{"id":7023,"date":"2018-05-13T09:43:59","date_gmt":"2018-05-13T09:43:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=7023"},"modified":"2018-07-06T12:28:37","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T12:28:37","slug":"hacking-the-museum","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-12-makerspaces-and-institutions\/peer-reviewed-papers\/hacking-the-museum\/","title":{"rendered":"Hacking the museum? Practices and power geometries at collections makerspaces in London"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Kat Braybrooke<\/strong><\/p>\n

Open as PDF<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cHow people think about the institutions under which they live, and how they relate to the <\/em>culture of their<\/em>
\n economy and society, defines whose power can be exercised, and how it can be exercised.”<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2013 Manuel Castells<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Digital studio, innovation lab, makerspace, hackspace,\u00a0fablab,\u00a0incubator,\u00a0Tech Shop,\u00a0medialab,\u00a0hardware studio, maker\u00a0library, design hub\u00a0\u2013 and\u00a0now,\u00a0collections makerspace\u2026?!\u00a0The\u00a0role of the shared machine shop\u00a0as a site of\u00a0situated\u00a0hacking and making\u00a0practices\u00a0is evolving, its variations\u00a0becoming\u00a0as myriad as the\u00a0titles\u00a0used\u00a0to describe it.\u00a0What, exactly,\u00a0is a\u00a0shared machine shop\u00a0today?\u00a0Is it an \u201coccupied factory of peer production\u201d\u00a0(Troxler &\u00a0maxigas\u00a02014),\u00a0an embodiment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0myriad\u00a0dreams\u00a0and contradictions\u00a0of\u00a0neo-Marxism?\u00a0Is it\u00a0an exclusive\u00a0sanctuary for\u00a0tinkerers\u00a0and craftsmen, a place to test out fabrication equipment while harnessing\u00a0historical ways-of-making?\u00a0Is\u00a0it a\u00a0public community\u00a0centre\u00a0that provides\u00a0tools and machines intended to help\u00a0people\u00a0create\u00a0things together?\u00a0Or is it an incubator for\u00a0transformative\u00a0new models of digital participation in\u00a0\u2018high\u2019\u00a0culture?\u00a0The answers,\u00a0it turns out, are as\u00a0varied\u00a0as the questions.<\/p>\n

What current accounts do agree on is the fact that shared\u00a0machine shops are\u00a0evolving\u00a0in form.\u00a0There are\u00a0enthusiastic\u00a0visions of a digital fabrication\u00a0uprising,\u00a0of widespread cultural\u00a0transformations enabled by\u00a0peer production\u00a0practices[1]<\/a>, of a future\u00a0where\u00a0anyone can make anything\u00a0(Gershenfeld\u00a02012;\u00a0Fleischmann et al\u00a02016).\u00a0There are\u00a0cautiously hopeful\u00a0depictions\u00a0of\u00a0the ways that sites can\u00a0foster\u00a0niches of\u00a0lab-style experimentation,\u00a0enabling\u00a0the\u00a0possibilities for\u00a0groundbreaking\u00a0sustainable innovations\u00a0that\u00a0can\u00a0bring about\u00a0deeper\u00a0societal shifts in relations of\u00a0power, capital and\u00a0locally\u00a0distributed production\u00a0(Dickel et al 2014;\u00a0Smith et al 2013).\u00a0There are\u00a0new\u00a0kinds of\u00a0sites\u00a0being\u00a0founded\u00a0with\u00a0feminist, intersectional and anti-colonialist needs in mind\u00a0for users\u00a0who do not identify with dominant hacker archetypes\u00a0(c.f.\u00a0Toupin\u00a02014).\u00a0Meanwhile, an\u00a0increasing number of SMSs\u00a0are\u00a0emerging\u00a0not\u00a0from\u00a0the grassroots\u00a0but instead\u00a0through\u00a0cross-sectoral\u00a0partnerships between\u00a0communities,\u00a0companies,\u00a0institutions\u00a0and governments. Examples range from the\u00a0Inspiration Lab,\u00a0a\u00a0small\u00a0site\u00a0for digital\u00a0creativity\u00a0installed\u00a0in Canada\u2019s\u00a0Vancouver Public Library in 2015 with the support of the municipal council,\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0global fablab\u00a0network,\u00a0which\u00a0began as a collaboration between the Grassroots Invention Group and the Center for Bits and Atoms at the\u00a0Massachusetts Institute of Technology\u2019s\u00a0(MIT)\u2019s\u00a0medialab\u00a0in 2001. Aimed at exploring local possibilities for\u00a0community\u00a0grassroots fabrication, the model spread to other regions\u00a0who opened\u00a0sites\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0same suite of fabrication and design\u00a0tools.\u00a0As of 2017,\u00a0thousands of\u00a0fablabs\u00a0are\u00a0listed\u00a0in\u00a030\u00a0countries\u00a0on fablabs.io, many\u00a0in\u00a0partnership with\u00a0local\u00a0actors\u00a0such as\u00a0India\u2019s\u00a0National Innovation Foundation in\u00a0Gujarat\u00a0(Fab City Research Lab).<\/p>\n

