Making at the Margins

Abstract

Making at the Margins: Making in a Resource-constrained e-Waste Recycling Centre HCI 1 and CSCW literature has extensively studied a wide variety of maker cultures. In this paper, we focus on understanding what making is like for people and communities who do not have access to advanced technological infrastructures. We report on six-month-long ethnographic fieldwork at a non-profit, resource-constrained, e-waste recycling centre that engages members from a low socioeconomic status (SES) community in making activities. Our findings show that making in such a setting is shaped by local economic and social factors in a resource-constrained environment and highlight how this community engages in a wide range of making activities. In describing these making activities, we emphasize how making was conducted to purposely enable ongoing and future making by others; promoted the wellbeing and skill development of centre members; and was socially-engaged to address concerns in the local community. We conclude by discussing how such type of making contributes a new understanding of maker culture, one that is appreciative of resource-constraints, integrates different sources of value, and is embedded in local place.CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing ~ Field Studies • Human-centred computing~ Ethnographic studies

Sustainable Design and Prototyping Using Digital Fabrication Tools for Education

“…[23,39] Reusability Are any used materials or electronic components utilized in making the prototype? [26,46] Transportation Is the prototype made using locally available material? [25,27] End of life What are the useful parts after testing the prototype?…”

“…Nevertheless, many components of these prototypes, such as electronic components and material, can be reused or recycled. Since electronic components are among the most common parts used in digital fabrication-based prototypes, the reuse of these components can help in the reduction of e-waste [26,46]. Similar studies about environmental and economical sustainability indicators are listed in Table 2.…”

“…The recycling indicator reflects the use of recyclable material [23,39]. The reusability indicator represents the reuse of electronic components and material from previously built projects/prototypes [26,46]. The transportation indicator refers to local production and the use of locally available materials to reduce environmental and economic transportation impact [25,27].…”

“…The energy consumption indicator denotes the energy utilized by machines in the manufacturing process [25,45,48]. The waste reduction indicator represents the excessive use of material during the fabrication process [23,45,46,54]. Material waste is usually caused when the prototyping process lacks optimization and therefore leads to more than a single iteration.…”

Dismantling the products of global flows: A model for a children’s global (un)makerspace

“…Other studies approached the dismantling process of e-waste in a makerspace from a low socioeconomic status community highlighting the ongoing process of such a making (i.e. the objects created were considered intermediary steps in a greater picture-making endeavour and not finalised artefacts) and the greater importance that tools creation that support this process has to the detriment of a specific artefact non-linked with the sustainability of the makerspace itself (Vyas and Vines, 2019). But, if in such makerspaces fixing and reusing are core values, in today’s consumerist society, even the simple act of repairing and, more importantly, the right to repair are not always granted.…”