The Journal of Peer Production - New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change
Reviews (Meet Your Personal Cobot) image

Review A

Reviewer: A

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Yes, the treatment of the subject matter is interesting. The article engages in current theory on degrowth economics. However the treatment of theory falls short of a critical engagement.

The authors give account for the major concepts behind pre-figurative politics. This is interesting and the authors present a coherent story, but I was left wondering how exactly this grand theory fits with the messiness of today’s socio-political/economic moment. For example, it is not clear if the treatment of pre-figurative politics and panarcy across pages 3 and 4 is descriptive, predictive, or both? Do these theories describe and explain how our current economies work? What gives us confidence that future changes might follow a conservation, release, reorganisation, exploitation cycle? This section might be strengthened by applying the theoretical insight more directly to the economic situation we find ourselves in.

There is quite a bit of techno-determinism here – to state that the difference between DM in the Arts and Crafts Movements and today is merely distributed P2P nodes is perhaps to miss the institutional complexity of world trade and tax systems that has grown in the century and quarter since, not to mind cultural political shifts in how colonialism works. Given the point of the article is to draw lessons for institutional change, this is an important point (top of page 2). The authors might like to reflect on this in their conclusions.

To be clear, the authors are justified in taking a techno-deterministic perspective, however, they might acknowledge that other approaches can be found in the literature, e.g. evolutionary economics, material semiotics, social construction of technology. This seems particularly important given their stated interest in institutions. Given their stated focus onpost-growth institutions, they might want to reflect just what role institutions do, can and should play in P2PDM.

After the authors establish their framework, they then introduce another concept. A fourth wave of DIY. I’m a bit lost here, I thought we were looking to evaluate things, why wave theory needed for this? And if we have multiple waves, why not compare them. I’m not sure the concept of the wave is needed. I suggest removing it and moving straight on to the evaluation. The authors state on page 7 that P2PDM represents a movement into a fourth wave of resilience production. Perhaps being more circumspect here would be appropriate. Simply asking the question, does this represent a new wave (or ditching the wave language, a novel social ordering), or is it more of the same, might setup the second half of the paper to go and do the analysis and report back. This would have the double benefit of ‘testing’ the framework. So rather than evaluating the fourth wave, evaluate the current state of play. Then report on what this means.

One final point here, the authors might like to reflect on what they mean by institutions? It’s not clear from the framework or the discussion on page 5. Then on page 7 the authors present some analysis in table 1, but is it a wave they are analysing or an institution? How do waves and institutions relate to each other. Providing examples of institutions and institutional processes would help here.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The authors take a mostly un-critical view of P2P DM. The effect of this is to diminish the impact of their proposed framework which has the potential to be quite useful.

This is the most significant shortcoming of the article as it stands. For example, despite a welcome focus on uncertainty, they uncertainties of P2PDM itself is rarely addressed.

For example, might more manufacturing, even in P2PDM mode, be more democratic, or less environmentally destructive, than greater focus on reuse and repair in supply chains?

In a similar vein, the authors make the case for personalised manufacturing. This is asserted without evidence, and unfortunately is not returned to at the end.

One approach here might be to use their framework to test some of the claims made by proponents of P2PDM. Against these claims are concerns that some versions of P2PDM are exclusive hobbies for middle classes, not capable of sustaining critical mass without state or philanthropic support. The authors have the opportunity here to contribute to these debates and tell us what is really going on, at least from their intellectual perspective. This is all the more important given the goal of the attached policy brief. It would be useful for the authors to substantiate the case that P2PDM can contribute to economic/industrial policy rather than in itself requiring policy intervention just to survive – intervention that perhaps might come with opportunity cost, e.g. to other public policy budgets.

4) Is the article well written?

The article is written in a compelling and enthusiastic style. With more references to empirical material, and some acknowledgements of some of the uncertainties of P2PDM, it might make for a broad ranging and informative article.

That said, the article might be improved with careful attention to the flow of the argument and treatment of the empirical anecdote. There is a lot of grand theory, the danger of which is the difficulty in applying it to strategies for policy intervention. Where this does not relate directly to the framework, perhaps remove. For example, the discussion on wave theory seemed superfluous to evaluating the potential of P2PDM for degrowth.

A clear statement of intent in the introduction would be useful. Tell us at the start you are creating a framework and you are going to test it. If that’s what you are going to do.