Even more recently, a\u00a0new\u00a0generation of\u00a0SMSs\u00a0have started opening their doors within the walls of cultural institutions in an attempt to bring in new sources of funding along with new audiences.\u00a0In London, census data continues to suggest\u00a0that while visits to museums and galleries are increasing, there remains a strong causal correlation between sustained public participation in \u2018high\u2019\u00a0or fine art\u00a0culture and socioeconomic status (Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2016, 2017; Trust for London 2015). At the same time,\u00a0a\u00a0blurring of boundaries between popular and fine art\u00a0cultures,\u00a0combined\u00a0with\u00a0neoliberal\u00a0austerity measures\u00a0across the U.K.,\u00a0has led to\u00a0increasingly commodified settings\u00a0for museums, who\u00a0now must\u00a0compete with shopping malls,\u00a0movie\u00a0theatres and other consumptive entertainments\u00a0to entice visitors\u00a0(Prior 2005).\u00a0To address these concerns,\u00a0since the 1970s\u00a0institutions like Tate\u00a0have tested out\u00a0new\u00a0museology-style[2]<\/a>\u00a0experiments\u00a0which implement\u00a0\u2018free learning\u2019[3]<\/a>\u00a0and other\u00a0hands-on\u00a0pedagogies\u00a0for\u00a0engagement.\u00a0They have also increasingly been drawn to\u00a0the\u00a0digital innovations\u00a0of net art and other critical\u00a0movements,\u00a0building on\u00a0a\u00a0more\u00a0general\u00a0orientation\u00a0towards\u00a0participatory\u00a0and\u00a0relational aesthetic\u00a0[4]<\/a>\u00a0approaches\u00a0which attempt to\u00a0reorient\u00a0the\u00a0traditional\u00a0oppressions\u00a0of the relationship\u00a0between artists and\u00a0audiences (Bishop 2012;\u00a0Bourriard\u00a02002).\u00a0Experiments\u00a0have\u00a0taken\u00a0various forms,\u00a0from\u00a0commissioned\u00a0hacks of\u00a0official museum websites,\u00a0to robots\u00a0remote-controlled\u00a0by\u00a0visitors\u00a0to\u00a0roam\u00a0exhibits\u00a0at midnight, to the\u00a0phenomenon\u00a0explored by this paper: \u2018collections makerspaces\u2019, or dedicated\u00a0public\u00a0sites with\u00a0creative\u00a0tools\u00a0[5]<\/a>\u00a0and facilitators\u00a0aimed at enabling\u00a0novel\u00a0engagements\u00a0with\u00a0a\u00a0cultural collection\u00a0through\u00a0hands-on\u00a0making and learning\u00a0practices.<\/p>\n

Some\u00a0argue the\u00a0critical\u00a0potentials of once-autonomous shared machine shops are being\u00a0diluted by the contradictions of partnership\u00a0models. Initiatives like Living Labs\u00a0[6]<\/a>, for example,\u00a0have been criticized for presenting themselves as alternative, horizontal and user-centered while reinforcing neoliberal and technocratic models of urban governance that still serve the interests of capital (Cardullo\u00a0et al 2017; March & Ribera-Fumaz\u00a02016).\u00a0The\u00a0makerspace brand\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0derided\u00a0for allowing the U.S. military to play a key role in its financing\u00a0(S\u00f6derberg\u00a0&\u00a0Delfanti\u00a02015), and\u00a0collaborations\u00a0between sites and\u00a0technology corporations\u00a0through\u00a0co-sponsored\u00a0hackathons\u00a0[7]<\/a>\u00a0and other events\u00a0have been shown to produce\u00a0not only prototypes but also\u00a0entrepreneurial subjects, united by a\u00a0shared\u00a0belief that\u00a0technological\u00a0innovation will\u00a0lead to\u00a0material abundances\u00a0which increase \u201cthe\u00a0size of the economic pie\u00a0[for a few]\u00a0as an alternative to redistributing it\u201d (Irani\u00a02015:\u00a0802).\u00a0Tensions between\u00a0partners in controlling representation\u00a0and practices have been noted\u00a0in\u00a0collaborations between\u00a0grassroots innovation movements and mainstream institutions (Fessoli\u00a0et al 2014) and\u00a0in\u00a0conflicts between open and closed worldviews within digital innovation and fabrication networks in the Global South (Zindy\u00a0&\u00a0Heeks\u00a02017).\u00a0While\u00a0similar tensions\u00a0have been recorded at\u00a0library-based SMSs (c.f. Sheridan et al 2014;\u00a0Slatter\u00a0& Howard 2013),\u00a0there remains\u00a0a lack of\u00a0qualitative\u00a0research\u00a0which examines\u00a0museum-based\u00a0sites, especially from a U.K perspective.<\/p>\n

