285 lines
17 KiB
JSON
285 lines
17 KiB
JSON
{
|
||
"name": "Protocol Bicorder",
|
||
"schema": "bicorder.schema.json",
|
||
"version": "1.2.6",
|
||
"description": "A diagnostic tool for the study of protocols",
|
||
"author": "Nathan Schneider",
|
||
"date_modified": "2026-02-21",
|
||
"metadata": {
|
||
"protocol": "Citizen-led spatial imagination and prototyping for the Wild Ravine in Lublin",
|
||
"description": "This protocol describes a citizen-led process of fieldwork, dialogue, spatial imagination, and prototyping around the Wild Ravine in Lublin. \nIt seeks to reveal the ecological, social, and civic potential of the place and to make this potential legible within urban decision-making.",
|
||
"analyst": "Andrzej Mazur",
|
||
"standpoint": "I entered the process as an invited participant and local resident, and introduced myself as a research-practitioner and commoner. After the official presentation, I continued developing the vision of the Wild Ravine through a citizen-led process of spatial imagination and prototyping, increasingly framing public space as democratic infrastructure. My standpoint is therefore engaged, participatory, and situated within both the invited municipal process and the emerging grassroots process.",
|
||
"timestamp": "2026-05-02T18:58:35.216Z",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
"diagnostic": [
|
||
{
|
||
"set_name": "Design",
|
||
"set_description": "How the protocol is created and remembered",
|
||
"gradients": [
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "explicit",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Design is stated explicitly somewhere that is accessible to participants",
|
||
"term_right": "implicit",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Design is not stated explicitly and is learned by use",
|
||
"value": 6,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is becoming increasingly explicit through several artefacts: the student prototype presentation, the Legislative Theatre / civic budget application, the OIDP conference proposal.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "precise",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Specified with a high level of precision that eliminates ambiguity in implementation",
|
||
"term_right": "interpretive",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Ambiguous design, allowing participants a wide range of interpretation",
|
||
"value": 6,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is interpretive, but not completely open-ended. The Wild Ravine should remain semi-natural rather than become fully urbanised or over-designed. However, this principle does not prescribe a precise implementation.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "institutional",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Design occurs through processes controlled by powerful institutions",
|
||
"term_right": "vernacular",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Design occurs through evolving community interactions",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is mostly vernacular. It is not controlled by a formal institution, although it interacts with municipal planning procedures and university-based service learning.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "documenting",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Intended to document or validate activity that is occurring",
|
||
"term_right": "enabling",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Intended to enable activity that might not happen otherwise",
|
||
"value": 8,
|
||
"notes": "Documentation matters, but mainly as a way to support and strengthen further action.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "static",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Designed to be as fixed and unchanging as possible",
|
||
"term_right": "malleable",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Designed to be changed by participants according to evolving needs",
|
||
"value": 8,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol evolves through participation and remains anchored in the idea of the Wild Ravine as a semi-natural commons and as public space supporting democratic life.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "technical",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Primarily concerned with interactions among technologies",
|
||
"term_right": "social",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Primarily concerned with interactions among people or groups",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is primarily social. At the same time, it is mediated by spatial artefacts, architectural arrangements, and the material affordances of the Wild Ravine. It is therefore social, but strongly socio-spatial.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "universal",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Meant for global adoption across different communities",
|
||
"term_right": "particular",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Tailored for a specific community",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is rather particular, because it is rooted in the specific place, community, ecology, and planning conflict of the Wild Ravine in Lublin. However, it may generate a transferable pattern for other cities: using citizen-led prototyping to recognise the potential of places before they are reduced to technical planning problems.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "durable",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Designed to be persistently available",
|
||
"term_right": "ephemeral",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Designed to vanish when no longer needed",
|
||
"value": 3,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is not yet durable as an institution, but it is clearly oriented toward durability.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"set_name": "Entanglement",
|
||
"set_description": "How the protocol relates with participant agents",
