Attachment, Durability and the Environmental Impact of Digital DIY

Maldini, Irene

doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1085213

Cited by 14 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recycle Is the use of environmentally friendly materials (like cardboard and biomaterials) considered in making a prototype? [23,39] Reusability Are any used materials or electronic components utilized in making the prototype? [26,46] Transportation Is the prototype made using locally available material?…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainable Design and Prototyping Using Digital Fabrication Tools for Education

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prototyping physical artifacts is a fundamental activity for both product development in industrial and engineering design domains and the development of digital fabrication skills. Prototyping is also essential for human-centric problem-solving in design education. Digital fabrication assists in rapid prototype development through computer-aided design and manufacturing tools. Due to the spread of makerspaces like fabrication laboratories (FabLabs) around the world, the use of digital fabrication tools for prototyping in educational institutes is becoming increasingly common. Studies on the social, environmental, and economic sustainability of digital fabrication have been carried out. However, none of them focus on sustainability and prototyping-based digital fabrication tools or design education. To bridge this research gap, a conceptual framework for sustainable prototyping based on a five-stage design thinking model is proposed. The framework, which is based on a comprehensive literature review of social, economic, and environmental sustainability factors of digital fabrication, is applied to evaluate a prototyping process that took place in a FabLab in an education context aimed at enhancing sustainability. Three case studies are used to evaluate the proposed framework. Based on the findings, recommendations are presented for sustainable prototyping using digital fabrication tools.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recycling indicator reflects the use of recyclable material [23,39]. The reusability indicator represents the reuse of electronic components and material from previously built projects/prototypes [26,46].…”

Section: Sustainability Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Design and Prototyping Using Digital Fabrication Tools for Education

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The implications for socioenvironmental sustainability were also contained within these meanings: fabricated artefacts would not become material and cultural waste if they were locally relevant, connected to personal expressiveness and/ or community needs. On the one hand, Maldini (2016) has suggested personal fabrication does not appear to generate products with long lifespans nor diminish production and consumption by replacing mass production, despite the value and attachment makers adhere to their creations. On the other hand, the very openness embedded in Fab Lab ideology and the competence in open design processes has facilitated sustainability-oriented experimentation in spaces such as the Valldaura Lab.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making “Making” Critical: How Sustainability is Constituted in Fab Lab Ideology

Kohtala

2016

The Design Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fab Labs, fabrication laboratories, are shared workshops where citizens can access digital fabrication equipment to design and make their own objects. They are proliferating rapidly and represent an alternative to mass production and consumption, an ideology whose environmental and social benefits their "makers" like to espouse. A longitudinal ethnographic study in a Fab Lab in a European design school examined the Lab's ideology building, how ideals were enacted and where compromises were visible. Environmental issues were intertwined with other ideological concerns, but they were rarely promoted in their own right. Engagement with sustainability-oriented makers and stakeholders is recommended.

show abstract

“…However, contrary evidence has started to emerge, suggesting that a heterogeneous set of globalized cultural practices are being systematically homogenized (Maxigas 2014;Nascimento 2014;Fleischmann et al 2016). These criticisms have engendered many scholarly debates, some deriding making practices as "fringe phenomena" based on possible rather than actual usage of digital tools (Smith 2014;Troxler/Maxigas 2014;Maldini 2016). Others note that maker subcultures are often marred by cronyism, corporatization and reductionism (Braybrooke 2011;Csikszentmihályi 2012;Ray Murray/Hand 2014;Toupin 2014;Maldini 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These criticisms have engendered many scholarly debates, some deriding making practices as "fringe phenomena" based on possible rather than actual usage of digital tools (Smith 2014;Troxler/Maxigas 2014;Maldini 2016). Others note that maker subcultures are often marred by cronyism, corporatization and reductionism (Braybrooke 2011;Csikszentmihályi 2012;Ray Murray/Hand 2014;Toupin 2014;Maldini 2016). While such critiques often contest what it is makers actually do in fablabs, hackerspaces, shared machine shops and other site-based maker communities, in this paper we ask what narratives are being disseminated about these practices, which frame the maker movement (and other popular technocultural tales like it) as a revolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genealogy, Culture and Technomyth

Braybrooke¹,

Jordan²

2017

Digital Culture &Amp; Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Western-derived maker movements and their associated fab labs and hackerspaces are being lauded by some as a global industrial revolution, responsible for groundbreaking digital “entanglements” that transform identities, practices and cultures at an unprecedented rate (Anderson 2014; Hills 2016). Assertions proliferate regarding the societal and entrepreneurial benefits of these “new” innovations, with positive impacts ascribed to everything, from poverty to connectivity. However, contradictory evidence has started to emerge, suggesting that a heterogeneous set of global cultural practices have been homogenized. This paper employs a materialist genealogical framework to deconstruct three dominant narratives about information technologies, which we call “technomyths” in the tradition of McGregor et al. After outlining the maker movement, its assumptions are examined through three lesser-cited examples: One Laptop per Child in Peru, jugaad in India and shanzhai copyleft in China. We then explore two preceding technomyths: Open Source and Web 2.0. In conclusion, we identify three key aspects as constitutive to all three technomyths: technological determinism of information technologies, neoliberal capitalism and its “ideal future” subjectivities and the absence and/or invisibility of the non-Western.

show abstract

Attachment, Durability and the Environmental Impact of Digital DIY

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

Sustainable Design and Prototyping Using Digital Fabrication Tools for Education

Sustainable Design and Prototyping Using Digital Fabrication Tools for Education

Making “Making” Critical: How Sustainability is Constituted in Fab Lab Ideology

Genealogy, Culture and Technomyth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About