Authorship:
Corresponding author:
Regina Sipos, Technical University of Berlin, sipos@tu-berlin.de
Barbara Kieslinger, Centre for Social Innovation – ZSI, Vienna, Austria
Melanie Stilz, Technical University of Berlin, melanie.stilz@tu-berlin.de
Introduction
Academic attention on Grassroots Innovation Movements (GIM) has been increasing in recent years, fuelled by the “era of participation” (Smith et al., 2016). Interest in makerspaces as spaces of bottom-up innovation has been growing, together with imaginaries around the possibilities of the maker movement. Bringing about a new industrial revolution (Anderson, 2012), democratizing innovation and technology by empowering the consumer (Tanenbaum et al., 2013) to make their own products through prosumerism (Paltrinieri and Esposti 2013). Maker communities have been celebrated for potential and far-reaching impacts, be those social (Unterfrauner et al., 2020, Bosse et al., 2019), political (Maxigas, 2012), or environmental (Lange, 2017, Kohtala, 2016) impacts. Whether the promises truly deliver those positive impacts is debated, critique towards makers’ technosolutionism and ideological colonialism (Lindtner et al., 2016), its involvement with the U.S. military (Finley, 2012), and concerns regarding “forgetting open hardware” (Benchoff, 2016) have been expressed.
When conducting research on the maker movement, it is important to note that we are not faced with a uniform activity that follows one central blueprint and should be reproduced anywhere in the world exactly as prescribed. Following Ong and Collier’s definition (2004) it is rather a “global assemblage” (Lindtner et al., 2016) of hacker- and makerspaces, spaces of collaborative design and grassroots innovation, brought to life by offline and online communities that make use of the tools found in these spaces. Examining their diversity and situatedness (Lindtner and Lin, 2017) in local socio-political realities can help extend and redefine what constitutes as making and shed light on (hyper)local societal questions. But the lack of uniformity also makes research complicated. Innovative activities of groups of people are often carried out “beneath the radar” of academia and industry (Smith et al., 2016).
Hacker- and makerspaces are localities that attract inquisitive people, early adopters, and creators of innovative artefacts. However heterogenous, these spaces of grassroots technology innovation practices (ibid.) provide researchers with opportunities to observe processes of collaborative, collective or community-based design (Bonvoisin et al., 2018). Makers and maker communities often engage in grassroots innovation, act as litmus tests to measure the (dis)contentedness of society, and pinpoint emerging societal needs and propose change.
This social responsiveness that can be observed in certain make practices relates to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Today, RRI is a European policy driven discourse that “aims to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation, with an emphasis on co-creation and co-production with society” (Owen and Pansera, 2019). Von Schomberg, one of the initiators of the RRI discourse in Europe, clarified that the deliberation around the value of innovations has to include everyday people (including citizens) and civil society (von Schomberg, 2013). The focus is not on the value of innovations, but on the values embedded in innovations (Felt, 2018). Next to its operationalisation in the form of six keys, namely gender, ethics, public engagement, open access/open science, education and governance, RRI has also been assigned four process dimensions, which are anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. To a greater or less extent we can find all of those keys and dimensions in the maker movement. While experts already predict a paradigm shift in the innovation process caused by the maker movement, we must not forget to critically reflect its responsibility in relation to aspects such as ethics, citizen-empowerment, gender and openness, as included in the umbrella concept of RRI.
1. Framings of Critical Making and Responsible Innovation in Grassroots
A recent turning point in the history of maker culture in terms of making visible its potentials was 2020. During the rapid spread of the Covid-19 pandemic worldwide, many governments and companies struggled with the breakdown of supply chains. The lack of medical hardware supplies was answered by maker communities from around the world (Kieslinger et al., 2021). To name just two examples, makers in Brazil to Indonesia used digital fabrication tools to e.g. 3D print valves or face shields and sew textile masks, some developed low-cost UV boxes to help healthcare workers in remote areas disinfect their clothes . Open source blueprints and step-by-step guides have for a long time been made available online for anyone to use, but suddenly, many more people benefited from it. We witnessed very clear responsible innovation capacities in makerspaces, where grassroots communities were rapidly prototyping, testing, documenting and reproducing new products that were needed in times of this pandemic.
