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

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.

Negotiating Between Individualism and Techno-Nationalism: An Empirical Analysis of Chinese Maker Ideology and Practices

“…Slogans such as ''Everyone can make'' and ''Open for everyone'' frequently appear in Make magazine and other maker movement promotional writings (Turner, 2018). The global maker movement celebrates openness and social inclusiveness based on the belief that openness is good for all (Saari et al, 2021). However, empirical evidence shows that makers and maker communities can be ambivalent between open innovation and closed innovation (Halbinger, 2018).…”

Impact of Maker Movement on the Urban Resilience Development: Assessment Methodology and Analysis of EU Research and Innovation Projects

“…The evolution of these spaces varies due to the mix of bottom-up movements and top-down policies with heterogenous players and interests [34,35]. The evolution of the maker movement is complex due to the compromise between openness and commercial aspects, the limitations to engaging some citizen sectors (low-income or elderly groups), and the difficulties in maintaining long-term operation [36]. Moreover, digital fabrication provides a bridge between the concepts of circular economy and industry 4.0 [37].…”

The role of makerspaces in innovation processes: an exploratory study

“…Although we know that makerspace users highly value openness and sharing (West and Kuk, 2016;Langley et al, 2017;Li et al, 2021;Saari et al, 2021), until recently, only a few studies have linked maker community research to the concept of open innovation (Mauroner, 2017;Browder et al, 2019Browder et al, , 2022Zakoth and Mauroner, 2020;Beltagui et al, 2021;Saari et al, 2021). Nevertheless, these studies mainly focus on the aspect that maker communities are another external resource to be leveraged by companies to increase their innovation capabilities.…”