A New Player for Tackling Inequalities? Framing the Social Value and Impact of the Maker Movement

Abstract

The Maker Movement has raised great expectations towards its potential for tackling social inequalities by mediating technology-related skills to everybody. Are maker spaces new players for social inclusion in digital societies? How can this potential impact be framed? While scientific discourse has so far identified broad value and impact dimensions of the Maker Movement, this article adds empirical insight into the potential for tackling social inequalities. The study is based on 39 interviews with makers and managers of maker initiatives and ten self-reporting surveys filled in by maker initiative managers throughout Europe, which have been analyzed qualitatively. We found four main domains in which makers address social inclusion: First, by mediating skills and competences not only in the field of digital technologies but in the broader sense of empowering people to “make” solutions for encountered problems. Second, we found that makers actively strive to provide democratized access to digital fabrication and the knowledge on how to use them. Third and fourth, we found different ambitions articulated by makers to change society and social practices towards a society providing better opportunities for individuals. As an entry point for further research and actions, we derived a maker typology that reflects the diverse and various types of relationships to be found in the maker community. This typology could be used for exploring further collaborations between social actors and the Maker Movement. We conclude with an outlook on potential trajectories of the Maker Movement and specify which could influence the inclusion of marginalized persons.

Covid-19 Response From Global Makers: The Careables Cases of Global Design and Local Production

“…And we can identify contextualized knowledge that emerges in the diverse settings, like how to react to the local availability of material, how to adapt production processes to local contexts, how to address very specific local needs. Undoubtedly, the learning taking place in makerspaces leads to empowerment and resilience ( Criado et al, 2016 ; Unterfrauner et al, 2020 ). As Ratto (2011) identified learning as core in his critical making theory, where the process of making is as important as the results, we also suggest that more societal recognition could be added to the educational value created in makerspaces.…”

“…On the other end of the axis, we speak about distributed awareness, referring to very strongly networked, interconnected makes, who work collaboratively over large areas, or even globally. This matrix of scale and social innovation dimension has been applied in previous studies and has provided valuable insights into the characteristics of maker initiatives (e.g., Unterfrauner et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The volunteer-driven, self-organized activities of the maker community have significantly contributed to the response phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and also drew attention to the latent innovation potential of the general public ( Corsini et al, 2020 ). Since the rapid emerging of local makerspaces, hackerspaces, fablabs and the calling out of a global maker movement ( Dougherty, 2012 ) experts have assigned this new culture of local manufacturing certain social transformation power ( Diez, 2012 ; Smith, 2017 ; Millard et al, 2018 ; Bosse et al, 2019 ; Unterfrauner et al, 2020 ). The technological innovations advancing the manufacturing capacities of digital fabrication tools have offered a wide range of possibilities for social and community action.…”

“…At the same time makerspaces also reproduce dominant values of society and the global economy, e.g., when they follow an open innovation agenda that tries to leverage the makers’ creativity for global manufacturing and following prevailing economic growth business models. Thus, we are witnessing contradictory developments of makerspaces, where we have open spaces aiming for democratic transformations next to spaces that adhere to traditional market-driven models ( Unterfrauner et al, 2020 ).…”

Digital Inclusion as a Core Component of Social Inclusion

“…The first few articles are concerned with specific factors that can contribute to digital inclusion, namely social support (Asmar, van Aduenhove, & Mariën, 2020), digital literacy (Radovanović et al, 2020), and devices (in this case mobile phones; Shema & Garcia-Murillo, 2020). We then move toward specific digital inclusion initiatives, such as the maker movement (Unterfrauner, Hofer, Pelka, & Zirngiebl, 2020), and toward programs and initiatives that are concerned with specific groups of the population, including women (Arroyo, 2020), people with intellectual disabilities and their care takers (Heitplatz, 2020), school children (Huang, Ball, Cotton, & O'Neal, 2020) and young people (Calderón Gómez, 2020), and finally older internet non-users (Gallistl, Rohner, Seifert, & Wanka, 2020). The thematic issue closes out with an overview of various digital inclusion initiatives across the Americas and the Caribbean (Robinson et al, 2020).…”