This\u00a0paper\u00a0explores\u00a0the\u00a0circumstances\u00a0of\u00a0three\u00a0collections makerspaces\u00a0at museums\u00a0in London,\u00a0and their relationality to other kinds of SMSs\u00a0in the\u00a0U.K.,\u00a0by examining\u00a0their practices\u00a0and the geometries of power they reveal.\u00a0Are collections makerspaces\u00a0merely\u00a0stewards\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0donors and corporations\u00a0who\u00a0brought them into being, shaped by\u00a0a late-capitalist experience economy\u00a0where\u00a0sovereignty\u00a0is\u00a0abandoned in pursuit of\u00a0much-needed\u00a0funding\u00a0\u2013 or is\u00a0the reality more complicated? The analysis\u00a0unfolds as follows. First,\u00a0conceptual\u00a0inspiration for the intersection of spaces and practices is discussed through key\u00a0theoretical approaches that explore the effects of institutionalization and\u00a0of\u00a0space as power geometry. This is followed by a brief\u00a0genealogy\u00a0of shared machine shops,\u00a0which I argue can be\u00a0viewed through four temporal waves of innovation\u00a0in the U.K., with collections makerspaces\u00a0emerging as part of\u00a0a\u00a0\u2018fourth wave\u2019.\u00a0This claim is\u00a0explored\u00a0through an\u00a0examination of\u00a0ethnographic\u00a0data\u00a0gathered during\u00a0interactions with\u00a0collections makerspaces at\u00a0Tate, the British Museum and the\u00a0Wellcome\u00a0Collection\u00a0where I served\u00a0as\u00a0researcher-in-residence.\u00a0Findings are\u00a0organized according to\u00a0canonical and distinctive practices\u00a0observed,\u00a0and their effects on spatial\u00a0power geometries between sites, host institutions and funders.\u00a0In conclusion, I suggest\u00a0the collections makerspace\u00a0can be viewed as an experimental \u2013 and\u00a0potentially radical \u2013\u00a0field site\u00a0for\u00a0critical institutional\u00a0inquiry,\u00a0where\u00a0museum\u00a0imaginaries\u00a0and hegemonies\u00a0are\u00a0being gradually reframed\u00a0through\u00a0tactical deployments\u00a0of peer production practices.<\/p>\n

The makerspace in the institution: Space as power geometry<\/h2>\n

This\u00a0paper situates itself\u00a0around the notion\u00a0that\u00a0spatiality\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0constantly evolving\u00a0process,\u00a0woven together\u00a0through\u00a0multiple articulations of social experiences, histories and relations coming together in \u201ca situation of co-presence\u201d (Massey 1993: 64).\u00a0In line\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0theoretical frameworks\u00a0of\u00a0thinkers like\u00a0Lefebvre (1991)\u00a0Massey (2005;\u00a01993),\u00a0Soja\u00a0(1996)\u00a0and Graham (2006)\u00a0who have written extensively about the fluid and ever-shifting\u00a0power-geometries of the spatial,\u00a0I argue that\u00a0a\u00a0space [8]<\/a>\u00a0(from a public park to a\u00a0neighbourhood\u00a0to a collections makerspace)\u00a0need\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0defined\u00a0only\u00a0by its \u2018planners\u2019\u00a0(those who envisioned\u00a0and built\u00a0it)\u00a0but\u00a0also\u00a0by\u00a0the practices of\u00a0its \u2018users\u2019\u00a0(those who\u00a0work, make and hack within it). Even the most hegemonic of spaces is in fact a contested and\u00a0mediated collaboration,\u00a0its\u00a0digital and physical imaginaries\u00a0continually\u00a0in the process of\u00a0being\u00a0reframed\u00a0through\u00a0the\u00a0myriad discursivities, practices and routines\u00a0of\u00a0diverse\u00a0actors.\u00a0These actors\u00a0may be\u00a0humans\u00a0(e.g. families)\u00a0or non-humans\u00a0(e.g. machines), and as\u00a0actor-network\u00a0theorists like\u00a0Haraway (1991) and\u00a0Latour\u00a0(2005) and\u00a0practice theorists like\u00a0Savigny et al (2001)\u00a0have pointed out, there is an increased need for social science and STS[9]<\/a>\u00a0approaches that\u00a0integrate\u00a0non-human actors\u00a0as mediators, nodes and collaborators into\u00a0the actor-network milieus of\u00a0social processes\u00a0and their corresponding shared practices.\u00a0Here, the\u00a0shared machine shop\u00a0emerges as a distinct\u00a0environment that carries its own form of\u00a0\u201ccosmopolitics\u201d\u00a0(Latour 2004\u00a0via\u00a0Stengers\u00a01997),\u00a0overlapping cosmos (worlds) woven together through evolving human and non-human alliances.\u00a0It\u00a0is also\u00a0a\u00a0potential space\u00a0for contestations of\u00a0power relations\u00a0to occur\u00a0through\u00a0the\u00a0processes\u00a0of cultural hegemony\u00a0(Gramsci 1971), where a ruling group attempts\u00a0to maintain its domination through\u00a0cultural discourses and symbols. Such discourses can be unpredictable, however,\u00a0allowing\u00a0counterhegemonic alternatives to arise in unexpected ways. In such moments of fluidity, even the most\u00a0seemingly dominated\u00a0of\u00a0spaces\u00a0can\u00a0also\u00a0become\u00a0sites\u00a0of subaltern resistance.<\/p>\n

