Creating Community with Technology: Why Making Matters webinar series

The ‘Maker Movement’ has the potential to re-energize learning and revitalize communities. Is it just a flash in the pan or will the Maker Movement continue to grow and infuse new energy into local manufacturing, agriculture and education? This webinar series will look at places and process of making, and how we can engage in this potentially transformative movement in local communities.

 

Introduction and Overview: An Introduction to the Maker Movement and its historical roots. We’ll discuss what the maker movement is, its role in creating innovation and community, and government support available to makers. This webinar will provide the context for other webinars in this series

November 12 11am-Noon

Making on the Farm: Re-use, Innovation and Tradition. Farmers, by necessity, have always been DIY’ers. The current reinvigoration of small scale agriculture, including urban farming, has paralleled the growth of the maker movement. This webinar will look the impact of making on the farm as the continuation of a longstanding tradition.

November 24 11am-Noon

Civic Making: Connecting Makers to Community. What is the potential of an energized and focused maker movement to help shape community sustainability and development? This webinar will look at making as a community connected activity by exploring an emerging 4-H program here in New York, as well as other examples of civically engaged making.

December 8, 11am-Noon

DIY Manufacturing and community: 3D printing, CNC routing, and More. New technologies are encouraging the growth of small scale manufacturing, in some areas. This webinar will look at some examples of a revitalized, small scale, industry emerging from the Maker movement.

December 17 11am-Noon

Contact me if you are interested in attending any of the sessions.

A few initial thoughts on Distributed Making.

016f38f18d9a2dcfce77df5284e0e226499b2bb936Recently, I attended MakerCon 2015 at the New York Hall of Science in Queens. It was a packed day and there is a lot to reflect on. Two panels, in particular, stood out for me and I’d like to offer a few comments on one of them today.

The distributed making panel was one of the final sessions for the day but in many ways was an opening for many other conversations that need to unfold around making and its impact in the world. The session focused on the power of networks within the maker movement, and the ability to use these networks for manufacturing at a distance as well as sharing and collaboration. It also emphasized some of the challenges faced by the maker movement if it is hoping to have a real and lasting impact in critical zones.

Critical zones is perhaps a polite way to say disadvantaged, or disaster or war torn communities. But that is one aspect that needs to be addressed head on. Is making a cool hobby, a way for emerging entrepreneurs to prototype new things to manufacture or an emerging alternative to existing structures that can distribute benefits, technologies, etc…(I know it is not an either or but much of what I heard at MakerCon seemed to exclude or, at best, not point towards the potential of maker confederations, cooperatives or any alternative economic system that could arise from a truly democratized technology*). The potential positive impacts of a networked manufacturing process that could create access to cself made and modified tools in the field, on the fly, is (could be) a paradigm shifting innovation. A lot points to that becoming real.

But, even with an optimistic spin, there are major obstacles in the way. Costs, appropriateness of available materials, impacts and consequences of new technologies in the field…there are so many ways  new technologies could be used to replicate existing power systems, or increase imbalances, that it is difficult to remain hopeful. And, especially in regards to technology, we have seen the promise of (insert favorite life changing object or device here) to change the world as not much more that clever marketing scheme.

Even so, some of the stories shared by the panelists at MakerCon were hopeful, even if filled with challenges. David Ott (@d_ott), from the ICRC, grounded the discussion in the realities of humanitarian aid and the possibilities of making in disaster and war zones. The harsh realities were impossible to ignore, and some of the rosy hue of making faded. It may be wonderful to have a distributed network of 3d printers at hand, but if there is no electricity, if the printing materials are of poor quality, if roads are devastated and impassable – well, there is still some distance to travel in order to make distributed making of use in (I was tempted to say atypical situations, but really situations of poverty, disaster and war are more realistically typical, as sad as that is) critical zones.

Sort of on-topic and well worth checking outMakerNurse (and related to the other panel I found very interesting at MakerCon – look for that post soon)

*a long parenthetical deviation that merits its own post- it’s coming…

 

 

Technology in, for, and with community 1 | Fab Ateneus, Barcelona

Being based at a university, and working within the cooperative extension system, I’m always looking for models of community/university collaboration that exemplify a participatory engagement with citizens (Or, as some would put it- “stakeholder” engagement). And in our current era of makers and making, examples that integrate technology are especially of interest. And I always mean to preserve examples when I find them, but hardly ever do…until now. Going to make a real effort to post them here starting now.

Fab Ateneus, in Barcelona, is my first stop. First brought to my awareness by this great article in the Guardian back in April, it has obviously been lurking about in the recesses of my mind influencing my thoughts about making and civic engagement.

There are more examples, programs, place and people working on technology in, with and for community – likely many more than I am aware of – that I’ll try to highlight as time goes on.

