Talk:Culinology

message: I've tried to make this more of an article about culinology rather than the RCA, but I'm no expert so please let me know if I'm making mistakes.  It may be that RCA needs to be more integrated into the article. But the way it was, the article said more about the RCA than about culinology itself!
There are a few things I think need some quick attention - 
First - Few sources.  This is clearly a big thing in the US.  There are dozens and dozens of college courses, but I'm finding little to actually write a description from.   There was a link in the original to a blog at foodproductdesign.com.  I deleted the external link to the blog since blogs don't meet our guidelines for external links, but the site itself might well be a reliable source for good information.  There was also mention of a magazine for the industry, CULINOLOGY magazine which might be appropriate as a source.
Secondly - What is it?  How is it different from food science?  There is mention of "culinary quality" in the article, but I honestly have no idea what that means.  It sounds like a marketing phrase - all promise no substance!  Can anyone re-word this so that a lay person could actually understand what it's about?
Thirdly - globalization - is this a phenomenon that is happening anywhere else in the world?  Is it called something different there?  Or integrated more closely into another food related discipline?  
Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Siobhan Hansa

message: 2/26/07
The RCA and culinology are directly connected. No other association in the world is completely dedicated to the study and discipline of culinology. I'm brand new to adding information to and editing pages on Wikipedia (read: I don't know how to integrate links, etc.), so please bear with me. I provided a link to my blog because I regularly discuss concepts related to culinology there (I'm the editor of CULINOLOGY magazine, but we currently lack an online home for the magazine; we only have a print edition), however, I understand if you cannot use that as a valid link.
I tried to better explain the "culinary quality" concept in my recent edit. In the food world, this means pretty much "taste better" or perhaps "taste more sophisticated." For example, some culinologists might have worked in fine dining in the past. Now they design menu items for Chili's Bar & Grill. They have taken fine dining experience and now translate that into items replicated in kitchens across America using the tools of food science (like ingredients and processes to make food more stable and consistant) while bringing new flavors to the foods.
This is primarly an American concept, although the molecular gastronomers in Europe (and here) espouse similar ideals--albeit on a more experimental level. Some people, like Wylie Dufresne of wd~50 in New York or Homaro Cantu of Moto in Chicago are often called molecular gastronomers but also have much to do with the RCA. Here are some links that might be of use for you.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-08-14-culinology_x.htm
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/1999/0199cc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_gastronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylie_Dufresne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homaro_Cantu
Please let me know how I can be of more assistance in developing this entry to meet top Wikipedia standards.
Thanks.
--User PiekaDough (a.k.a., Doug Peckenpaugh, editor, CULINOLOGY magazine)
PiekaDough 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by PiekaDough

message: Culinology was coined by Winston Riley, the first president and founder of the association. The original meaning of the word was not specifically restricted to only food science but was meant to be the convergence of culinary arts and technology. Technology includes many other disciplines, including communications, economics, chemistry, physiology and many others.
Culinology is a registered trade mark of the Research Chefs Association and is also the name of the magazine which is published on behalf of the association. There is also another meaning for Culinology, which is the name of accredited culinary programs which bring together the disciplines of culinary education and food science. Jeff Cousminer is the person who started the culinary education arm of the Research Chefs Association. There are presently a dozen or more accredited Culinology programs at leading universities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenexec (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Greenexec

message: I agree with the original poster to this talk page, Siobhan Hansa, that there seems to be some "promotional" slant to some of the language regarding culinology and the RCA. Naturally this is not unexpected as trade associations always have multiple purposes other than simply to help their members, they are also directed to "promote" the industry. Since RCA is so specific, regarding a rather small universe of members, it is hard to disassociate culinology from the RCA.
When I first wrote the word, Culinology, it was somewhat of an accident. I was preparing copy for the brochure announcement to our second annual conference. Remember, at that time, even though we were calling it our second annual conference, we were tremendously small in number and influence. I had been writing the description of what we were, as an association of members in the Research and Development field of food and beverage, so I eventually simply wrote Culi...nology, instead of referring to the combination of that place we were at as an industry, the convergence of culinary arts with ALL technology.
Since I myself was involved with food marketing and promotion, I really was thinking more along the lines of the internet, which at that time was really taking off. In our earliest days, a member, who later died, Gary Holliman, helped us tremendously as a group, by managing a way for us to communicate with a special "talk forum" on the internet. At that time we had email but the widespread use of such things as internet forums and "chat rooms," really hadn't been created yet for the common user. There wasn't a FACEBOOK or Twitter or for that matter, most people really only had email but not extensive use of the internet, per se. 
So my thought at the time was that we were about to enter a new stage of communication technology, and how this would effect the process of research and development. Obviously when a chef is researching ingredients, recipes, culture, etc., the use of communication technology would vastly improve the cycle of development by offering a more effective and shortened cycle of research.
At the time, the man I called to get his feedback on the word, Culinology, and whether I should use it in our brochure, was Jeff Cousminer. Jeff went on to become the next president and also a tremendous leader to promote the word by helping to develop an actual curriculum for the discipline, that is now extensively taught in the field.
Jeff was rather rare at the time because he had matriculated and earned college level degrees from both the Culinary Arts and Food Technology fields, having completed those required courses from the Culinary Institute of America and the Master's Program in Food Science from Rutger's (Jeff had also earned a bachelor's degree in Biology and Nutrition from New Haven University).
So it was a natural progression for the "track to be laid" for the organization to develop along the lines of convergence for the fields of culinary arts and food science. But notice that the word Technology does not appear in the philosophy or discipline of Food Science. Granted, the progression in the field of food development has relied on technology in food science for our modern foods to be developed. But again, when I coined the word, I wasn't thinking of restricting the discipline of culinary arts combined with technology to only the field of food science.
My thoughts since then, to include the growth of the Research Chefs Association, is that by restricting the definition of Culinology to only the combination of culinary arts and food science has decreased the full potential of both the discipline and the RCA. If we included new technology in fields such as communications, plant physiology, nutrition, just to name a few, the field and consequently membership would vastly increase the size of our universe.
I'm no longer involved in the field but in those earliest days, I fought very hard to get the organization started. The board, soon after I left the organization, changed the history slightly, by referring to me as "one of" the founders. The fact is, that for almost two years, I was the organization's only member and promoter. We didn't come up with the name of Research Chefs Association until I had been campaigning for over a year, just to get members of the ACF to consider starting a new chef's associated dedicated specifically to the needs of the chef involved in R&D.
I think the reason was somewhat political that those board members wanted the playing field to be "level" for their benefit by suggesting the association was founded by an entire board. For sure this is true, with what culminated in a real professional association. Without the help of those first board members, the RCA never would have gained a solid potential. It certainly wouldn't be what it is today without the significant contributions of that early board of directors, who should all, and individually be respected for the huge part they played to start a new association, professional field and discipline of culinary arts which had not existed prior to our efforts.
I mention those personal details not for self promotion but to underscore my remorse that the word hasn't come to mean all that it could mean, had the emphasis stayed on the focus of technology and not only food science.1st President (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by 1st President

