‘I have so little time […] I got shit I need to do’: Critical perspectives on making and sharing in Manchester’s FabLab

Abstract

This paper argues for rethinking the economic geography of sharing and making in light of the recent proliferation of open innovation, makerspaces and maker movements. Using empirical research from an example of one such makerspace – Manchester’s FabLab – and engaging with a range of geographical literatures on making, sharing economies, and digital fabrication, we develop a critical account of sharing in principle and in practice. The portrayal of open innovation spaces, such as FabLabs, as novel makerspaces of alterity and sharing is a common and underpinning theme in both academic and marketing literature (Aldrich, 2014; Anderson, 2012; Doherty, 2012; Fab Foundation, 2012; Gershenfeld, 2005; Suire, 2019). However, our findings suggest that the values espoused by the FabLab, of involvement, connection and affinity, are quite literally being revised and rejected by makers who use the space. Time, labour and knowledge were for the most part described by participants as precious commodities to be savoured rather than shared. Thus, while sharing is an ordinarily economic practice, this does not mean it is always, inevitably or evenly employed by economic actors and communities, especially within counter-cultural networks. If these are to be the economies of the future, we implore economic geographers to critically engage further with the complexities of and within maker spaces.

How Open Is the Maker Movement? Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement

“…Bringing about the next industrial revolution [14] requires a great deal of open practices from sharing spaces, designs and knowledge to opening up the closed "black boxes" (see, e.g., [15]) of technology. Similarly, building more maker-based businesses and economic growth in the current capitalist system requires constant balancing between open sharing and individualistic profit-making [3]. To be able to build a desirable future for the maker movement, more understanding of the implications of promoting openness is needed.…”

“…One commonly recognised barrier for open practices in the maker movement is value conflicts. Even when openness is ideologically important to makers, it often conflicts with other values such as financial motivations [36] or other individual aspirations [3]. These conflicts might lead to not sharing one's laboured designs freely for others to copy [65] or patenting one's innovations despite the commonly held value of open sharing [3].…”

“…Even though openness is such a central value to the maker movement and has such a profound role in shaping the movement's future, a comprehensive review of the topic has been lacking so far. When openness of the maker movement has been studied, the perspective has usually focused on one of the aspects of openness, such as inclusiveness Sustainability 2021, 13, 13559 2 of 20 of certain groups of people (e.g., [2]), openness of knowledge sharing (e.g., [3]), implications of open hardware (e.g., [4]) or the economic implications of open maker practices (e.g., [5]). In this article, all these different perspectives are brought together.…”

Digitale ferdigheiter som ferdigrett eller råvare?

“…Men sjølv om mange kan einast om ideologiane bak, har fleire etterkvart vore kritiske til om dei ber heilt ut i dei praktiske aktivitetane og det daglege virke. Er rørsla så baerekraftig som den hevdar å vere (Kohtala, 2017), eller er delekulturen så til stades som den burde (Johns & Hall, 2020). Forskaren Selena Nemorin har studert elevar og seg sjølv i makarundervisning og stiller seg kritisk til kva ein eigentleg laerer gjennom forming på 3D printar.…”

Maker Networks Fighting Covid-19: Design Guidelines for Redistributed Manufacturing (RDM) Models

“…Recent works on Maker Movement have claimed its influence on economic development and innovative solutions generation (Chen & Wu, 2017). There is literature on how makers are organized or inserted in some network (Giusti, Alberti, & Belfanti, 2020;Hamalainen & Karjalainen, 2017;Johns & Hall, 2020;Smith, 2017). There is also literature on positive outcomes of their collaboration (Lindtner, 2015;Roedl, Bardzell, & Bardzell, 2015).…”