|
||
"gradients": [
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "macro",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Operates at large scales involving many participants or broad scope",
|
||
"term_right": "micro",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Operates at small scales with few participants or narrow scope",
|
||
"value": 4,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is place-based in origin, but city-scale and system-facing in its trajectory.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "sovereign",
|
||
"term_left_description": "A distinctive operating logic, not subject to any other entity",
|
||
"term_right": "subsidiary",
|
||
"term_right_description": "An operating logic under the control of a particular entity",
|
||
"value": 3,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is largely sovereign in its operating logic. It is not controlled by the municipality or the university, although it is entangled with both.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "self-enforcing",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Rules automatically enforced through its own mechanisms",
|
||
"term_right": "enforced",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Rules require external enforcement by authorities or institutions",
|
||
"value": 4,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol requires continued care, articulation, and coordination.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "abstract",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Participants learn the protocol by studying it intellectually",
|
||
"term_right": "embodied",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Participants learn the protocol by physically practicing it",
|
||
"value": 6,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is partly embodied and partly abstract. It draws on situated knowledge — informal paths, access points, terrain, barriers, spontaneous use, and ecological continuity — but translates this knowledge into maps, analyses, visualisations, and design proposals.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "obligatory",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Compulsory participation for a certain class of agents",
|
||
"term_right": "voluntary",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Participation is optional and not coerced",
|
||
"value": 9,
|
||
"notes": "From my standpoint as a new commoner, participation in this protocol is highly voluntary. I recognise, however, that from the standpoint of students, one layer of the same protocol may be connected to coursework or service learning.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "flocking",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Coordination occurs through centralized direction or direct mimicry",
|
||
"term_right": "swarming",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Coordination occurs through distributed interactions without central direction",
|
||
"value": 9,
|
||
"notes": "From my standpoint, the protocol feels like distributed civic emergence. It grows through conversations, artefacts, resonances, and voluntary connections rather than central command, although the student/design layer had a coordinating academic frame.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "defensible",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Strong boundaries and protections against external influence",
|
||
"term_right": "exposed",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Weak boundaries and vulnerable to external influence",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol leans toward exposed. It has a clear civic orientation, but weak formal protection. It can be ignored, selectively appropriated, or reframed by stronger municipal and planning processes. The presentation, maps, analyses, and design artefacts make it more visible and defensible, but they do not yet provide a stable recognition mechanism.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "monopolistic",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Excludes the use of other protocols with similar purposes",
|
||
"term_right": "pluralistic",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Interoperates with other protocols and does not exclude their use",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol connects different forms of knowledge and action, but keeps clear boundaries against reducing the Wild Ravine to road infrastructure.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"set_name": "Experience",
|
||
"set_description": "How the protocol is perceived in the context of its implementation",
|
||
"gradients": [
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "sufficient",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Adequately meets the needs and goals of participants",
|
||
"term_right": "limited",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Does not, on its own, adequately meet the needs and goals of participants",
|
||
"value": 6,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is generative, but not sufficient on its own. It reveals the potential and produces valuable design artefacts, spatial analyses, and civic imagination. However, it remains limited because it does not yet ensure municipal recognition, implementation, long-term stewardship. It needs a stronger interface with formal planning and civic coordination.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "crystallized",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Content or meaning are settled and widely agreed upon",
|
||
"term_right": "contested",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Content or meaning are disputed or under debate",
|
||
"value": 5,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol’s meaning is becoming more crystallized but municipal recognition and translation into formal decisions are still unresolved.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "trust-evading",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Minimizes the need for trust among participants",