Other proof can also be found that makerspaces can play important societal roles: by offering third places for communities, supporting wellbeing (Taylor et al., 2016) and supporting civic engagement through notions of activism and critical thinking, unlocking grassroots capabilities (Bar-El and Zuckerman, 2016). They also create innovative artefacts by using different or inclusive design methods, they support the creation of socially relevant prototypes, some of which can be innovative solutions, e.g. frugal innovation and appropriate technologies, to societal problems (Beltagui et al., 2019, Smith, 2017)
The potential of social and responsible innovation in the maker movement is interesting for research. However, terms used for self-identification in grassroots do not always overlap with mainstream terms, and it is important to note that some makers refuse the maker label to describe themselves and their activities (Chachra, 2015). Some feel it is too exclusive and represents a Western narrative and practices of innovation (Fonseca, 2015). Instead, they use local slang words, such as the Brazilian gambiarra (ibid.), the Indonesian ngoprek for tinkering (Siagian, 2016), while the Indian term jugaad can be translated as hack or resourcefulness, and more and more attention is directed at shanzhai copyleft production practices in China (Braybrooke and Jordan, 2017, Lindtner and Lin, 2017).
To describe his practice, instead of making, Felipe Fonseca (Fonseca, 2015) uses the term Ratto coined about a decade ago: critical making. Ratto used it to describe the innovative scholarly practice he proposed:
"Critical Making is an elision of two typically disconnected modes of engagement in the world: critical thinking,’ often considered as abstract, explicit, linguistically based, internal and cognitively individualistic; and ’making,’ typically understood as material, tacit, embodied, external and community-oriented."
In a collection of papers from an international conference in 2010, the term was then further explored to describe activities of DIY citizenship (Ratto and Boler, 2014). In addition to this, the term critical making was also adapted to help look beyond the idealized picture of the maker and to "reintroduce a sense of criticality back into post-2010 maker culture to un-sanitize, un-smooth and repoliticize it” (Hertz, 2015), thus show a different face of making that dares to express critique, in the form of art, activism, or social innovation. The term has thus evolved since it was coined, and while it is not a contested concept, defining what qualifies as critical making and what does not is left relatively open. In a recent interview two of the authors of this paper conducted with Hertz, he said: “Critical making is a great term, but it’s not like it needs to be an exclusive club with a VIP list - people can come and go, bend things, and mess around.”
Although most research seems to focus on scholarly or artistic and design activities, current definitions of the phrase are not restricted to such practices. Ratto and Boler already extended it to cover grassroots and DIY citizenship (Ratto and Boler, 2014) and thus the consortium members also use it as a somewhat flexible and open umbrella term for the critical, socially innovative, activist, etc. activities of grassroots innovation movements using maker practices. However, this does not necessarily mean that broader groups of grassroots practitioners identify with the term, or that they know of it.
To understand whether the phrase resonated at all and to better understand the opportunities of grounding the term critical making in grassroots innovation practices, a workshop titled Critical Making with and for Communities was held at the 9th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T) . The workshop, while also discussing other relevant research questions, aimed to understand whether the extension of the term critical making to describe grassroots innovations was sensible, and how this term resonated with the participants. A group of practitioners, whose daily work is deeply embedded in critical making, gathered to share their insights and the outcomes of the workshop were promising. While many of the participants confirmed that they did think there was an inherent criticality in DIY and making, they also expressed that critical making for them was directly related to frugal innovation, non-Western viewpoints and local contexts, and brings with itself a culture of community-based design approaches, discourse, reflection and responsibility. They also shared emerging topics of grassroots critical making, such as the importance of intersectional makerspaces and the need for guidelines of how to build technology for diversity and inclusion, making as an enhancer of educational curricula and an opportunity for skills development, alongside with technology literacy for all to democratize access and practice or the importance of sharing, open-source innovation, and difficulties commons-based organizations face in achieving financial sustainability.