These critical\u00a0perspectives suggest\u00a0there is a\u00a0distinct\u00a0potential for\u00a0the practices of\u00a0collections makerspaces and other institutionalized shared machine shops\u00a0to\u00a0challenge the traditional roles played by\u00a0their\u00a0hosts. This is no easy task, however. The\u00a0discourses of hegemony employed by\u00a0U.K museums,\u00a0and their myriad interconnections with\u00a0British imperialism\u00a0and colonialism, have\u00a0been well documented\u00a0(Delbourgo\u00a02017;\u00a0Harwood 2013; Fuller 2008;\u00a0Hall 2005).\u00a0Historians like Barringer (2006), for example, have traced\u00a0geographical distributions\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0acquisition\u00a0of museum artifacts\u00a0in the 1800s\u00a0to parallel distributions of imperial capital and influence.\u00a0Meanwhile,\u00a0governmental efforts\u00a0to\u00a0harness the power of\u00a0public institutions\u00a0in the Victorian era\u00a0included\u00a0attempts to pacify and educate the\u00a0rowdy working classes\u00a0by inviting them into the museum\u00a0for\u00a0\u2018civilising\u2019, a form of societal self-regulation reinforced by the\u00a0presence of\u00a0well-behaved upper-class patrons\u00a0(Hall 2005;\u00a0Bennett 1990).\u00a0Bennett (1990) and\u00a0Bourdieu (1984) have\u00a0described how the\u00a0duality of the public museum as a site of order and the public fair as a site of disorder\u00a0in this period laid the groundwork for the ways aesthetics and\u00a0cultural capital continue\u00a0to be\u00a0employed as\u00a0key\u00a0symbols\u00a0of\u00a0economic superiority.\u00a0As Harwood\u00a0stated\u00a0in 2003,\u00a0\u201cThe museum became, and is still, a technical solution to the problem of displaying wealth and power without the attendant risks of social disorder\u201d (377).\u00a0These\u00a0institutional\u00a0discursivities\u00a0have been\u00a0similarly portrayed\u00a0by\u00a0Foucault and\u00a0Miskowiec\u00a0(1986) and\u00a0also by\u00a0Bishop (2012),\u00a0who have written about\u00a0museums\u00a0as\u00a0\u2018heterotopias\u2019,\u00a0sites\u00a0of\u00a0infinitely\u00a0accumulating\u00a0prestige\u00a0made every more powerful\u00a0through\u00a0their\u00a0educative\u00a0roles\u00a0as\u00a0masters\u00a0of public knowledge\u00a0and order.<\/p>\n

By returning to the\u00a0potentials\u00a0for\u00a0permeability\u00a0in\u00a0even the most\u00a0historically\u00a0entrenched spaces, however, even\u00a0heterotopias\u00a0can be\u00a0seen\u00a0as\u00a0\u201carticulated moments\u201d (Massey 1993: 65)\u00a0of\u00a0networked relations\u00a0that are contested and\u00a0reworked\u00a0through\u00a0the introduction of\u00a0new\u00a0discourses.\u00a0These contestations are especially present in\u00a0blended\u00a0sites like collections makerspaces, which are inspired by grassroots practices but also heavily influenced by the internal priorities of their host institutions.\u00a0Garud\u00a0et al (2007)\u00a0describe\u00a0institutionalization as the process\u00a0by which a group of\u00a0collaborating actors leverage resources to transform an existing institution or create a\u00a0new one \u2013 and\u00a0in the case of\u00a0institutionally-hosted spaces, building consensus between\u00a0opposing\u00a0discourses becomes just as important as\u00a0between those\u00a0of\u00a0other kinds of\u00a0actors.\u00a0Research has found, for example, that institutions\u00a0tend to\u00a0become more similar over time as a result of their interrelations (isomorphism, via DiMaggio & Powell 1983), and also\u00a0that despite the hegemonic nature of their systemization, businesses and corporations are\u00a0deeply\u00a0affected by their encounters with\u00a0informal\u00a0grassroots groups\u00a0(Fressoli\u00a0et al 2014).\u00a0As\u00a0Seitanidi\u00a0and Ryan (2007) have found, in partnership relationships of these kinds where both parties are actively, not passively, involved, corporate community involvement or CCI can also become a process of co-evolution.\u00a0This\u00a0paper\u00a0therefore\u00a0approaches\u00a0the\u00a0institutionalization\u00a0of\u00a0shared machine shops\u00a0as a\u00a0process\u00a0that carries the potential for transformative dynamism,\u00a0constructed\u00a0through social, cultural and political relations.<\/p>\n

