Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject matter is relevant and interesting. The main argument is that a maker identity co-develops with a set of attitudes, abilities, and social relationships/group setting. Generally the argument is well-reasoned and has an appropriate backing of literature, although the flow could be better… theoretical lineage of this paper could be better-defined and the arguments more clearly aligned with a particular perspective (which I take is the next step of this process with “signaling”).

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?

Christina Dunbar-Hester’s work, particularly in her chapter for the DIY citizenship book w/Matt Ratto, she talks about how an amateur radio group saw tinkering as a political imperative to improve access (similar to “futzing”). Mimi Ito’s “hanging out, messing around, geeking out” came to mind as futzing sounded very much like “messing around,” particularly as regards material limitations.

An identity focus may not be necessary if the focus of the paper is around individual-level concepts such as attitude and participation that are brought out by the space. I mention this because 1. identity is a bit of a catch-all term and has different meanings in cultural studies, social psychology, etc. and tends to have a fairly loose and diluted meaning, 2. It feels like the tool portion is more interesting and meshes better with the ad-hoc nature of the spaces, and 3. the plurality of identities in hacker and maker spaces is a bit of an issue if you are making claims about “maker culture.” For example I agree with the author that not all members are makers. Andrew Schrock’s work on hacker and maker spaces discusses how these identities can be used as wedges in a group to discuss differences, for example. The author’s subjects describes a wide variety of hams and geeks that suggest a wide range of makers out there.

If you keep identity because it is central, it needs grounding in one academic lineage or other. The theoretical lineage surrounding tools would similarly benefit from being more specific… perhaps coming at the question from one lineage rather than synthesizing multiple ones. Was surprised not to see a mention of Heidegger’s tool use theory or technology appropriation.

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

I’d suggest further clarifying the relationship between attitudes, skills and social learning of the space that enhance a maker identity. It sounds like you’re suggesting both that people come to the space with certain attitudes/skills and that these are refined IN the space, leading to this progression from everyday maker to a more empowered outlook. This makes sense to me and should be highlighted, and care taken to remember people like John from p. 15 for whom this didn’t work should be clarified. The conclusion that John didn’t decide to continue because he wasn’t “maker-y” enough for the makerspace feels rather tautological and reverts to a “pull one’s self up by the bootstraps” perspective on individual agency.

One trap is that makers fall into is they feel everyone is an inherent maker and just require the right environment and tools to have it brought out. That’s why mitch altman is bringing soldering irons to Africa. I think this is quite a bit too simple and reverts to (literally) childish notions about what making is and how it leads to change in attitudes and skills, or more broadly, economic/social conditions (see Anderson’s Makers). Your work provides a really nice critique of this stance, complete with a complex set of personalized activities that intrinsically matter to members. So… I would be careful to be reflexive about how and why makers rise to this next level.

4. Is the article well written?

Generally there needs to be more focus in the writing. Examples are also needed throughout. It’s difficult to unpack early statements without a sentence-long example.

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

Covered above, I think. Perhaps trim the section on community on p. 19. This doesn’t feel very central to the tool argument. Community is also a point of contention in hacker and maker spaces — lots of discussions on mailing lists about whether they even are communities, which imply a more tightly-bound group rather than a loose collective.

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes, the subject matter is relevant and the paper’s contribution is made clear. Thank you for a very interesting paper!

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 subject matter treatment is intellectually interesting.

I assume the heavy attention given to CHI is deliberate?
I might ask the authors to consider if some further comparisons or descriptions are necessary especially when discussing adhocism. At the moment the paper is rather self-referential and looking inwards to a certain extent (i.e. hacking and hackerspaces alone). I recognize this is a result of describing what the data was telling you, but I therefore miss some comparisons outside of hacking-making, e.g. with traditional craftsmanship or artisanship. The Jencks & Silver reference is obviously wider than architecture, but architecture forms the roots of the discussion – and we better understand “ad hoc” (especially its aesthetics) when we know what it is an alternative to (highly planned, highly finished buildings). Didn’t any of these makers ever try to go for a more finished look, with high quality, the way a traditional artisan would? I do understand if such comparisons are out of scope but I wonder about the complete lack of reference to the older roots of DIY (in woodwork, metalwork, textile crafts, etc.).