To summarize, the term critical making has brought the principle of making closer to the framework of RRI not only in academia and design, but also in grassroots. It reveals itself in the maker culture’s commitment to openness, reflexivity and its collaborative innovation processes. However, a framework that allows researchers to examine RRI principles in Grassroots Innovation Movements (GIM) has not yet been developed, and transdisciplinary scientific insights are necessary to better understand the processes of maker communities. Whether makers and maker communities follow the principles of RRI in other aspects, especially in terms of gender and ethics, has also not been studied so far.
It has become timely to formulate approaches to ensure a better understanding of RRI in making, and to analyse innovation processes encountered in the maker community. This is the reason why multiple European partners, represented by a transdisciplinary team of researchers and makers created the research project “Critical Making: Studying RRI Principles in the Maker Community”.
Research Questions and Goals
The overarching objective of the Critical Making project is to critically study the innovation processes in the maker movement with regards to RRI aspects. The research questions proposed relate back to Bruno Latour’s suggestion that ‘critique has run out of steam’ and that what is needed for social sciences is a more diverse approach and methods of inquiry using the tools of different disciplines to better understand the what and the how of our social constructs (Latour, 2004). In practice, being ‘constructively critical’ means using the analytical strength of the social sciences of working with matters of concern to help construct socially responsible innovation processes, which can support diverse publics and multiplicity of knowledges. With a focus on learning from and enhancing the diverse and highly situated practices of offline and online maker communities, the project has the following overarching research questions:
1. In which ways are innovation and co-design processes that are taking place in the maker ecosystem reflecting or contradicting RRI principles, especially related to gender relations, education of youth and openness, and contributing to social responsibility?
2. How can responsible innovation practices be enhanced and strengthened within the maker movement? How to learn from well implemented cases, systematise the gained knowledge and guide the implementation of RRI practices in the diverse European and international contexts?
3. What can we learn from responsible grassroots innovation in maker spaces for future RRI policies? How can an RRI aware maker movement increase resilience to crises like Covid-19 or similar ones?
This overarching framework of research questions allows us to conduct case actions on topics particularly interesting to grassroots practitioners of critical making, and to the wider society as well, especially in relation to gender, openness and education of young people.
Analytical Framework
An analytical framework developed for the project is guiding research. A potential framework needs to allow consortium members to study grassroots innovations while it needs to be adapted and applied to find out whether and under which circumstances grassroots innovation processes reflect or contradict RRI principles. To address challenges, we propose to develop a framework that allows researchers to analyse grassroots innovation movements (GIM) as defined by Adrian Smith and his colleagues (Smith et al., 2016) and merge these with RRI aspects e.g. (Stilgoe et al., 2013) and responsible making principles as developed by grassroots organizations (Nuesse and Wanalo, 2019).
The framework will thus integrate the four-dimensional, analytical approach provided by Smith et al. on GIM (source) with the participatory, reflexive and anticipatory RRI methodologies e.g. (Stilgoe et al., 2013). The guiding principle behind the framework development is to increase the sensitivity (critical thinking) of both the research team and engaged maker space actors towards the identified responsibility issues (gender, youth engagement, openness) in maker space activities. The GIM studies will be utilised to enrich the RRI understanding of the particularities of innovation activities in originating from a social movement. Furthermore, the participatory action research (PAR)-oriented cases will benefit of the analytical division between the four dimensions of GIM-analysis:
• context (to better understand the conditions in which the interventions are happening)
• framings (underlying assumptions, inclusiveness/exclusiveness of framings etc.)
• strategies and spaces (what actions they take, how these are influenced by the availability of resources)
• pathways (the plurality of pathways and potential impacts).
In addition, to strengthen the anticipatory capacities of makerspace actors, the framework will be enriched with the methodological understanding of future studies on how to conduct future-oriented participatory foresight. To engage maker space actors with multiple backgrounds in the project evaluation practices, we will also explore the possibilities to integrate experiential foresight methods, among others, in the theoretical framework.
Another challenge the consortium has identified was recognizing the differences in vocabularies researchers and practitioners use. We aim to bridge this through co-operative and participatory workshops, multidisciplinary events in which we collaboratively collect terms grassroots might use as synonyms or substitutes for the words and terms researchers use and through the transdisciplinary nature of the consortium team: researchers, makers and grassroots innovators cooperate from the beginning to ensure a shared language is created.
