{"id":2833,"date":"2014-08-02T07:51:24","date_gmt":"2014-08-02T07:51:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/?page_id=2833"},"modified":"2014-09-29T01:51:44","modified_gmt":"2014-09-29T01:51:44","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-5-shared-machine-shops\/peer-reviewed-articles\/technology-networks-for-socially-useful-production\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Technology Networks for Socially Useful Production)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer:<\/strong> maxigas<\/p>\n

1: Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The subject matter is highly relevant to the special issue and it explicitly answers to concrete questions posted in the call for papers.<\/p>\n

2: Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The treatment of the subject matter is intellectually interesting because the author provides a rich, multifaceted context for the account of the subject (Technology Networks). Such contextualisation spans social, economic and institutional history through the characterisation of significant personalities and excerpts of interviews with participants, as well as the quoting of written primary sources.<\/p>\n

This enables to draw the moral of the story for current shared machine workshops, which is the main point of interest for the special issue. I found the point that the eventual transformative effect of alternative technological spaces\/practices is eventually in the degree in which they can socialise (i.e. disperse in society) their results through social movements, state administration and the market, a highly valuable input for current debates on SMSs.<\/p>\n

The paper does not engage too much with the literature of either the political economy of the era, the literature on the democratisation of technology research and development in Science and Technology Studies, or the literature on (commons based) peer production. Either of these would add value to the paper, and they mark different directions in which it could be developed. However, the main thrust of the paper is a historical account of the phenomena, which is treated in sufficient detail.<\/p>\n

3: Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?<\/strong><\/p>\n

No.<\/p>\n

4: Is the article well written?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The language of the article is idiomatic and flawless, and its structure follows standard academic conventions.<\/p>\n

5: Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong><\/p>\n

No.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer:<\/strong> Anonymous<\/p>\n

1: Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong><\/p>\n

From my perspective, analysing and reflecting historical patterns concerning the relation between technological prototyping, innovation, and political economy in the development of the technology networks supported by the Greater London Council between 1983 and 1986 is highly relevant for a special issue on recent proliferation of machine workshops. Insights of this type are relevant because they would help making better use of the recent opportunities for the democratization of new (digital) technologies and participative development of the society that potentially emerge from activities in hackerspaces and FabLabs. A historical analysis can trigger reflections on similarities and differences in the historical-societal context and point to challenges which might (re)appear today and would require a proactive design of activities based upon well informed decisions. Unfortunately, the article does not realize this potential (see below).<\/p>\n

2:<\/strong><\/p>\n

2a: Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting?<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a reader who was not informed yet about Technology Networks, it was very interesting to read the article and to understand what happened in these networks. The subject matter is discussed from different points of view and different theoretical standpoints what makes it intellectually stimulating. Unfortunately, the author does not go further than that: What I missed was the link to recent machine workshops. Although promised by the author, I cannot find the relation to and the learnings for recent activities in hackerspaces and FabLabs in the article. This is the potential the article surely incorporates and that makes it so interesting, but the author does not follow up on his promise yet. <\/p>\n

2b: Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have the impression that citations and body of literature are quite complete. However, the author should make sure that he or she deals with citations in a correct manner. There are the following issues to solve:<\/p>\n

Even given that journals apply different citation standards, I am almost sure that the format of direct quotations in JPP is not (name, year) (p. X), but that all information should appear in the same bracket.<\/p>\n

There are citations that I cannot find in the list of literature, and that seem even not to be quotable; namely at page 6 last line \u201c(interview, 07\/10\/2013)\u201d and at page 7 \u201c(personal correspondence, 5th November 2013)\u201d.<\/p>\n

3: Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The author bases his or her analysis on original documents from the time of the technology workshops, on literature that reflects this history and on recent literature concerning new community workshop activities. He or she however never explains neither the methodology for analysing these documents (historical analysis \u2013 what does this mean? Literature review? Documentary analysis?) nor how big this body of data\/literature\/documents is and how the data were selected. Thus, from reading the paper I am left with a huge question mark concerning the methodological approach that underlies assumptions and judgements of the author.<\/p>\n

4: Is the article well written?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Language wise, the article is very well written. The only thing I would suggest to change is the sentence at page 6, last paragraph that states \u201cmany viable prototypes and designs were frustrated\u201d.<\/p>\n

Structure wise, the article should be improved considerably in a way that it would be easier to follow and more interesting to read for the reader. I have added concrete suggestions in the part of this review that concerns question 5.<\/p>\n

