IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i1p18-27..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The promise of the Maker Movement: policy expectations versus community criticisms
[Self-Help, Social Work and Empowerment]

Author

Listed:
  • Federico Ferretti
  • Harro van Lente

Abstract

The rise of the Maker Movement brings along promises of extended citizen participation to science and innovation. In this paper, we investigate policy expectations about the Maker Movement and contrast them with views about science and society prevailing within communities of the movement itself. The analysis is based on a study of European Union policy documents and interviews with experts and practitioners of the Maker Movement. We obtain a self-portrait of the Maker Movement characterized by a set of aspirations, values, and motivations about the science–society relationship that deviate from of policy expectations. We conclude that, the Maker Movement, apart from being a target of policy hopes of increased citizen participation in science and innovation, can also be characterized as a source bed of criticism of mainstream science and innovation. The tension between policy expectations and community criticisms provides lessons for both sides.

Suggested Citation

  • Federico Ferretti & Harro van Lente, 2022. "The promise of the Maker Movement: policy expectations versus community criticisms [Self-Help, Social Work and Empowerment]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 18-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:1:p:18-27.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scab053
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina & Eisebith, Gunter, 2005. "How to institutionalize innovative clusters? Comparing explicit top-down and implicit bottom-up approaches," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1250-1268, October.
    2. Hertel, Guido & Niedner, Sven & Herrmann, Stefanie, 2003. "Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1159-1177, July.
    3. Andrea Saltelli & Catalin Dragomirescu-Gaina, 2014. "New Narratives for the European Project," The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 59, TUT Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance.
    4. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    5. Ying Chen & Can Wu, 2017. "The hot spot transformation in the research evolution of maker," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1307-1324, December.
    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. Larry L. Howell & Terri Bateman, 2023. "Extending research impact by sharing maker information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-4, December.

    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. Rodríguez, Isabel & Williams, Allan M. & Hall, C. Michael, 2014. "Tourism innovation policy: Implementation and outcomes," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 76-93.
    2. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    3. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    4. Anz, Michael, 2009. "Effekte regionalisierter Innovationspolitik auf die Entstehung von Clustern: Eine multidimensionale Betrachtung der Biotechnologieoffensive des Freistaates Sachsen," Arbeitsmaterial der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Dannenberg, Peter & Köhler, Hadia & Lang, Thilo & Utz, Judith & Zakirova, Betka & Zimmermann, Thomas (ed.), Innovationen im Raum - Raum für Innovationen: 11. Junges Forum der ARL, 21. bis 23. Mai 2008 in Berlin, volume 127, pages 91-100, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    5. David, Paul A. & Shapiro, Joseph S., 2008. "Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 364-398, December.
    6. Ogada, Maurice Juma, 2012. "Forest Management Decentralization in Kenya: Effects on Household Farm Forestry Decisions in Kakamega," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126319, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Xuan Yang & Xiao Li & Daning Hu & Harry Jiannan Wang, 2021. "Differential impacts of social influence on initial and sustained participation in open source software projects," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(9), pages 1133-1147, September.
    8. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    9. Yuting Zhang & Xiaofen Yu & Ning Cai & Yong Li, 2020. "Analyzing the Employees’ New Media Use in the Energy Industry：The Role of Creative Self-Efficacy, Perceived Usefulness and Leaders’ Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Lilla Knop, 2019. "Development of Clusters in Poland," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 5(5), pages 15-25, December.
    11. Mario Schaarschmidt & Dirk Homscheid & Thomas Kilian, 2019. "Application Developer Engagement In Open Software Platforms: An Empirical Study Of Apple Ios And Google Android Developers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-33, May.
    12. Carles Méndez-Ortega & Josep-Maria Arauzo-Carod, 2020. "Do software and video game firms share location patterns across cities? Evidence from Barcelona, Lyon and Hamburg," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 64(3), pages 641-666, June.
    13. Alessandro Rossi & Alessandro Narduzzo, 2003. "Modular design and the development of complex artifact lesson fron free open source software," Quaderni DISA 080, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 29 Sep 2003.
    14. Sandeep Kumar Sood & Keshav Singh Rawat, 2021. "A scientometric analysis of ICT-assisted disaster management," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 106(3), pages 2863-2881, April.
    15. Chen, Yan, 2018. "Blockchain tokens and the potential democratization of entrepreneurship and innovation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 567-575.
    16. Yi, Fangxin & Deng, Dong & Zhang, Yanjiang, 2020. "Collaboration of top-down and bottom-up approaches in the post-disaster housing reconstruction: Evaluating the cases in Yushu Qinghai-Tibet Plateau of China from resilience perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Siobhán O’Mahony, 2007. "The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 11(2), pages 139-150, May.
    18. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Van de Graaf, Thijs, 2018. "Building or stumbling blocks? Assessing the performance of polycentric energy and climate governance networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 317-324.
    19. Osterloh, Margit & Rota, Sandra, 2007. "Open source software development--Just another case of collective invention?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 157-171, March.
    20. repec:ocp:rpaper:pp-1704 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Gillert, Nils Lennart & Stock, Ruth M., 2018. "First adoption of consumer innovations: Exploring market failure and alleviating factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 487-497.

    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:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:1:p:18-27.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.