Participatory Case Actions
As briefly summarized above, potential roles makerspaces and maker practices can play are researched by many. However, much of the narrative around the movement can also be defined as technosolutionism towards a single ideal, rather than a multiplicity of realities. Making is portrayed as furthering sustainability, social justice for women, economic development for the Global South, empowerment for all, as if technology could unilaterally solve difficult social problems (Lindtner et al., 2016). These claims are far-ranging and idealistic and do not allow for realistic assessments of locally relevant maker practices. Thus Lindtner and her colleagues who question this mainstream and sensational narrative, propose the reconstitution of this utopian vision and an observation of its democratizing potentials in technical and socio-political perspectives through reflexive-interventionist approaches (ibid). This means more critical reflection and engagement with members of the movement.
Hence, the consortium has defined three topics for participatory case actions which will be co-designed with maker communities and practitioners, and concrete interventions which will be are co-evaluated to empirically test and iterate frameworks in the case actions. These three topics and case actions were inspired by research questions that have been under focus with regards to the maker movement in recent years, concerns shared by practitioners at the Critical Making with and For Communities workshop (Sipos and Wenzelmann, 2019), key focus topics of RRI and expertise of the consortium members. The topics addressed are gender, young talents and openness.
a. Gender
The importance of intersectional makerspaces and the need for guidelines of how to build technology for diversity and inclusion was highlighted in the C&T workshop, alongside concerns of social inequalities regarding women’s resources such as time and disposable income, which are crucial for extracurricular educational activities and hobbies (ibid).
In making, similarly to other technology-based practices, cultural problems such as inherently masculine coding and imbalanced gender dynamics are widespread (Chachra, 2015). As the founders and participants of such spaces often have a creative or technological background and consist of white, college-educated, middle class men (Voigt et al., 2017, Bardzell et al., 2014), exclusion processes in maker environments can occur in terms of gender, but also in terms of other dimensions of social inequality such as ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status or dis_abilities (Ahmadi et al., 2019).
To counter these dynamics, inclusive spaces have emerged, and some maker spaces have resorted to offering and advertising “feminine” maker projects such as weaving, sewing, knitting, humanitarian/service projects, but research has been scarce (Wuschitz, 2014). Holbert’s research shows that "when making is framed as being a set of practices, skills, and technologies to give back to and support members of one’s community,” girls’ motivation and persistence were both high throughout the making activity; they also indicated interest in future making activities that would help others (Holbert, 2016). Research does not indicate that simply including activities that are stereotypically feminine or specifically appeal to women in maker spaces has negative ramifications but neglecting to acknowledge women’s interest in non-helping or “masculine” activities can reinforce existing gender-related stereotypes and inequalities. This indicates that both approaches could be useful: having specific projects for women and stressing the “doing it for others” fact, while at the same time involving them in the more traditional “masculine” projects.
To address these concerns, the consortium works together with intersectional maker and hacker communities to design and conduct a case which will increase gender awareness practices in the maker community. This is achieved through piloting co-created measures to counteract the existing gender imbalances in makerspaces and in online spaces and create guidelines on gender awareness.
b. Youth
A key factor in the future uptake of RRI principles in the maker community is how the next generation of makers is trained and introduced to the core aspects of critical making. To this end, it is not only important to provide teachers and education providers with the technical skills, but also to provide the operators of makerspaces and fablabs with the necessary pedagogical skills. The question of youth engagement is partially addressed by educational activities, making knowledge about technology available for the masses through local events, workshops and online materials (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014, Sweeny, 2017) (Marsh et al., 2019) but there is a gap between schools and makerspaces about offerings, which the German Association of Open Workshops has been attempting to fill by including a search option for offerings for children and youth in an open database.
Practitioners at the C&T workshop have expressed that making has the potential to enhance educational curricula worldwide. They also saw making as an opportunity for skills development, alongside with technology literacy for all to democratize access and practice.