5: Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have a general problem with the length of the sections that contain the historical analysis compared to those that discuss issues and draw conclusions concerning recent activities in community workshops. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very long breathed. I would strongly suggest to considerably shortening them. All of these sections need more focus on information relevant for the historic analysis. There are for example very long \u2013 and to my opinion partly irrelevant – direct citations at page 6, 7, 8, 13, or potentially irrelevant information like the last sentence (on the training) at page 5, 4th paragraph.
\nAlso, even at the second time reading this paper, I had problems to understand how sections 2, 3 and 4 differ and what their particular contribution to the text is. I understood that they represent different lenses to look at the historical process. I suggest to ad \u2013 either at the end of these sections and\/or in the discussion \u2013 a reflection of their particular value(s) for the analysis: What can one see from one perspective what remains invisible from another one? <\/p>\n

Maybe the above is the reason that I missed the common thread in the text. I suggest that the reader should be more guided through sub-headlines in the sections. There should be a graphic visualizing the development process of technology workshops. Maybe, for a better readability, the text can be reorganized around development phases \u2013 this might reduce repetitions considerably.<\/p>\n

Section 5 and 6, on contrary, should be expanded in a way that would allow the author to discuss similarities and differences of historical contexts of community workshop activities today and in the 1980s in England. Section 5 should summarize major patterns identified in the development process of technology workshops and reflect them in the light of the recent situation (maybe even present patterns and insights as a table for the overview of the reader). Only then, the author would become able to discuss and conclude on issues relevant for the recent development, something I would like to see as the key contribution of this paper for this special issue.
\nAs said in the answer to question 3, the methods section is completely missing and should be added.<\/p>\n

Overall evaluation:<\/strong><\/p>\n

From my perspective, the article requires a major revision. It should be considerably refocused in a way that it is not just a retrospective historical analysis of technology networks, but also draws conclusions for recent community workshop activities. Such conclusions would be very helpful for making more informed choices and decisions today.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review C<\/h2>\n
\n Reviewer:<\/strong> Peter Troxler<\/p>\n

1: Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, the subject matter is highly relevant to the Special Issue; it is important to highlight that SMS are not just a contemporary phenomenon but that there have been earlier, similar developments. More importantly, the paper situates SMS in a broader discussion on socially useful production.<\/p>\n

2: Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The treatment of the subject matter is interesting and stimulating. The paper has an almost exclusively UK focused perspective, though. While this is useful for the discussion of the Technology Networks, I find the theoretical\/critical framing of socially useful production would benefit from a wider perspective. Particularly the discussion of democratic control and participation in industry has a wider basis. I’d like to draw the authors attention to writings on “Industrial Democracy” in Scandinavian countries (e.g. Emery, Frederick Edmund, et al. Democracy at work: The report of the Norwegian industrial democracy program. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division, 1976; and Emery, Frederick Edmund, and Einar Thorsrud, eds. Form and content in industrial democracy: Some experiences from Norway and other European countries. Routledge, 2013) that has been influential on current discussions on “co-design” (cf. Sanders, Elizabeth B-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.” Co-design 4.1 (2008): 5-18.) or the Dutch tradition of “socio-technics” and its understanding of the quality of work [relations] (kwaliteit van arbeidsverhouding, Sitter, LU de. “DE. Kenmerken en functies van de kwaliteit van de arbeid (Characteristics and functions of the quality of work).” (1978).)<\/p>\n

3: Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?<\/strong><\/p>\n

No.<\/p>\n

4: Is the article well written?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In general, the article is very well written. I found, however, the sequence of sections 2, 3 and 4 confusing, particularly as section 2 occasionally to “the alternative plan” (p. 4) and the “Lucas Plan” (p.6) which subject is treated in detail in section 3. I was wondering if the text would gain more clarity if sections 2 and 3 were swapped in sequence.
\nOccasionally I would have wished the text was accompanied by more specific examples and even pictures to illustrate some of the results of Technology Networks (e.g. p. 3, p. 6).
\nOn p. 5 the relationship between networks and workshops should be explained; on p. 13 I failed to understand the first sentence.<\/p>\n

5: Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 6 would benefit from some expansion of the argument, particularly the conclusions on p. 19 regarding the “two enduring issues” and the following argument on codification vs. tacit knowledge. Also the two arguments in the last paragraph (the “need to retain an open-ended networking activity” and “the struggle to exercise power over the agendas of elite technology institutions”). I could imagine that some of the work of Sennet and the recent volume on “DIY Citizenship” (Ratto & Boler, 2014; https:\/\/mitpress.mit.edu\/books\/diy-citizenship) could lend some inspiration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reviewer: maxigas 1: Is the subject matter relevant? The subject matter is highly relevant to the special issue and it explicitly answers to concrete questions posted in the call for papers. 2: Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"parent":2831,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"template_full_width.php","meta":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2833"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2833"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2833\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2867,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2833\/revisions\/2867"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2831"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}