'Pop-Up' Maker-Spaces: Catalysts for Creative Participatory Culture
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACHI 2016 : The Ninth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions ‘Pop-up’ Maker-spaces: Catalysts for Creative Participatory Culture Sumit Pandey Swati Srivastava Design of Information Systems, Department of Informatics Design of Information Systems, Department of Informatics University of Oslo University of Oslo Oslo, Norway Oslo, Norway [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—The changing technology landscape has reshaped and has always existed as a form of de-centralized the relationship between producers and consumers and has expression particularly amongst the youth [2]. signaled a shift towards more collaborative and social cultural While the Internet offers an always on and readily forms. These changing cultural practices are referred to as accessible mode of engagement and involvement within ‘Participatory Culture’. While the Internet offers an always on participatory culture [3], research suggests that such and readily accessible mode of engagement and involvement platforms are not always successful in sustained engagement within participatory culture, these platforms need to be in real world civic and cultural activities [4][5]. Papert [6] complemented with collaborative and creative participation in also stressed on the importance of face to face interaction, physical spaces for sustained engagement in real world cultural with a diverse mix of skill levels, from complete beginners to activities. Recent research on maker cultures and the growth of experts, for informal learning in a social setting. While maker-spaces offers very relevant lessons in this regard. Using this research as a point of departure, we propose a participatory culture is discussed exclusively as a form of decentralized and semi-organized form of maker-spaces called Internet based media production and sharing [7]–[9] there is ‘pop-up’ maker-spaces that could act as triggers to create growing interest in the HCI community on a different but, in engagement within communities towards creative and our opinion, closely related phenomenon of ‘maker cultures’ collaborative production and informal knowledge sharing. [10]. Maker cultures refer to alternative practices of material Further, we describe three workshops that were setup as ‘pop- and technology ownership and use with a focus on Do It up’ maker-space environments as a part of a case study to Yourself (DIY) repairs, craft, hacking, digital fabrication and discuss our findings and insights. While all the workshops had electronic tinkering [10][11]. Research has also highlighted a pre-defined thematic area, the final outcomes were very [11]–[13] the role of collaborative co-creation spaces called different and represented differing conceptual and material ‘maker-spaces’ [14] and ‘fablabs’ [15] in catalyzing maker explorations conducted by the participants. cultures. These spaces aim to create accessible co-production platforms for physical products and promote collaborative Keywords- Participatory Culture; Collaborative Spaces; and social problem solving [14][16], which is in-line with Creative Engagement; Co-operation; Awareness; Motivation; Jenkins’ [1] description of participatory culture. Hence, we Digital Engagement. propose that platforms like maker-spaces should be seen as the physical counterparts of online content production and I. INTRODUCTION sharing platforms and have the potential to configure The changing technology landscape has reshaped the participatory cultures within communities by aiding creative relationship between producers and consumers and has production and discussion. However, while maker-spaces signaled a shift towards more collaborative and social and maker culture in general have an openness, cultural forms. These cultures re-consider the passive role of democratization and empowerment driven intent consumers as mere users of content from controlled and [10][12][14], critical research has also pointed out the gaps established channels to a much more active social and between the ideal nature of their intent and the realities of collaborative role - one where they actively access content practice [17][18]. The highly technological nature of the through ever increasing number of dispersed channels, material and culture in maker-spaces tends to also make discuss, re-appropriate and share it. Media scholars and the them exclusive and limited to a ‘techno-savvy’ audience Human Computer Interaction (HCI) community refer to [13]. In light of such critiques, we suggest that maker-spaces these changing cultural practices as “participatory culture” need to take a more decentralized and semi-organized form [1] - a culture of creation, re-appropriation, sharing and with permanent spaces being complemented by ‘maker’ collaboration. Literature points to the importance of community run temporary or ‘pop-up’ maker-spaces that participatory culture in today’s society including could serve to engage larger communities in the means of collaborative learning, an informed attitude towards creative and collaborative production and informal intellectual property, better civic engagement and a more knowledge sharing. We argue that the temporal nature of empowered concept of citizenship [1]. While the most these pop-up maker-spaces could serve to create interest in common and current examples of participatory culture do otherwise disengaged communities and help translate the seem to come from Internet based services and platforms, the open and democratic intent of the maker culture without history of participatory cultures predates these technologies requiring the large scale investments needed for a traditional Copyright (c) IARIA, 2016. ISBN: 978-1-61208-468-8 50 ACHI 2016 : The Ninth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions maker-space. Moreover, the advent of ‘maker’ oriented like space, participants and their level of engagement with portable kit based technology platforms like littleBits [19], the community and the media being generated. SAM [20] and Printrbot [21] allows these spaces to take a 1) Consensus cultures mobile and decentralized shape and does not limit them to This is an “agreement based” culture that is typically fixed areas with expensive hardware on site. Hence, we work or productivity oriented, usually with specific goals suggest these ‘pop-up’ maker-spaces could act as bridges for that need to be met or problems that need to be addressed. A grassroots participation by virtue of being accessible and special form of this kind of participatory culture can be seen offering a low barrier to entry. in “expert cultures” where people with “specialized In this paper, we use one such platform, littleBits [19], knowledge” come together like in think tanks. and examine the role it can play in conjunction with specific 2) Creative cultures spatial arrangements and low-fidelity materials in This is a culture which encourages its participants to configuring a ‘pop-up’ maker-space setup intended to create, re-purpose, remix, share and comment within a safe provoke creative engagement within different communities. and supportive environment. Participants are often very We describe three workshops that were setup as ‘pop-up’ passionate about their areas of interest and creativity and are maker-space environments as a part of a case study to willing to share and build on their knowledge and creations. discuss our findings and insights. While all the workshops This kind of participatory culture is known to foster had a pre-defined thematic area, the final outcomes were sustained engagement. The maker, remix and art cultures are very different and represented differing conceptual and examples of this type of culture. Work within this thesis material explorations conducted by the participants. would primarily explore participatory culture in this context. The paper is structured as follows: The conceptual 3) Discussion cultures considerations and the technological platform that we build This is a culture that fosters participation around specific on to develop the construct of pop-up maker spaces is topics of personal and professional interest rather than introduced in Section II. In Section III, we present our case specific objects and outcomes. Engagement in this kind of study using three workshops that used the pop-up maker culture is varied with participant’s interests changing over space construct in real world scenarios and highlight our time. Since the objective of this kind of culture is discussion approach with participants from different age groups and and debate, the nature of participant exchange may vary from professional areas of practice. Finally, we discuss our support to heated disagreement, often in real time. News findings in Section IV followed by a conclusion in Section sites and fan forums are examples of this type of culture. The V. discussion outlined in this paper primarily concentrates on creative cultures, with its focus on collaborative exchange, II. CONCEPTUAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL sustained engagement and creative production. CONSIDERATIONS In this section, we briefly outline the theoretical B. Maker Culture considerations that helped frame the approach and design of Maker culture refers to practices related to DIY, craft, the elements of decentralized and mobile “pop-up maker- electronic tinkering and technology repair leading to the spaces”. development of alternate notions of material ownership and use within ‘maker communities’ [12]. Lately, maker cultures A. Participatory Cultures have been given