A clear research question might help here. For example, how can we test conceptualise and evaluate x…

Suggestion for the anecdote on page 10-12: put this prefigurative example much earlier in the article. I really wanted an example to get my head around. Can you discuss the overall theory and concepts in relation to this. I found much of the discussion following the framework to be ungrounded and hard to follow. You’d already told me the theory, I wanted you to really test this. Instead I got mroe theory, where speculation was not always justified.

The example is interesting, but the authors tell only part of the story. What about knowledge, and context and relations? The stuff at the heart of their framework. And where is the P2P in this story? Where are the institutions?

The treatment of progress and technological individualist innovation is deeply contested by scholars in innovation studies, at least those of a heterodox economist bent. Are ideas of lock-in and path dependence relevant here?

Is the interesting part of this story not the books and the YouTubes and the transfer of knowledge. Where did Gingery get his knowledge from? How was he able to afford the time to do this? To pay the rent on his workshop? Why was building ‘your own’ metal working shop from scrap important in the 1980s? Was it because of economic necessity, were makers short on resource or did they have too much leisure time available? Can you reflect on the motivations here?

There’s a lot more to be gained from this case study.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

I have made suggestions for removing superfluous theory above.

The empirical anecdote could be put to better use by relating it directly to the framework. One way of doing this might be to introduce the anecdote earlier, and then use the theoretical framework discussion to deconstruct it.

The discussion of a self-replicating 3D printer is a distraction. This article is about institutions and testing frameworks, not technological thought experiments. This is an over-generalised distraction from an interesting argument. Surely the point of the evaluative framework offered is to show how networks of people and things and knowledge might be used to advance human progress away from harmful growth, towards something else. The case of ‘self’ replicating machines is beside the point, which more interestingly I take to be: how machines and humans form networks that have more useful values at the heart of them.

The conclusions needs to reflect on the primary contribution of the paper, the framework. Is it useful? How? Why should JoPP readers care about this? Who else should care about this?

Review B

Reviewer: B

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes. The article extends the peer production studies focus of the journal by exploring the special issue’s theme of ‘transition’ in two ways: first, by tracing how robot safety discourse is transforming, and being transformed by, DIY cultures; and second by exploring how makerspaces are reconfigured by virtue of
these encounters. It does this by referencing previous peer production studies, and contributing to these
through empirical research and analysis on the roles and ethics of cobots in makerspace ecosystems,
and how the ‘trading zones’ of such relations are homogenized through these collaborative encounters.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Certainly. The conceptualisation of human-machine relations in/around institutionally-oriented
makerspaces as ‘trading zones’ and ‘knowledge boundaries’ from STS literature is a novel contribution to
the makerspace canon, as is the focus on cobot relations within these environments, and the dynamics
and conflicts that arise therein.
The discussion of makerspace cultures outside of the Global North is appreciated, and could be built
upon further – especially as much on-the-ground and grassroots DIY/DIT robotics experimentation now
happens in Chinese and African contexts.
The article’s discussion would also benefit from a quick reference of the points made in the accompanying
policy piece that will sit alongside the article, in particular with regards to how EU policy discourse is
associated with the human-machine ethics explored in their fieldsite.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The author’s focus on using the term “do-it-yourself” would benefit from a discussion which clarifies the
reasoning behind their choice of implementing this term (which some might argue is now outdated)
instead its more recent iteration, “do-it-together” or “DIWO/do it with others”, which connotes the
interconnectedness of relations in/by maker and/or tactical media cultures (see Furtherfield DIWO et al).
The article’s analysis seems to be derived from ethnographic study, including participant observation and
interviews. Their use of spoken word quotes from informants is largely uncited, however, which presents
ethical concerns. The reviewer suggests the author properly cite the source of such quotes, even if said
source is anonymous, along with the date and means/location of the data collection.
The author also references someone they call a “hacker” – but does not explain why this term is in
quotes, or what they mean by hacker. Other terms like this are provided in quotes and also not defined.
These terms are not givens which are universally understood, and therefore require further clarity.

4) Is the article well written?

The article would benefit from a thorough proof-read, as there is a lack of a space in between several
words that should be separated, words like “hackathon” are misspelled, and words also seem to be
missing in a few sentences – e.g. “collaborative industrial robots (short cobots)” (should be short for?
Otherwise will confuse readers). Some author names from prev JoPP issues are also misspelled –
Smiths, for example, should be Smith.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

No. The article is well organised.