A brief\u00a0shared machine shop genealogy in four\u00a0cumulative waves, from hacklabs to collections makerspaces<\/h2>\n

In order to build an understanding of\u00a0where\u00a0collections makerspaces sit\u00a0within the\u00a0shared machine shop canon,\u00a0this paper\u00a0starts\u00a0with a\u00a0condensed\u00a0genealogy of that\u00a0legacy\u00a0in four cumulative \u2013 and at times concurrent \u2013 waves.\u00a0These waves focus\u00a0in particular\u00a0on\u00a0moments of\u00a0transformation,\u00a0in the tradition\u00a0of\u00a0Jordan (2016),\u00a0maxigas\u00a0(2012),\u00a0Edgerton (2011)\u00a0and\u00a0Smith et al (2016),\u00a0who\u00a0have\u00a0called for critical\u00a0re-buildings\u00a0of\u00a0historical\u00a0technoscience narratives through examinations of\u00a0their\u00a0multiplicities\u00a0and\u00a0their\u00a0absences.\u00a0The\u00a0birth of the shared\u00a0machine shop\u00a0occurred\u00a0around the same time that\u00a0the \u2018hacker\u2019 archetype itself\u00a0emerged\u00a0in the\u00a01960s, taking form\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0shared\u00a0voluntary\u00a0labours\u00a0of\u00a0collectivist yet\u00a0amorphous groups of computer users\u00a0who enjoyed exploring\u00a0the limits of\u00a0emergent technologies\u00a0at labs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other informal gatherings\u00a0(Kelty\u00a02008; Coleman 2013). These practices\u00a0were similar to\u00a0the\u00a0\u2018jugaad\u2019\u00a0frugal engineering\u00a0hacks\u00a0that had\u00a0already\u00a0been\u00a0employed collaboratively throughout\u00a0the Global South\u00a0for many years\u00a0(Ray Murray & Hand 2014; Braybrooke & Jordan 2017),\u00a0but\u00a0with a\u00a0new\u00a0motivation\u00a0which\u00a0originated not from\u00a0the\u00a0necessity\u00a0of limited\u00a0technical\u00a0resources, but instead\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0leisure\u00a0power\u00a0associated\u00a0with having\u00a0a surplus of them.\u00a0By the late 1970s, while\u00a0the human tendency to engage in technological innovation was\u00a0also\u00a0nothing new[10]<\/a>\u00a0,\u00a0the distribution\u00a0of\u00a0the first consumer-ready\u00a0home\u00a0computers\u00a0allowed the\u00a0possibilities for\u00a0collaborative\u00a0experiments\u00a0to hit a new threshold.\u00a0These developments\u00a0also\u00a0allowed\u00a0artists\u00a0and tactical media practitioners\u00a0to explore hacking\u00a0as a creative and critical practice, resulting in seminal\u00a0works\u00a0such as\u00a0Roy\u00a0Ascott\u2019s\u00a0\u2018Terminal Art\u2019\u00a0(1980),\u00a0a telematic\u00a0art network\u00a0built\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0advent of a\u00a0public world wide web that linked\u00a0together\u00a0a group of artists across\u00a0California, New York and Wales\u00a0using\u00a0an early computer conferencing system[11]<\/a>\u00a0.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0clearest physical manifestation\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0hacker\u00a0subculture\u00a0also emerged in the 1970s \u2013 the\u00a0shared machine shop\u00a0(SMS), or\u00a0an innovative\u00a0laboratory\u00a0for\u00a0experimentation\u00a0and learning\u00a0with\u00a0open co-creation\u00a0methods\u00a0using digital tools\u00a0(Dickel et al 2014).\u00a0The idea of gathering spaces\u00a0for hackers and machines to meet was not exactly \u2018new\u2019\u00a0at this time\u00a0either; it could\u00a0be traced, for example, to the \u2018invention factories\u2019 of the late 1800s, when a research lab was\u00a0first\u00a0built by\u00a0the\u00a0inventor Thomas Edison\u00a0to promote technological innovation and scientific co-creation, inspiring 350 similar sites at research institutes across the\u00a0United States\u00a0from 1900-1940 (Holman 2015). In museums, meanwhile, \u2018wet rooms\u2019 had\u00a0long been set aside for conservators to isolate noxious fumes\u00a0and use\u00a0new\u00a0technologies to work with artefacts. The British Museum in London once housed its\u00a0spaces for\u00a0conservators\u00a0in the same basements it used to preserve some of its artefacts during WWII air raids; in 2015, it launched the World Conservation and Exhibition Centre, marking the first time in its history that conservation staff were able to work with artifacts in natural light.\u00a0However, the dissemination of the shared machine shop as a\u00a0public space for\u00a0peer learning and digital fabrication\u00a0\u2013\u00a0not only\u00a0amongst\u00a0professionals, but also for amateurs who\u00a0just\u00a0wanted to experiment\u00a0\u2013 was\u00a0something\u00a0new.<\/p>\n

