One of the things I want to do is avoid what I (provocatively) refer to as "sweatshop theory." I don't think it serves us well to do work that is not accessible to people, but is built on the backs of people. In chatting with my colleague, he mentioned that he writes for reviewers. That seems like a very prudent strategy. But it is not mine. I realized I write for my participants. When I write, I imagine them reading it. This is probably common for those who have done lots of participant observation and member checking, but I don't think I had articulated it until recently.
And so, in this vein, I want to start building a lab lexicon that makes the terms I am exploring accessible. Here is a start:
how the materials “talk back” to you as you work with them.
What do these puffballs tell you to do?
how you decide what parts of a problem matter and what parts you will work on.
getting stuck on an idea or an assumption about how something “ought to be.”
how you plan, monitor, and evaluate everyone’s understanding as you work on a problem.
a “wicked” problem that has multiple possible solutions.