However, the reality is that after their vocational training at the Institute of Vocational Education and Work Studies of the Technical University of Berlin (which includes the latest digital production techniques, such as 3-D printing and laser cutting, microelectronics like Arduinos and LilyPads, as well as classic production methods such as woodworking and sewing), the newly trained teachers are confronted with the fact that workshops and equipment in schools are outdated or not available at all. Without access to the well-equipped university workshops, teachers often have to apply for better equipment and in the meantime cut some of the content of their lessons. They are also confronted with the opportunity and challenge to include ever new tools, content and applications, without role models, technical support or mentorship. This is an opportunity to work with local maker spaces, fab labs and open workshops. However, preliminary studies show that teachers are often not aware of the possibilities in their region to take advantage of educational programs in maker spaces or to use them as extracurricular learning places. At the same time, the operators of maker spaces are often not aware of all the funding possibilities that are already available for educational purposes. The needs and wishes of adolescents and young adults have not yet been investigated very much in this regard, and the future of work also changes rapidly. For this purpose, it is necessary to examine what demands are made on the part of students and teachers on the maker spaces? What networking opportunities are there locally and at European level? And how can makerspaces cooperate successfully with educational institutions?
This case will thus support the engagement of young people in maker spaces and further R&I activities via maker space actions and educational programmes that expand the formal curriculum with skills for responsible research and innovation.
c. Openness
During the covid-19 crisis we have witnessed how the globally centralised mass production has been failing. There is a need and as such a great window of opportunity for distributed local manufacturing that is strongly supported by the maker community. There is substantial evidence that the open hardware model creates more flexible and adequate equipment at far less expense than has been developed using proprietary models e.g. in science: Pearce summarizes the incredible variety of tools developed from colorimeters to MRI systems (Pearce, 2017) and points out that collaborative practice of sharing digital designs have reduced the capital costs of such open hardware to an unprecedented 90–99% decrease from the cost of functionally-equivalent proprietary equipment (Fisher and Gould, 2012).
During the C&T workshop (Sipos and Wenzelmann, 2019), practitioners highlighted the importance of sharing, open-source innovation, but also the difficulties commons-based organizations face in achieving financial sustainability. Regarding the financial sustainability of makerspaces and maker projects, there is indeed still a lot of uncertainty. It is a common belief that “free and open source” cannot generate profit, as such services and products are supposed to be free of charge and traditional business models are built on IP monopolies. While open source products are deemed more reliable and relevant to users as they act as co-developers (Kogut and Metiu, 2001), many spaces and people struggle finding the right business model not only caused by the nature of the process being different from traditional manufacturing, but also because they often do not have an understanding of business models. There are existing (Ferreira, 2008) and emerging business models (Pearce, 2017) for open source hardware, but more is needed, e.g. models for the monetisation of expertise or certification of quality of open source hardware (Thompson, 2008).
In this case action we plan to critically reflect the concept of openness in making. In investigating existing experiences with new experimental, participatory interventions we want to discover interrelations between openness and other RRI principles and try to find answers as to how actors in the maker movement interpret social responsibility with regards to open hardware business models, whether there are tensions between the core values of sharing and openness and new open source business models and how these tensions can be mitigated. We will approach open-source hardware makers with a call for rewarding projects that apply RRI and responsible making principles and accompany their journey from the idea to an open source hardware prototype with proper documentation, and new open source business models that reflect core values of makers like openness and sharing (e.g. open source social business models). By screening existing data sources combined with a reflective dialogue with the makers, who participate in the Critical Making Open Hardware Programme, we want to search for proof of RRI principles in open hardware development and how these can be identified (what is the taxonomy, what are unspoken processes and underlying assumptions that are inherent in the shared values of such groups)?
Thus, the third case will provide methods to strengthen the social responsibility of the open hardware movement. This is achieved by piloting a mentoring programme of RRI aware, open hardware business innovations with a special emphasis on projects that advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through open science, social innovations or environmental sustainability.
