don't mean to say we should make new friendly names for everything, but a recipe is pretty darn close to what we're going for, so it's not much of an adaptation. I'm just not super happy when people use terms that indicate membership in a cultural group when another term can serve so easily. 

Maybe with this in mind, we could simply choose from "methods", "procedures" and "protocols" the one that sounds the most accessible. I def. understand reluctance re: "recipes" but does anyone else like the term?

[Dave Stoft]

From a practical perspective, the choice of term is probably secondary to the quality of the 'recipe'. From least precise to most precise terminology, 'procedure' is probably in the middle, easy to understand, has common usage and is more 'friendly' than protocol but less 'kitchen/food' intonation. So, whichever, but I still think the more important factor is annotating how well 'cooked' a procedure is.

[Robert Dyer]

Hello all,

 

To provide a context, let me say I'm a relatively new person to the Public Lab.

 

Personally I don't like the term "recipe". While I do acknowledge that being part of a cultural group is valuable, I think it's not the primary consideration in this instance. The thing that has most impressed me during my time here is the incredible knowledge and wisdom present in the members of this list. It's way more than a bunch of malcontents sitting around their kitchen table complaining about the problems in the world. This group is supporting people who are trying to do something about the world with knowledge, high-quality, accessible tools and constructive help.

 

In this new (at least new to me) age of crowd-sourcing, the Public Lab appears to me to be a highly credible scientific element in our culture. And while I wouldn't want there to be a sense of narcissism about that, I wouldn't want a sense of false-humility either.

 

Recipe seems to me to ignore the true brilliance of what happens here, and possibly is a bit too self-deprecating. And while "procedure" may be a bit sterile, it appears to me to incorporate best what's being created...IMHO.

 

Robert

 

---

From: "Jeffrey Warren" <je...@publiclab.org>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:50 PM

--
Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com
 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 

[William Macfarlane]

I really like: "instructions" or "howto," both of which are both obviously technical, but also common in day-to-day life -- like LEGO instructions, or game instructions.  And "howto" is a common open software term, which is also nice.  

"recipe" is nice in lots of ways, but it sounds like the goal is a tangible product, rather than data or process, so it's vaguely confusing to me.

--
Post to this group at publicla...@googlegroups.com

 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publiclaborato...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

-Will
www.partsandcrafts.org

[Mathew Lippincott]

I like Dave's distinction between a peer-reviewed or otherwise vetted protocol, and a 'recipe' someone has just whipped up.  As we develop testing protocols that we're trying to use to prove a pollution case, this distinction will become even more important.  I would like to see us develop protocols, and given that that's the word the EPA uses, I think we should use it somewhere.

I'm into the term recipe, but also see the point that it seems overly folksy or humble. what about 'process?'
it seems self explanitory to say "share your step-by-step process." and we can have a clear system for moving from a process to a protocol.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Simon Sevier <youre...@gmail.com> wrote:

For context, I'm also new.

I like Methods best of the words so far although there may be something else worthwhile out there. Recipes sounds a bit hokey and like someone pointed out, it kind of suggests an over humble approach. In it's own way its kind of jargony to call something a recipe that is not a recipe. Although I fully understand the analogy, it might be confusing for new users/members.

"How-to" sounds to set-in-stone. One of the focuses, and most perhaps difficult to grasp concept for some people, is the fact that all the procedures and equipment are in research mode all the time with PublicLab. Calling it how-to or instructions suggests, as some people have called it a "fully baked," protocol that was designed by the person who made the device that cannot be changed and should definitely absolutely work.

Maybe the word "instructions" with a qualifier "malleable instructions" or "instructions-in-progress" but neither of those, something like that but better. I'm not great with words.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrometry+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 

--
Post to this group at publicla...@googlegroups.com
 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to publiclaborato...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

-Will
www.partsandcrafts.org

[Don Blair]

Great discussion here!  

I'm hearing a (productive and difficult to resolve once-and-for-all) tension between using accessible terminology that doesn't alienate people, on the one hand; and, on the other, recognizing that formal language, while less accessible, can allow for making useful and important distinctions that are otherwise hard to make.  There's the further recognition tha formal terminology often serves as a powerful 'tool' in its own right. 

For example, the words 'data' and 'evidence' are certainly less accessible than the words 'numbers', 'notes', or 'recordings', which could be used instead.  Internally, a community monitoring group might ask one another for the latest 'numbers' from a given activity -- especially when trying to make the process less intimidating for new community members.  But the same group might like to be able to refer to their 'evidence' and 'data' when presenting to the EPA.  

