To be honest, to make a project like this, I want to have a clearer understanding of the language we are using. So far, I have a growing list of terms I have referred to repeatedly, and they need to be defined in order to ensure there is standardisation and consistency as the journal grows. I don’t think definitions should be decided by one person alone (me); ideally, it should be co-designed or evidence-based where needed, with plenty room to question and challenge the underlying assumptions we have of these terms. 

This will also help because we still haven’t fully settled on how to classify Reconcile Journal. Is it a publication? A platform? A traditional journal? At the moment, what we call ourselves is fluid and responsive to the context we are in, which works for now, but need clarity as we start to seek funding 💰.

Solution: sort a list of terms into two categories. Terms to define with the community collaboratively, and terms to define via research evidence. 

My approach for collaboration on definitions is to create a shared online space, invite anyone to come along, and use a Miro (or Mural?) board to gather our thoughts. For the evidence-based terms, a literature review should suffice (sometimes even a dictionary search might be enough). 

Intended outcome: a co-created ‘terms of reference’ resource to anchor what Reconcile is doing, that might help other people building projects from scratch too.

*will continue adding to this list over time, and will also be defining the research side of the list simultaneously.

Have you ever created a ‘terms of reference’ resource? Would love to hear of any blueprints or processes from others who have done it.

Amberlee from Reconcile Journal

[email protected] | personal website