No abstract

The emergence of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) science movements is becoming a topic widely discussed in academia and policy, as well as by the general public and the media. While DIY approaches enjoy increasing diffusion even in official research, different social actors frequently talk about them in different ways and circumstances. Interaction and negotiation processes amongst actors (e.g. policy makers and DIY communities) define the premises upon which different conceptualisations of DIY science are deployed.In this paper we offer a framework for analysing the discourse on DIY science.Our study consists of a field research of three spaces active in DIY science premises, two dedicated events of the DIY community, and an auto-ethnography in the field of DIY biology.By relying on the theory of social worlds/arenas (SW/A), we collected data on how notions of DIY science are constructed by different social actors and how conceptual borders are built or are likely to shift, resulting in multiple possible SW/A mappings. We conclude that each and every conceptualisation of DIY science cannot stand independently from the situatedness of its multiple contexts, therefore making its usage in policy making and governance particularly complex.

No 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.

No abstract