It seems that one reason for such a rich and complex set of responses to this question of terminology is that we're attempting here to anticipate a fairly wide and diverse range of technologies, methods, audiences, and hoped-for outcomes.  

So: who, actually, are the intended users of these tools?  What are their expectations?  What do they find alienating, appealing, useful? What audiences do they intend to reach with the information they collect?  What are their hoped-for outcomes?  I'd love to have better, fuller answers to these questions ... 

On this list already, I see contributions from people who are working with:

- researchers with an extensive and formal background in science who would like to pursue 'open technology development'

- young adults in an alternative education setting

- community groups with members who have a diverse array of science and education backgrounds, some of them without any formal science training

And some of the interests of these folks include, I think:

- middle-school science education through exploration and tool building

- developing novel low-cost monitoring techniques

- collecting data with accessible tools that can be used in court cases or presented to the EPA

- using DIY tool building as a focal point for community engagement and activism

These short lists are already very diverse;  the proper balance between 'accessible' and 'powerful' will vary widely among people with such different backgrounds and goals. 

------

In the end -- and I guess here I'm simply applauding the exploratory process that Jeff initiated here, and which others have so nicely contributed to -- such decisions about terminology are likely best decided in a 'grassroots' manner, in which community members employ, and sometimes create, whatever terms they find most useful.  Some of us can write up 'recipes'; some of us can write up 'protocols'; and, over time, we can each of us employ whichever terms best meet our various needs on the diverse array of projects in which we're engaged.

-----

For my current DIY conductivity probe trials, I might employ the term "Tribulations".

Or "Confusions", as per Hagit's suggestion just now ...

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeffrey Warren]

Haha, what great input from everyone! 

I guess I'm leaning a bit more towards Methods than I was previously. I still like Recipes, but Protocols seems like it could cause even more confusion than Methods -- Hagit, your provided definition of Protocols is more common these days, but the one I had in mind was:

> n. The plan for a course of medical treatment or for a scientific experiment.

There are so many more definitions of the word! Favorites include:

• n. A preliminary draft or record of a transaction.
• n. The forms of ceremony and etiquette observed by diplomats and heads of state.
• n. A convention not formally ratified.
• n. The minutes, or rough draught, of an instrument or transaction.

I also love Tribulations/Confusions -- maybe we can have an easter egg (have you found the one in MapKnitter2?) which changes the name on the site, to remind us that we're shaping vocabulary and to keep our sense of humor sharp.

Jeff

[Dave Stoft]

Great discussion so here's a slightly different perspective. Hope it helps.

If I'm not mistaken, PLab is based on science but with a goal to help make science more accessible. This means teaching the proper use of science terminology, concepts, tools, methods, procedures, etc. It does not mean altering science to find some least common denominator. Science is about precision but it is not exclusive by it's nature -- it is simply about accuracy at all levels of understanding. Science is neither biased nor arrogant -- even though sometimes there are practical failings.

If someone originates a recipe, that is fine if that is what it is; a recipe. But a recipe does not connote a scientific protocol. A scientific term, and its meaning, may be new to users but their learning about that difference will be a credit to them and to others. IMHO, there is too much tendency to dumb-down science to make it "accessible" but I think this does a disservice to those seeking to be involved. The only requirement when working to use accurate scientific terms is transparency. Asking a new user to submit a new protocol is accurate (though it maybe sounds daunting) but explaining that it is like writing a recipe with every ingredient and step in detail, so it can be repeated by others with the same result, is then being transparent and helpful.

Again, IMHO, I see the term differences as:
- Sequence - a list of steps
- Recipe - a list of materials and a sequence which leaves room for creativity in the end result
- Method - a set of guidelines describing a technique but without assigning an exact end goal; i.e. the "scientific method"
- Procedure - a sequence of steps to attempt to accomplish a task which might have an end goal
- Protocol - a set of materials, methods and procedures which have been validated to achieve a repeatable end result

Each has it's own use and so should probably not be used interchangeably. Hospitals have protocols, not recipes, to keep patients alive and well. However, I believe all of these terms are not difficult and are accessible though a few may simply be new for some.

Cheers,
Dave

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 2:50:22 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Warren wrote:

Haha, what great input from everyone! 