The use of the word ‘optimism’ is not clear to me (section ‘In Futz We Trust’). Why do you consider it ‘optimism’? Perhaps here lessons from e.g. improvisational theatre are helpful for the reader to better grasp this quality (as we see clearly in how you describe the futzing process and teaching it). Or references to development of tacit knowledge in e.g. organizational studies?

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

The method of analysis (Ogden and Richards’s close reading) seems only appropriate for part of the task: the semantics and rhetorics. Did you not perform visual or performative analyses, even in part? I consider the visual aesthetic qualities of adhocism exceedingly important. Can they be / were they described also using this data analysis method?

One detail: I wonder about the word ‘mundane’ on p. 4 (section ‘Tools, Users, and Self-Made Tools’) – that seems to me a clear (and unfair) judgement on other types of making. Considering the difference in ‘quality’ that would set apart much of traditional making/handicraft (fine woodworking is a good example) from the adhocism valued in this paper’s making activities, I find it quite dismissive. Perhaps this was not intended.

Again I find myself referring to traditional crafts and making activities. If it is not worth including it in any comparisons or discussions, perhaps a sentence explaining why is appropriate? Do these makers not try for more refinement in design or material because it is a tool and not a finished artefact, means rather than ends? Or is it because the skill embodied in this type of maker tool is more intangible than in conventional making? (e.g. coding skill as opposed to the fine crafting of a tangible tool in e.g. metalwork?) I suspect the same adhocism continues to apply in the non-tool works as well?

4. Is the article well written?

Yes, the article is well organized and the writing is good. Note a very long sentence that stands alone as its own paragraph in the section ‘Tools, Users, and Self-Made Tools’ (near the end, beginning “Summarizing this research…”. Joining the last paragraph in that section with this sentence would suffice.

In the first paragraphs that introduce the section ‘Six Cases…’, in the sentence containing “they are, for instance not good enough, too hard to use, overkill, unavailable, etc.” consider putting “overkill” in quotation marks as slang or an informal term the subjects use themselves – which you will explain later. As for the term “homebrew”, is it widely familiar, or is it still considered slang or jargon used only by a certain community?

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

I was wondering about the inclusion of the power-generating bicycle and why it was considered a ‘tool’ – despite being an interesting example and person to follow. Was it the maker’s own word for it?

I was also wondering why John was not given more attention – as he was clearly someone who let the barriers to forming a maker identity stop him.

If future revisions cause a space/word limit problem, you could consider tightening up the section ‘Tools, Users, and Self-Made Tools’.

For an international audience, consider including square metres too (“1,400 square feet of workspace).

Reviewer: Peter Troxler

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Highly relevant.

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, good article.

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

No major problems. Some small remarks/questions

– could “adhocism” be related to Scrum/Agile practices (“each piece of the problem will be figured out as it becomes important”)
– counting of your cases / unit of analysis: is it “projects” or “experts”? I see 7 makers and 10 projects in the article
– one interesting case would be the case of John who dropped out of the space
– conceptually: why is a PDU categorized as a tool and a LED as material?
– I don’t really understand the difference between Drake’s and Mike’s take on purchasing a tool

4. Is the article well written?

The paper is well written and well structured. It could use a bit more advance organizer information at the beginning (how is the article structured)

– at the beginning (Key concepts; a listing of key concepts would be good)
– between the research approach and cases section
– literature review: it is a bit unclear where the review starts and what the sub-sections of the literature review are

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

– introduction: explain why authors focus on HCI and not STS or cultural studies
– maker identity: what are the “attitudes, skills, behaviors, practices, and expressions around DIY activities”?
– members identify themselves as “makers” and “hackers” — do they differentiate?
– distinction between maker and established maker should be more clearly expressed
– what is the cyclotron operation?
– tools are said to be “representative of their makers’ adoption of the maker identity” — this thought should ideally already be presented in the key concepts section
– clarify the “impossible Ham setup” (project buddypoles)
– practicality is presented as a rather important concept in the findings, wondering if that should not be mentioned in the core concepts already
– futzing should be explained as a core concept, too, I think
– Last para of “In Futz we trust” — this paragraph is more related to maker identities (beginne/established), so I wonder if that topic would not warrant an extra section
Some minor spelling issues

Conclusion

A good paper, well written, worth revising (minor issues)