Like\u00a0the traditions\u00a0of\u00a0hacking, this paper argues the\u00a0unique\u00a0subjectivities of the\u00a0shared machine shop\u00a0and its\u00a0manifestation of\u00a0peer\u00a0production\u00a0practices\u00a0in action\u00a0can be\u00a0understood\u00a0from a\u00a0U.K.-based\u00a0perspective\u00a0through\u00a0four distinct waves of innovation,\u00a0from\u00a0radical\u00a0beginnings\u00a0in\u00a0the 1970s\u00a0(Smith 2014) to\u00a0divergent\u00a0iterations\u00a0by the 2000s\u00a0(Culpepper\u00a02016,\u00a0Dickel et al\u00a02014;\u00a0Sampsa\u00a0et al 2014).\u00a0The\u00a0first wave<\/i>\u00a0of SMS innovation\u00a0can be traced to\u00a01970s London, where the United Kingdom\u2019s first SMS sites\u00a0emerged under distinctly utopian and egalitarian circumstances.\u00a0In\u00a01976,\u00a0industrial workers at the\u00a0Lucas Aerospace corporation\u00a0united\u00a0with\u00a0local\u00a0labour\u00a0networks, factories and socialist co-ops to build Community Technology Networks across London, sites\u00a0that would test technologies\u00a0relevant for\u00a0\u2018socially useful production\u2019\u00a0over private profit, with innovations ranging from\u00a0children\u2019s play equipment\u00a0to small-scale wind turbines to\u00a0disability devices\u00a0(Smith 2014). The\u00a0first\u00a0hacklabs\u00a0and\u00a0medialabs\u00a0that opened\u00a0across\u00a0Europe\u00a0in the 1990s\u00a0employed similar\u00a0tactics,\u00a0building\u00a0solutions to\u00a0local\u00a0issues through\u00a0autonomous,\u00a0peer-produced physical fabrication\u00a0\u2013 and,\u00a0in the case of the\u00a0medialab,\u00a0new possibilities for a creative,\u00a0radical,\u00a0collaborative internet. A\u00a0mixture\u00a0of\u00a0artist studio, hackspace\u00a0and Californian \u2018cybercafe\u2019,\u00a0famous\u00a0medialabs\u00a0like\u00a0Artec\u00a0and\u00a0Backspc\u00a0(both based in London)\u00a0helped\u00a0inspire\u00a0a new generation\u00a0of practitioners to explore\u00a0the implications of\u00a0computer networks\u00a0(Frost 2012;\u00a0Bassett 1999.)\u00a0High-profile pieces\u00a0included the Tate\u2019s first net art\u00a0[12]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0commission\u00a0in 2000 entitled\u00a0\u2018Uncomfortable Proximity\u2019,\u00a0a\u00a0critical\u00a0hack by\u00a0Graham Harwood of the\u00a0artists\u2019\u00a0collective\u00a0Mongrel\u00a0which lead\u00a0web users\u00a0to an alternate\u00a0mirrored\u00a0version\u00a0[13]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0of the Tate website that\u00a0revealed\u00a0its\u00a0\u201ccultural cosmetic\u00a0surger[ies]\u201d or self-censorship of\u00a0less flattering legacies\u00a0(Harwood 2003: 375).<\/p>\n