Consortium Members
The Critical Making consortium presents a cross-disciplinary team of experts with a strong theoretical and practical knowledge from the maker community, including academic partners, an internationally active NGO and an SME that is highly visible across makers. It brings together the following five partners:
ZSI, Zentrum Für Soziale Innovation GmbH (Austria): the consortium is coordinated by the Centre for Social Innovation - ZSI from Austria, a non-profit institute with expertise in technology enhanced and digital social innovations and extensive experience in managing European RTD projects. ZSI has developed competencies and methodologies that can be flexibly combined to master complex situations and framework conditions, like technology assessment and conceptual design processes.
TUB, Technical University of Berlin (Germany): the TUB shares a research interest in the social implications of new technologies and RRI in ICT. As a teacher training centre, the Institute of Vocational Education and Work Studies stresses the potential of making and digitalization of education and works towards introducing it into the vocational education curriculum at universities and schools.
VTT Technical Research Center of Finland (Finland): VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, which is part of the national innovation system, has a research interest in RRI and offers transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches to understanding societal needs and turning them into sustainable growth opportunities. VTT has strong expertise in ethics and RRI related topics.
Wikifactory Europe SL (Spain): a private company that forms part of the ecosystem of distributed manufacturing services. It offers a social platform for collaborative product development that enables product developers to design together, prototype faster and produce smarter. Wikifactory is a community of over 20.000 designers, engineers and creative problem solvers from over 130 countries.
GIG, Global Innovation Gathering (global): a global network of grassroots innovators, formally registered as a charitable non-profit in Germany. Starting with an international network of makers, hackers and innovators, GIG has grown into a global community for makers to connect, collaborate and share their knowledge and visions. It is a diverse network unified by a new vision for global cooperation based on equality, openness and sharing.
Acknowledgements
We extend our thanks to Sandra Mamitzsch, Lisa M. Seebacher and Victoria Wenzelmann, consortium team members who helped us improve this article. The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No 101006285.
References
Ahmadi, M., Weibert, A., Wenzelmann, V., Aal, K., Gaeckle, K., Wulf, V., Marsden, N., 2019. Designing for Openness in Making: Lessons Learned from a Digital Project Week. Presented at the C&T 2019, Vienna, Austria.
Anderson, C., 2012. Makers. The New Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing Group.
Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Toombs, A., 2014. now that’s definitely a proper hack, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557221
Bar-El, D., Zuckerman, O., 2016. Maketec: A Makerspace as a Third Place for Children. Proc. Tenth Int. Conf. on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. TEI 16 380–385.
Beltagui, A., Sesis, A., Stylos, N., 2019. 3D Printing, Makerspaces and innovation: A bricolage perspective. In: International Product Development Management Conference.
Benchoff, B., 2016. The MakerBot Obituary. Hackaday.com.
Bonvoisin, J., Buchert, T., Preidel, M., Stark, R.G., 2018. How participative is open source hardware? Insights from online repository mining. Des. Sci. 4, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2018.15
Bosse, I., Krüger, D., Linke, H., Pelka, B., 2019. The Maker Movement’s potential for an inclusive society. Atlas of social innovation. A world of new practices. Pp 201–206.
Braybrooke, K., Jordan, T., 2017. Genealogy, Culture and Technomyth. Digit. Cult. Soc. 3, 25–46. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2017-0103
Chachra, D., 2015. Why I am not a maker. The Atlantic.
Felt, U., 2018. Responsible Research and Innovation, in: Handbook of Genomics, Health and Society. Sarah Gibbon, Barbara Prainsack, Stephen Hilgartner, Janette Lamoreaux (Eds.). London/New York: Routledge.
Ferreira, E., 2008. Open Hardware Business Models. Technology Innovation Management Review.
Finley, K., 2012. The military-maker complex: DARPA infiltrates the hackerspace movement.
Fisher, D.K., Gould, P.J., 2012. Open-Source Hardware Is a Low-Cost Alternative for Scientific Instrumentation and Research. Mod. Instrum. 01. https://doi.org/10.4236/mi.2012.12002
Fonseca, F., 2015. Gambiarra: Repair culture. In Makery: Media for Labs.
Halverson, E.R., Sheridan, K., 2014. The Maker Movement in Education. Harv. Educ. Rev. 84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063
Hertz, G., 2015. What is Critical Making? https://current.ecuad.ca/what-is-critical-making (accessed 12.21.18).
