All fields of specialized endeavor use jargon. It's not inherently a bad thing; we need to have short-hand ways to refer to ideas or principles that have developed over years of research.
There are obvious problems with jargon, like how it raises barriers to entry--you can't read the papers of the field until you get the jargon, but you can't get the jargon until you've read enough papers, etc.
But a specific problem we've had recently (writing this paper which had better go out tomorrow or I will shriek) is with a stock phrase which is standard in our field, but slightly inappropriate for our purposes. However, because it is such a standard phrase, we fear that trying to replace it would anger or confuse our reader(s).
The reason we were unhappy with this stock phrase is that it reflects the field's history, during which a lot of research was focused on certain easily studied preparations. We work on a different preparation, which operates under different functional principles than these "canonical" preparations. However, the language of the field has been shaped by the historical research, and is therefore vaguely misleading when applied to our own findings.
In fact, one of the arguments we're making in this paper is that not only is the language of the field biased, the thinking is as well. Many people have been so focused on the "canonical" preparations that they've neglected to recognize that greater biological diversity exists (or perhaps recognized but not embraced).
Anyhow, we took a few passes at coming up with a new jargony phrase, but the effort felt akin to inventing new wheel shapes, so we gave up. Not only would most scientists prefer to use the field-approved jargon, we doubted that we could even think up a truly accurate replacement phrase. (Although perhaps we could have found one that was less inaccurate.)
In the end, while we failed to revolutionize field jargon, the discussion helped me realize that some of the jargon we use conveys not only a concept, but also a whole contextual framework in which that concept is embedded; and that our ongoing use of jargon sometimes traps us in an outdated intellectual framework.
I bet this is the sort of thing the humanities people figured out in, like, college.
ps) physiologist bonus points for guessing the phrase. two words, one hyphenated.
15 years ago
11 comments:
I have no idea what the phrase could be but i'll guess excitation-contraction coupling
Wow, this is going to be fun as we hear everyone's own jargon phrase! I have no idea what that means SM but it sounds kinda hot.
Long-Term Potentiation!
In the end, while we failed to revolutionize field jargon, the discussion helped me realize that some of the jargon we use conveys not only a concept, but also a whole contextual framework in which that concept is embedded; and that our ongoing use of jargon sometimes traps us in an outdated intellectual framework.
This is exactly correct. So, if you feel that the existing stock phrase imposes an incorrect conceptual framework on your findings, then why the fucking fuck didn't you sack the fuck up and not use it!?!?!?
Comrade--good guess....the -term is right...
We talked about it, but I lack the confidence to try to impose my/our revamped language on the rest of the field, and we're also a bit on the edge of the field and I think our terminology would just have been ignored. Ok I wimped out it's true!
So we dodged it as much as possible, used a few slight substitutions, and it only ended up in a couple of places in the manuscript (*does word search*) yes indeed, just two uses of it.
So very very very close to submission today...another couple of hours should do it....maybe....
LTP was my guess also. But given the new info... short-term memory? Not really physiology.
OK, don't know. But there are examples of the phenomenon that bug me also: e.g. using 'neuroglycopenia' to describe the effects of 2-DG administration :).
I'm so disappointed PP got it right already. . I was going to guess mother-fucking experiment.
Oh, yeah, been there.
For me it wasn't college, necessarily, but very early in grad school.
To be fair, I took more humanities in college than most scientists do. ;-)
Seriously though, he most successful people I know are the ones who dare to rename the wheel.
You can't guarantee that it will catch on, but I think it's worth the time and CREATIVITY to propose a new name.
Don't you call it something else to yourself or within your own lab? I'd say to start from there.
Sort of what PP said, only a little less bleeping!
Anyway good luck with resubmitting and hopefully getting it in this time. Fingers crossed for you.
Part of the problem with jargon such as LTP, LTD, STP, or STD is that they were originally used to describe phenomena, but have now somehow become synonymous with the mechanisms found to underlie the phenomena studied in the most frequently studied preparation--which is silly, because there are different mechanisms at different synapses that give rise to the same observed effect (and even different mechanisms at the same synapse depending on age of animal, induction protocol, etc.).
This drives me fucking nuts--I recently had a fellow grad student tell me that it's not short-term plasticity if it's not a change in release probability--bullshit!!! Short-term denotes a timescale, not a mechanism. A timescale can give you an indication of what mechanisms may underlie an effect, but the terms short-term and long-term have such large ranges that calling something short-term or long-term doesn't (and shouldn't) indicate the exact mechanism.
At least it's not like in proteomics, where everybody has to come up with a new acronym for their technique.
My most favoritist one ever was "IANUS"... I wish I remembered what it was about.
Neurostudent--you nailed it, but in light of Arlenna's comment I am planning on changing the acronym to IANUS. It won't stand for anything, just like the S in Harry S Truman, but boy it'll be the best word I ever get to use....
I just found your blog and have been reading recent-ish entries. Your bit on language conveying contextual frameworks of thought made me smile because we discuss that in my undergrad religion class all the time. FYI, this idea is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Post a Comment