‘Making” in public

 

Making in public, with littleBits
Making in public, with littleBits

Last week I was able to spend 2 days at the New York State Fair as part of our attempt to get the Civic Makers program up and running. A large part of our time at the fair was spent talking and tinkering with passersby. Curiosity, and the opportunity to interact with technologies in a non-threatening and no-risk way, lead to a lot of experimentation and a fair number of questions.

And, in reflecting on this experience, I was struck by the fact that people really do want to tinker with, and understand, technology. It’s just that the opportunities to do so – for many people- are limited, at best. The fair was a fairly diverse audience and the curiosity and desire to play was not age dependent. And even though technologies such as 3d printing are becoming more pervasive, access to the technology – access to seeing and being able to ask questions – is limited.

I am beginning to think it is incumbent upon us – technologists, geeks, nerds, makers, et. al.- to do much much more making in public. And we need to bring the necessary patience and compassion in order to engage effectively with people and communities that may be curious but inexperienced. Democratizing technology is only an aspiration until we begin to do this work.

Civic makers

IMG_0115Civics, for some of us of a certain age, might call up memories of somewhat musty school books, droning teachers and student councils. It is one of those terms that can seem endearingly dated in our ironic (or are we post-ironic yet?), cynical post-democratic ( we sure seem to be hitting the mark on that one) age. But it is far past time for us to reclaim civics, to reclaim the commons that we as citizens share. Some attempts are being made, some alternative pathways to a new civics are trying to be born, but it is an uphill (which in not to say sisyphean) slog.

But the systems that interlock and compose the civic sphere are not completely gone. And they are systems and networks and linkages – discernable even under the dust and corruption of non-use – which brings me to my reason for this post. The development of civic makers.

The use of our ability to teach others (especially, but not exclusively, youth) how to use technology to make things that exist, interface with, rebuild and/or reinforce civic structures and networks should be a primary focus of our work. This does not mean that we use civics, or making for good, or communities as workshops, as a bludgeon but that those elements of community and citizenship are present in our work and teaching. We must use our time to teach both the technology and an understanding of systems, of logic and processes that is transferable beyond the realm of technology.

Understanding technology and  using it to create can be a liberating experience. And in the past I have facilitated sessions where it was just that. And it is a wonderful thing to accompany youth on this journey – without a doubt. But leaving it there, as an experience that exists somewhere beyond the ‘harsh’ realities of the tangible world, is a kind of disservice. I say this as someone who believes deeply in the power of Minecraft as a tool, a hook, to bring youth into the world of coding and crafting. The ever-present challenge, as I perceive it now, is to use tools such as Minecraft with clearer focus and intent. Structuring learning opportunities such that we are very clearly teaching comprehension of systems and processes. Not in a lifeless and pedantic way and not even in any blatant way but as co-learners and co-teachers with our participants, discovering systems and networks and processes together as we use the tools at hand to craft and make.

 

 

 

Design and Technology Session with Teens – from 2003

Just a bit of archival preservation here. In 2003 we did a 4-H Career Explorations session on Design and Technology. In the past few years I have looked for, but been unable to find, the documents related to this event. Today I did stumble on them and so thought I would preserve the content here.

Session description:

In this program we will explore and re-design common technology tools including cell phones, gps devices, and hand held computing devices.  We will also take a look at the design process and the impact of users on design evolution. Maximum number of students:  15

Wednesday June 25

2-4:30  Information in the Palm of your hand: Exploring the design rationale for mobile information devices. During this period we will look at the evolution of hand held devices and explore evolution of their current design. Issues of form and function and the design decision process will be explored. Design teams will be formed to begin the preliminary design process for a new device. Design materials for this session will include paper, pencils and markers.

Thursday, June 26

8:30 – 4:00

Morning will begin with presentation by the design teams and discussion of their previous afternoon’s design work.  Changes in the design requirements will be made and a re-design session will begin. This will end at approximately 11am.

11-12 short presentation of redesigns and distribution of materials for the afternoon session.

1-4 transfer of paper based design to 3 dimensional model using clay and other materials.

Friday, June 27

8:30 – 12:00 Presentation of design by teams and preparation for closing ceremony presentation

Usage Scenarios:

conx

| A mobile information device that connects you with your friends. This device would have the ability to communicate with multiple people at the same time and might have the ability to locate them, geographically. Communication could be textual, voice or video.

Scenario 1:

Susie, Luis, Emily, Alex and Phil are going to the mall. Susie needs to go to the Gap, Luis to Zumiez, Emily wants to Best Buy and Alex is going to T.J.’s. Phil is just along for the ride. While at the Gap Susie spots a pair of printed side zip capri’s that she just isn’t sure about:Susie wishes that Emily was here to help her make up her mind. How would ConX be useful here?