Second-<\/i>w<\/i>ave<\/i>\u00a0SMSs\u00a0also\u00a0started to open around this period\u00a0and\u00a0were\u00a0typically\u00a0referred to as hackspaces, preferring\u00a0closed memberships\u00a0to provide\u00a0a\u00a0safe\u00a0space\u00a0for those who \u2018just loved to hack\u2019\u00a0(Levy 1986).\u00a0The goal of second-wave sites \u2013 many\u00a0of which still exist today\u00a0like Berlin\u2019s c-base, founded in 1995 \u2013\u00a0has often been\u00a0long-term community\u00a0salience\u00a0over overt politicization, a fostering\u00a0of greater public\u00a0legitimacy for\u00a0hacker\u00a0subcultures\u00a0in light of crackdowns on illegal activities during\u00a0the mid 2000s (Farr 2009).\u00a0The\u00a0third wave<\/i>\u00a0of the SMS lineage\u00a0can be defined as\u00a0related to the period\u00a0when\u00a0hacker\u00a0subcultures\u00a0became a mainstreamed movement of those increasingly intrigued by the digital, with makerspaces, fab labs and open workshops opening around the world. 2008 has been cited as a key year in\u00a0SMS history, when\u00a0a widely-publicised\u00a0exchange between German hackerspaces and American activists called \u2018hackers on a plane\u2019 brought these sites to the attention of various publics for\u00a0the first time (Smith et al 2016).\u00a0It can also be defined as the moment where\u00a0the practices of\u00a0\u2018openness\u2019\u00a0\u2013 that is, the\u00a0free and agile\u00a0sharing of\u00a0ideas, templates, code and designs; the development of tools and systems for\u00a0locally-distributed fabrication;\u00a0the\u00a0emergence\u00a0of free culture and open knowledge movements around\u00a0visions for a\u00a0democratic, user-led\u00a0commons\u00a0\u2013\u00a0truly\u00a0came into maturity as\u00a0alternative systems\u00a0of socio-economic production\u00a0for shared machine shop communities\u00a0(Jordan 2016;\u00a0Benkler\u00a0and\u00a0Nissenbaum\u00a02006;\u00a0Benkler\u00a02002).<\/p>\n

The makerspace model,\u00a0an open workshop with mentors and tools aimed at helping people learn how to make things,\u00a0is a\u00a0third-wave SMS\u00a0variant that has been especially successful, with over 100\u00a0sites\u00a0opened\u00a0in the U.K.\u00a0alone\u00a0(Nesta 2015).\u00a0Sites employ\u00a0the term \u2018maker culture\u2019 to\u00a0democratise\u00a0shared machine shop\u00a0traditions\u00a0while\u00a0drawing in users interested in creative activities not traditionally found in\u00a0hackspaces,\u00a0such as crafting or\u00a0e-textiles\u00a0(Meehan et al 2014;\u00a0Davies 2017).\u00a0The\u00a0mainstreaming of maker symbols \u2013 such as\u00a0O\u2019Reilly\u2019s widely-read\u00a0Make\u00a0<\/i>magazine and\u00a0its\u00a0makerfaires, where crowds of\u00a0100,000 gather in\u00a0science fair settings\u00a0to share projects (400\u00a0have been\u00a0organized since 2012;\u00a0the White House held its first in 2014) \u2013 have inspired a\u00a0generation\u00a0of enthusiastic\u00a0digital fabrication converts, with some\u00a0dubbing\u00a0it a \u2018revolution\u2019\u00a0(Anderson 2012;\u00a0Hill 2015).\u00a0This\u00a0claim rings a bit hollow in the face of current realities,\u00a0however,\u00a0with\u00a0many\u00a0sites\u00a0remaining\u00a0niche\u00a0playgrounds for the already-empowered,\u00a0alienating\u00a0less\u00a0privileged\u00a0users\u00a0and\u00a0dependent on core elements of the\u00a0capitalist economy,\u00a0from open markets to\u00a0global supply chains (Davies 2017;\u00a0Toupin\u00a02014;\u00a0Carstensen\u00a02013; Fleischmann et al\u00a02016;\u00a0Grenzfurthner\u00a0&\u00a0Schneider 2009).<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, since 2015 a SMS\u00a0fourth wave<\/i>\u00a0has started to emerge\u00a0which can be characterized through its\u00a0diversification as hundreds of new SMS flavours are witnessed, from\u00a0makerspaces in\u00a0universities to mobile fab lab-library hybrids\u00a0that cross interstitial lands to access users in rural regions (Culpepper 2016;\u00a0Moorefield-Lang 2015).\u00a0There are plans for a \u2018Flotante\u2019 fablab, its modules designed\u00a0by fablabs around the world, which will\u00a0float along the Amazon River to \u201cbetter understand the green lung of the world\u201d\u00a0(UABureau\u00a02016).\u00a0Sites\u00a0are\u00a0opening in\u00a0neglected urban\u00a0districts\u00a0of cities like Buenos Aires and Detroit\u00a0once known only for their post-industrial decline, such\u00a0as\u00a0medialab\u00a0and art centre\u00a0Hangar, which sits in a former textile factory in Barcelona\u2019s El\u00a0Poblenou\u00a0district\u00a0alongside radical citizen-led cooperatives (Braybrooke 2016). This wave is also defined by\u00a0an\u00a0increased\u00a0institutionalization\u00a0of SMS practices, with sites like collections makerspaces\u00a0opening\u00a0through partnerships between donors, technology brands and\u00a0cultural institutions,\u00a0many of whom had already been testing out\u00a0digital innovations since 1994, when the Natural History Museum became the first cultural institution in the U.K. to\u00a0publish\u00a0a public website on the world wide web\u00a0(Hawkey\u00a02004).<\/p>\n

