IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i24p13559-d697362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Hanna Saari

    (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044 Espoo, Finland)

  • Maria Åkerman

    (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044 Espoo, Finland)

  • Barbara Kieslinger

    (Centre for Social Innovation, 1150 Vienna, Austria)

  • Jouko Myllyoja

    (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044 Espoo, Finland)

  • Regina Sipos

    (Institute of Vocational Education and Work Studies, Technical University of Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

This article explores the multiple meanings of the concept of openness in the global maker movement. Openness is viewed as one of the key principles of the maker movement. As the global maker movement is a bricolage of diverse and situated practices and traditions, there are also many different interpretations and ways of practicing openness. We have explored this diversity with an integrative literature review, relying on the Web of Science™ database. We identified three interrelated but also, in part, mutually contested approaches to openness. Firstly, openness often refers to applying open hardware. Secondly, it is in many cases related to the inclusion and empowerment of various groups in making. Thirdly, openness appears to be seen as a means to pursue economic growth through increasing innovation activity and entrepreneurship. Our results also highlight the substantial barriers encountered by makers while aiming to open up their practices. These barriers include: value conflicts in which openness is overridden by other important values; exclusion of lower income groups from making due to a lack of resources; and difficulties in maintaining long-term activities. The different meanings of openness together with the barriers create tensions within the maker movement while implementing openness. We propose that engaging in a reflexive futures dialogue on the consequences of these tensions can enhance the maker movement to become more open, inclusive and resilient.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanna Saari & Maria Åkerman & Barbara Kieslinger & Jouko Myllyoja & Regina Sipos, 2021. "How Open Is the Maker Movement? Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13559-:d:697362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13559/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13559/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Langley, David J. & Zirngiebl, Marthe & Sbeih, Janosch & Devoldere, Bart, 2017. "Trajectories to reconcile sharing and commercialization in the maker movement," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 783-794.
    2. Jeremy Millard & Marie N. Sorivelle & Sarah Deljanin & Elisabeth Unterfrauner & Christian Voigt, 2018. "Is the Maker Movement Contributing to Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-29, June.
    3. Bergman, Brian J. & McMullen, Jeffery S., 2020. "Entrepreneurs in the making: Six decisions for fostering entrepreneurship through maker spaces," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 811-824.
    4. Troxler, Peter & Wolf, Patricia, 2017. "Digital maker-entrepreneurs in open design: What activities make up their business model?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 807-817.
    5. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Browder, Russell E. & Aldrich, Howard E. & Bradley, Steven W., 2019. "The emergence of the maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 459-476.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sharma, Gautam, 2024. "‘Making’ in India: Understanding Makerspaces and Fablabs in the Indian Informal Innovation Context," Papers in Innovation Studies 2024/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. Lina Monaco & Carlos Herce, 2023. "Impact of Maker Movement on the Urban Resilience Development: Assessment Methodology and Analysis of EU Research and Innovation Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-39, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tabarés, Raúl & Kuittinen, Hanna, 2020. "A tale of two innovation cultures: Bridging the gap between makers and manufacturers," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Vladimiras Dolgopolovas & Valentina Dagiene, 2021. "On the Future of Computational Thinking Education: Moving beyond the Digital Agenda, a Discourse Analysis Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Claussen, Jörg & Halbinger, Maria A., 2021. "The role of pre-innovation platform activity for diffusion success: Evidence from consumer innovations on a 3D printing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    4. Brian J. Bergman & Jeffery S. McMullen, 2022. "Helping Entrepreneurs Help Themselves: A Review and Relational Research Agenda on Entrepreneurial Support Organizations," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(3), pages 688-728, May.
    5. Gantert, Till M. & Fredrich, Viktor & Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Kraus, Sascha, 2022. "The moral foundations of makerspaces as unconventional sources of innovation: A study of narratives and performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1564-1574.
    6. Vladimiras Dolgopolovas & Valentina Dagiene, 2022. "On Semiotics Perspectives of Computational Thinking: Unravelling the “Pamphlet” Approach, a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-22, February.
    7. Bergman, Brian J. & McMullen, Jeffery S., 2020. "Entrepreneurs in the making: Six decisions for fostering entrepreneurship through maker spaces," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 811-824.
    8. Halbinger Maria A., 2020. "The Relevance of Makerspaces for University-based Venture Development Organizations," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-4, April.
    9. Rahman, Shaikh Moksadur, 2020. "Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Evidence from Bangladesh," Asian Business Review, Asian Business Consortium, vol. 10(2), pages 99-108.
    10. Naveena Prakasam & Louisa Huxtable-Thomas, 2021. "Reddit: Affordances as an Enabler for Shifting Loyalties," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 723-751, June.
    11. Valeriy Makarov & Albert Bakhtizin, 2014. "The Estimation Of The Regions’ Efficiency Of The Russian Federation Including The Intellectual Capital, The Characteristics Of Readiness For Innovation, Level Of Well-Being, And Quality Of Life," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(4), pages 9-30.
    12. Kristine Edgar Danielyan & Samvel Grigoriy Chailyan, 2019. "Delineation of Effectors Impact on The Human Brain Derived Phosphoribosylpyrophosphate Synthetase-1 Activity," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 24(1), pages 17918-17926, December.
    13. Chuan Wang & Yupeng Liu & Wen Hou & Chao Yu & Guorong Wang & Yuyan Zheng, 2021. "Reliability and availability modeling of Subsea Autonomous High Integrity Pressure Protection System with partial stroke test by Dynamic Bayesian," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(2), pages 268-281, April.
    14. Sana Sadiq & Khadija Anasse & Najib Slimani, 2022. "The impact of mobile phones on high school students: connecting the research dots," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 30(1), pages 252-270, April.
    15. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2019. "The recipe of successful crowdfunding campaigns," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 661-679, December.
    16. Martins, José & Costa, Catarina & Oliveira, Tiago & Gonçalves, Ramiro & Branco, Frederico, 2019. "How smartphone advertising influences consumers' purchase intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 378-387.
    17. Wu, Bing & Yip, Tsz Leung & Yan, Xinping & Guedes Soares, C., 2022. "Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    18. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    19. Bilgihan, Anil & Barreda, Albert & Okumus, Fevzi & Nusair, Khaldoon, 2016. "Consumer perception of knowledge-sharing in travel-related Online Social Networks," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 287-296.
    20. Géraldine Boué & Enda Cummins & Sandrine Guillou & Jean‐Philippe Antignac & Bruno Le Bizec & Jeanne‐Marie Membré, 2017. "Development and Application of a Probabilistic Risk–Benefit Assessment Model for Infant Feeding Integrating Microbiological, Nutritional, and Chemical Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2360-2388, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13559-:d:697362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.