Scenario 2:

Wanda, Ray, Roberto, Dexter and Mitzi are visiting New York City. After breakfast at the hotel Wanda, Roberto and Dexter head off to Central Park. Mitzi and Ray hop on the subway and head down to the village. While wandering the streets of the village Mitzi and Ray get separated. Wanda and Roberto head into the central park zoo. Dexter is distracted by the game of 3 card monte taking place on 5th avenue.

Ray turns down Bleeker street and finds a perfect café. He wishes Mitzi were with him…..

Dexter realizes he has lost Wanda and Roberto……

How can ConX help?

 

Makers,making,diy and hacking citations

As of December 9, 2014: Journal articles I’ve gathered around the topic of makers and making. Many read, a handful left to work through, and more to discover. Does not include books – update on those coming soon.

 

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Learning Through STEM-Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice. Science Education, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1002/sce.21151

Blikstein, P. (2013). Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on …, 173–182. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2485786

Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The Makers ’ Movement and FabLabs in Education : Experiences , Technologies , and Research, 613–616.

Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands On, Hands Off: Gendered Access in Crafting and Electronics Practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278–297. doi:10.1080/10749039.2014.939762

Dawkins, N. (2014). Do-It-Yourself : The Precarious Work and Postfeminist Politics of Handmaking ( in ) Detroit. Utopian Studies, 22(2), 261–284. doi:10.1353/utp.2011.0037

Fox, S. (2014a). Third Wave Do-It-Yourself (DIY): Potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure. Technology in Society, 39, 18–30. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.07.001

Golsteijn, C., Hoven, E., Frohlich, D., & Sellen, A. (2013a). Hybrid crafting: towards an integrated practice of crafting with physical and digital components. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(3), 593–611. doi:10.1007/s00779-013-0684-9

Goodman, E., & Rosner, D. K. (2011). From Garments to Gardens : Negotiating Material Relationships Online and “ By Hand ,” 2257–2266.

Hemmi, A., & Graham, I. (2013). Hacker science versus closed science: building environmental monitoring infrastructure. Information, Communication & Society, 17(7), 830–842. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.848918

Hemphill, D., & Leskowitz, S. (2012). DIY Activists: Communities of Practice, Cultural Dialogism, and Radical Knowledge Sharing. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(1), 57–77. doi:10.1177/0741713612442803

Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. a. (2011). Youth, Technology, and DIY: Developing Participatory Competencies in Creative Media Production. Review of Research in Education, 35(1), 89–119. doi:10.3102/0091732X10383211

Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). Rise of the Expert Amateur : DIY Projects , Communities , and Cultures, (Figure 1), 295–304.

Lindtner, S., Hertz, G., & Dourish, P. (2014a). Emerging Sites of HCI Innovation : Hackerspaces , Hardware Startups & Incubators, 1–10.

Minsky, M., Akshay, N., Amritha, N., Anila, S., Nair, A. C., Gopalan, A., & Bhavani, R. R. (2013). Soft Circuits for Livelihood and Education in India, 2–5.

Moilanen, J. (2012a). Emerging Hackerspaces – Peer-production, 94–111.

Roeck, D. De, Slegers, K., Criel, J., Godon, M., & Claeys, L. (2012). I would DiYSE for it ! A manifesto for do-it-yourself internet-of-things creation, 170–179.

Rosner, D. K. (2013). Making Citizens, Reassembling Devices: On Gender and the Development of Contemporary Public Sites of Repair in Northern California. Public Culture, 26(1 72), 51–77. doi:10.1215/08992363-2346250

Smith, C. D. (2014). Handymen , Hippies and Healing : Social Transformation through the DIY Movement ( 1940s to 1970s ) in North America, 2(1), 1–10.

Tanenbaum, J., & Williams, A. (2013). Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice. Proceedings of the …, 2603–2612. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2481360

Thomson, C. C., & Jakubowski, M. (2014). Toward an Open Source Civilization. Innovations, 7(3), 53–70.

Toombs, A., Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2012). Becoming Makers : Hackerspace Member Habits , Values , and Identities. Journal of Peer Production, (5), 1–8.

Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (n.d.). Making and Tinkering.

Weinberg, T. (2012). Making ( in ) Brooklyn : The Production of Textiles , Meaning , and Social Change.

Wylie, S. A., Jalbert, K., Dosemagen, S., & Ratto, M. (2014). Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Making is Transforming Environmental Research. The Information Society, 30(2), 116–126. doi:10.1080/01972243.2014.875783

Zapico, J. L., Pargman, D., Ebner, H., & Eriksson, E. (n.d.). Hacking sustainability : Broadening participation through Green Hackathons.

Zelenika, I., & Pearce, J. M. (2012). The Internet and other ICTs as tools and catalysts for sustainable development: innovation for 21st century. Information Development, 29(3), 217–232. doi:10.1177/0266666912465742

 

Also available over at Mendeley: http://www.mendeley.com/groups/4975081/makers-and-making-diy-hacking/