Holbert, N., 2016. Bots for Tots, in: Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930718
Kieslinger, B., Schaefer, T., Fabian, C., Biasin, E., Freire, R.R., Mowoh, N., Arif, N., Melis, P., 2021. Covid-19 Response From Global Makers: The Careables Cases of Global Design and Local Production. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.629587
Kogut, B., Metiu, A., 2001. Open source software development and distributed innovation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Pp. 248–264.
Kohtala, C., 2016. Making sustainability: How Fab Labs Address Environmental Issues. Helsinki: Aalto University Publication.
Lange, B., 2017. Offene Werkstätten und Postwachstumsökonomien: Kollaborative Orte als Wegbereiter transformativer Wirtschaftsentwicklungen? Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie. Pp. 38–55.
Latour, B., 2004. Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry 30, 225. https://doi.org/10.2307/1344358
Lindtner, S., Bardzell, S., Bardzell, J., 2016. Reconstituting the Utopian Vision of Making: HCI After Technosolutionism. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858506
Lindtner, S., Lin, C., 2017. Making and its promises. CoDesign 13, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1308518
Marsh, J., Wood, E., Chesworth, L., Nisha, B., Nutbrown, B., Olney, B., 2019. Makerspaces in early childhood education: Principles of pedagogy and practice. Mind Cult. Act. 26:3, 221–233.
Maxigas, P., 2012. Hacklabs and hackerspaces: Tracing two genealogies. Journal of Peer Production 2.
Nuesse, I., Wanalo, R., 2019. How can makerspaces help build climate change resilience? https://wellbeingeconomy.org/how-can-makerspaces-help-build-climate-change-resilience (accessed 8.6.20).
Owen, R., Pansera, M., 2019. Responsible Innovation and Responsible Research and Innovation, in: Handbook on Science and Public Policy, (Eds) Dagmar Simon, Stefan Kuhlmann, Julia Stamm, Weert Canzler. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pearce, J.M., 2017. Emerging Business Models for Open Source Hardware. Journal of Open Hardware, 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5334/joh.4
Ratto, M., Boler, M., 2014. DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media. The MIT Press.
Siagian, A., 2016. Learning through community-based hacking. Presented at the Open Hardware Summit, Coded Cultures: Openism festival by RIAT Research Institute for Arts & Technology, Vienna.
Sipos, R., Wenzelmann, V., 2019. Critical making with and for communities. ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328320.3328410
Smith, A., 2017. Social Innovation, Democracy and Makerspaces.
Smith, A., Fressoli, J.M., Abrol, D., Arond, E., Ely, A., 2016. Grassroots Innovation Movements. Routledge.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42, 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Sweeny, R.W., 2017. Making and breaking in an art education makerspace. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 6:9.
Tanenbaum, J.G., Williams, A.M., Desjardins, A., Tanenbaum, K., 2013. Democratizing technology: Pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and Maker practice, in: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. pp. 2603–2612. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481360
Taylor, N., Hurley, U., Connolly, P., 2016. Making Community: The Wider Role of Makerspaces in Public Life. CHI16 San Jose CA USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858073
Thompson, C., 2008. Build It. Share It. Profit. Can Open Source Hardware Work? Wired Magazine
Unterfrauner, E., Hofer, M., Pelka, B., Zirngiebl, M.A., 2020. A New Player for Tackling Inequalities? Framing the Social Value and Impact of the Maker Movement. Social Inclusion Volume 8.
Voigt, C., Unterfrauner, E., Stelzer, R., 2017. Diversity in FabLabs: Culture, Role Models and the Gendering of Making. Presented at the International Conference on Internet Science, Springer, Thessaloniki, Greece. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_5
Von Schomberg, R., 2013. A vision of responsible innovation, in: Responsible Innovation. R. Owen, M. Heintz and J Bessant (Eds.). London: John Wiley.
Wuschitz, S., 2014. Feminist Hackerspaces. A research on feminist space collectives in open culture. Technische Universität Wien, Fakultät für Architektur und Raumplanung.