|
||
"term_right": "trust-inducing",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Relies on or cultivates trust among participants",
|
||
"value": 8,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol relies on trust, dialogue, situated knowledge, and shared care for the place.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "predictable",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Produces expected and consistent outcomes",
|
||
"term_right": "emergent",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Produces unexpected or novel outcomes",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol has a process scaffold, but its outcomes are not predetermined. New meanings, relationships, interventions, and pathways of recognition are expected to emerge through participation.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "exclusion",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Creates barriers or excludes certain participants",
|
||
"term_right": "inclusion",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Reduces barriers and includes diverse participants",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "Inclusive in intention, but still dependent on access, time, confidence, and civic connection.",
|
||
"shortform": true
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "restraining",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Fosters experiences of absurd complexity, alienation, and powerlessness",
|
||
"term_right": "liberating",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Enables participants to carry out desired activities with less work or thought",
|
||
"value": 8,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is strongly liberating from my standpoint. It enables civic actors to move from passive reaction toward active prototyping, public storytelling, intervention, and recommendation-making. However, it is not fully liberating yet, because it still operates within a complex institutional environment and depends on whether the city recognises the outcomes as more than symbolic participation.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "dead",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Not actively utilized by relevant participants",
|
||
"term_right": "alive",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Actively utilized by relevant participants",
|
||
"value": 7,
|
||
"notes": "The protocol is clearly alive, but is not yet widely institutionalized; its vitality depends on whether the next stages lead to recommendations, monitoring, municipal response, and continued stewardship.",
|
||
"shortform": false
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"analysis": [
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "hardness",
|
||
"term_left_description": "The protocol tends toward properties characterized by hardness",
|
||
"term_right": "softness",
|
||
"term_right_description": "The protocol tends toward properties characterized by softness",
|
||
"instructions": "Take all the 'value' fields in the gradients above and determine a mean. Round it to the nearest integer. That is the 'value' here.",
|
||
"automated": true,
|
||
"value": 6,
|
||
"notes": ""
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "polarized",
|
||
"term_left_description": "The analyst tended toward more extreme high or low readings",
|
||
"term_right": "centrist",
|
||
"term_right_description": "The analyst tended toward readings at the middle of the gradients",
|
||
"instructions": "Take all the 'value' fields in the gradients above. Assess their degree of polarization. For instance, if all the values are either 1 or 9, the output would be 1, and if all of them are 5, the output would be 9.",
|
||
"automated": true,
|
||
"value": 5,
|
||
"notes": null
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "formal",
|
||
"term_left_description": "Exhibits bureaucratic characteristics with centralized control and predictable enforcement",
|
||
"term_right": "informal",
|
||
"term_right_description": "Exhibits relational characteristics with distributed coordination embedded in culture",
|
||
"instructions": "Based on the diagnostic readings, calculate the protocol's position using Linear Discriminant Analysis. The LDA score is scaled to the 1-9 range, where 1 represents strongly formal protocols and 9 represents strongly informal protocols. A score of 5 indicates a protocol near the boundary exhibiting characteristics of both families.",
|
||
"automated": true,
|
||
"value": 1,
|
||
"notes": "The automated formal/informal score should be treated cautiously. Qualitatively, the notes suggest a vernacular, relational, citizen-led and socio-spatial protocol rather than a strongly formal one. The low score may reflect the protocol’s emerging process architecture and aspiration toward recognition, but it does not capture its grassroots operating logic."
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"term_left": "not useful",
|
||
"term_left_description": "The bicorder was not useful or relevant for analyzing this protocol",
|
||
"term_right": "very useful",
|
||
"term_right_description": "The bicorder was very useful and relevant for analyzing this protocol",
|
||
"instructions": "Evaluate the usefulness of this bicorder as a tool for analyzing this protocol, considering whether the gradient terms seemed revealing or irrelevant.",
|
||
"automated": false,
|
||
"value": 8,
|
||
"notes": "The Bicorder was very useful as a reflective tool for Protocol Inquiry. It helped identify citizen-led prototyping as a distinct protocol of action, with its own rhythm, language, artefacts, legitimacy, and modes of recognising knowledge. It also made visible the main tension: the protocol is generative and alive, but still exposed because it lacks a stable interface for municipal recognition. The tool required interpretation, so I treat it as a diagnostic lens."
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
} |