message: The following text was added incorrectly to the article instead of to this talk page by IP address 97.79.132.178 at 14:56 on 6 November 2013:
The following was added on November 6, 2013. Originally, this text was in response to another Wiki article:
When I first wrote the word, Culinology, it was somewhat of an accident. I was preparing copy for the brochure announcement to our second annual conference. Remember, at that time, even though we were calling it our second annual conference, we were tremendously small in number and influence. 
I had been writing the description of what we were, as an association of members in the Research and Development field of food and beverage, so I eventually simply wrote Culi...nology, instead of referring to the combination of that place we were at as an industry, the convergence of culinary arts with ALL technology.
Since I myself was involved with food marketing and promotion, I really was thinking more along the lines of the internet, which at that time was really taking off. In our earliest days, a member, who later died, Gary Holliman, helped us tremendously as a group, by managing a way for us to communicate with a special "talk forum" on the internet. At that time we had email but the widespread use of such things as internet forums and "chat rooms," really hadn't been created yet for the common user. There wasn't a FACEBOOK or Twitter or for that matter, most people really only had email but not extensive use of the internet, per se.
So my thought at the time was that we were about to enter a new stage of communication technology, and how this would effect the process of research and development. Obviously when a chef is researching ingredients, recipes, culture, etc., the use of communication technology would vastly improve the cycle of development by offering a more effective and shortened cycle of research.
At the time, the man I called to get his feedback on the word, Culinology, and whether I should use it in our brochure, was Jeff Cousminer. Jeff went on to become the next president and also a tremendous leader to promote the word by helping to develop an actual curriculum for the discipline, that is now extensively taught in the field.
Jeff was rather rare at the time because he had matriculated and earned college level degrees from both the Culinary Arts and Food Technology fields, having completed those required courses from the Culinary Institute of America and the Master's Program in Food Science from Rutger's (Jeff had also earned a bachelor's degree in Biology and Nutrition from New Haven University).
So it was a natural progression for the "track to be laid" for the organization to develop along the lines of convergence for the fields of culinary arts and food science. But notice that the word Technology does not appear in the philosophy or discipline of Food Science. Granted, the progression in the field of food development has relied on technology in food science for our modern foods to be developed. But again, when I coined the word, I wasn't thinking of restricting the discipline of culinary arts combined with technology to only the field of food science.
My thoughts since then, to include the growth of the Research Chefs Association, is that by restricting the definition of Culinology to only the combination of culinary arts and food science has decreased the full potential of both the discipline and the RCA. If we included new technology in fields such as communications, plant physiology, nutrition, just to name a few, the field and consequently membership would vastly increase the size of our universe.
I'm no longer involved in the field but in those earliest days, I fought very hard to get the organization started. The board, soon after I left the organization, changed the history slightly, by referring to me as "one of" the founders. The fact is, that for almost two years, I was the organization's only member and promoter. We didn't come up with the name of Research Chefs Association until I had been campaigning for over a year, just to get members of the ACF to consider starting a new chef's associated dedicated specifically to the needs of the chef involved in R&D.
I think the reason was somewhat political that those board members wanted the playing field to be "level" for their benefit by suggesting the association was founded by an entire board. For sure this is true, with what culminated in a real professional association. Without the help of those first board members, the RCA never would have gained a solid potential. It certainly wouldn't be what it is today without the significant contributions of that early board of directors, who should all, and individually be respected for the huge part they played to start a new association, professional field and discipline of culinary arts which had not existed prior to our efforts.
I mention those personal details not for self promotion but to underscore my remorse that the word hasn't come to mean all that it could mean, had the emphasis stayed on the focus of technology and not only food science.
— O'Dea (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary removed from article to Talk page