I guess I'm leaning a bit more towards Methods than I was previously. I still like Recipes, but Protocols seems like it could cause even more confusion than Methods -- Hagit, your provided definition of Protocols is more common these days, but the one I had in mind was:

> n. The plan for a course of medical treatment or for a scientific experiment.

.......

[Jeffrey Warren]

I echo Don's thoughts about vetting -- it's a serious question for us as an initiative: what authority do we rely upon -- or better, construct ourselves -- to consider something to have "passed stated QA/QC requirements". Although I hear Dave's points on the ideals of science, I think it's easy to underestimate how in practice, science today *is* often exclusive, biased, etc. 

But I think the answers aren't impossible either; we just need a means for people to critique and/or vouch for these methods, and to work to ensure that such critiques are evidence-based, not authority-based or simply defensive of traditional expertise. Of course in some cases, ensuring that a method meets a formal authority's QA/QC reqs is tactically important as well -- say, the EPA's requirements. 

Also I want to push back on the idea that this naming, and more broadly speaking our work towards accessibility, means that we should dumb things down. I think our attention to the very infrastructure and construction of science, and the structure of participation, can result in a *more* nuanced and rigorous refinement of science practice that rises above traditional conventions. 

To me, the point of carefully selecting names is to critique and improve on the status quo, and an acknowledgement that science practice is not successfully serving many needs in our society. Our version should be better -- more precise, more integrated, more inclusive, more rigorous!

That said, it sounds like we could do "Methods" and be sure to create a venue/interface for expressing productive critique or support for these methods as they are refined. A highly rated method might eventually meet our own definition for "protocol"!

Thanks again, everyone!

Jeff

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Don Blair <donb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Some of the really thought-provoking questions I'm hearing brought up in this thread:

(More folks chime in, please -- this is such a great discussion!)

- Are formalized and fixed 'standards' and 'protocols' useful in 'community science'?  How would they be used?

- Is it useful to be 'vetting' certain techniques?  How would this vetting be accomplished?

I'm trying to think this through myself with some examples [1,2], and I'd love to collect more of them to guide my thinking.

Cheers,

Don

[1] 

I find a very detailed recipe online for making donuts online
I see that the recipe has 4 stars, and seven positive comments.
I follow it to the letter, and make a dozen donuts.
The donuts turn out awful.
A friend scolds: "You just followed a random donut recipe online? What were you thinking?"
I reply:  "But it had 4 stars, and seven positive comments!"

[2]

I find a very detailed recipe online for detecting arsenic in my well water.
I see that the recipe has 4 stars, and seven positive comments.
I follow it to the letter, and my test tells me that my well is free of arsenic.
I end up with severe arsenic poisoning.
A friend scolds: "You just followed a random arsenic testing recipe online? What were you thinking?"
I reply:  "But it had 4 stars, and seven positive comments!"

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Gwill Jones <gwill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just to put in my humble contribution.

Could you consider the wording "Draft instructions" rather than "instructions-in-progress". Personally I think that "Draft instructions" are a more precise form of wording than "instructions-in-progress"; I can't see the instructions themselves progressing.

Gwill - Guillaume 123

[Mathew Lippincott]

We should be instrumental in our choice of vocab; what corresponds with an existing community of practice and also is understandable to our community? Scientists don't use consistent vocab: EPA protocols, for instance, are called 'methods.' 

I want to submit again that 'process' and 'procedure' are used interchangeably in science and 'process' sounds less intimidating.

'method' and 'protocol' are used interchangeably, and method is less intimidating.

So I propose we create a system for documenting a 'process' and a means of vetting that to create stable 'methods.' 

I'm not going to dive into the authority/vs evidence debate. I'm with Jeff, its strategic to engage in existing QA/QC protocols so we should.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[Yagiz Sutcu]

So, we will not use research notes anymore to post what we do?

Am I missing something here?

-yagiz

[Jeffrey Warren]

no no, of course we will. The idea here is not a write-up of your work, but a procedure that guides someone else (or yourself) through a process one step at a time, saving the data for you as you go. It's like a multi-step form which might prompt you to calibrate, scan, add to a set, compare, and run macros on your data, and displays a finished overview of the process when you're done. You or others might use this procedure over and over, to standardize the steps you use in your work. 

Naming aside, this idea is still being developed, but it's a good question how it differs from research notes! I guess the biggest things are that it's interactive, and that it records and compiles resulting data. 

Jeff