Early reports\u00a0have\u00a0lauded\u00a0the\u00a0democratizing potentials of museum-based sites\u00a0for digital making and learning\u00a0(British Council 2016;\u00a0Oates 2015). However, empirical evidence\u00a0remains scarce,\u00a0outside of\u00a0few\u00a0early\u00a0efforts in the U.S.\u00a0such as\u00a0a 2016\u00a0survey\u00a0which found sites\u00a0affecting\u00a0the functions of\u00a0institutions themselves, from new uses of\u00a0\u2018wet\u2019,\u00a0messy\u00a0materials\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0introduction\u00a0of new\u00a0staff roles\u00a0(Brahms &\u00a0Crowley).\u00a0This\u00a0research echoes similar efforts\u00a0in other sectors\u00a0like that of\u00a0Chesbrough et al (2016), who\u00a0found\u00a0that the\u00a0open innovation processes of R&D teams\u00a0had\u00a0filtered\u00a0into business\u00a0practices\u00a0themselves,\u00a0in a gradual move from closed to open models. Despite this, an\u00a0alliance\u00a0between community, grassroots\u00a0and institutional actors can be fragile, marked by\u00a0contrasting\u00a0priorities (such as entrepreneurship and business skills) to\u00a0those of more\u00a0autonomous\u00a0models. As Smith et al note,\u00a0\u201ctooling-up\u201d\u00a0does not necessarily lead to social change,\u00a0especially when\u00a0external funder\u00a0becomes\u00a0prominent\u00a0(2016:\u00a0104).\u00a0What, then, is the situated nature of a collections makerspace within the auspices\u00a0of a large cultural institution? How does it differ from the circumstances of other fourth-wave sites?<\/p>\n

Research data and methodology<\/h2>\n

Addressing current\u00a0gaps in knowledge\u00a0by focusing on\u00a0the practices of\u00a0U.K-based\u00a0sites\u00a0was a primary concern for the\u00a0project\u00a0examined by\u00a0this paper.\u00a0When\u00a0the\u00a0study\u00a0began\u00a0in 2015,\u00a034% of\u00a0sites classified as makerspaces in the\u00a0U.K. had been founded with\u00a0a company\u00a0or\u00a0organisation, compared to\u00a047%\u00a0by\u00a0informal grassroots groups\u00a0(Nesta 2015).\u00a0Only\u00a0a handful\u00a0of\u00a0these\u00a0co-founded\u00a0sites\u00a0were located inside an institution like a school or library, and even less\u00a0inside cultural institutions.\u00a0Because four\u00a0such\u00a0sites were located in London\u00a0(Tate, the British Museum,\u00a0the\u00a0Wellcome\u00a0Collection, and the V&A, whose digital\u00a0learning space, the Sackler Centre, was\u00a0under renovation at the time of the study), the\u00a0decision was made to\u00a0base research\u00a0there.\u00a0My\u00a0own\u00a0interactions with\u00a0sites\u00a0began at the\u00a0Tate Digital Studio, which I first engaged with from\u00a02013-14\u00a0while working\u00a0as design curation lead for\u00a0the Mozilla Foundation. Together, we built a\u00a0digital curriculum pack called \u201cCultural Heritage\u00a0Remixjam\u201d which introduced open access and co-creation principles to educators in a museum setting, and this is where I first\u00a0saw\u00a0peer production practices\u00a0employed\u00a0within an\u00a0institution. These encounters\u00a0inspired the\u00a0research on collections makerspace practices later conducted at the Tate, the British Museum and the\u00a0Wellcome\u00a0Collection from 2016-2017, which this paper focuses on.<\/p>\n

The Taylor Digital Studio (TDS) is a creative space for digital learning and making at the Tate Britain, one of London\u2019s oldest museums,\u00a0built in 1897\u00a0when industrialist Henry Tate offered his collection of British art along with a \u00a380,000 seed donation (Tate 2017). TDS opened its doors in 2013 as part of\u00a0Millibank\u00a0Project renovations, becoming a home for transdisciplinary digital\u00a0programmes\u00a0that combined art and technology. The Samsung Digital Discovery Centre (SDDC)\u00a0is in the basement of the British Museum,\u00a0the first national public museum in the world\u00a0founded in 1753\u00a0(also as a result of a wealthy benefactor offering his collection to the state; this time it was the physician Sir Hans Sloane). The SDDC opened in 2009\u00a0through an\u00a0agreement with Samsung Electronics to build digital learning experiences for young people aged 3 to 19. The most ambitious site of this study, its activities are carefully programmed and engage\u00a0over 10,000 visitors a year. It is also responsible for the British Museum becoming one of the world\u2019s first cultural institutions to use virtual reality technologies to engage users in its collections through a Bronze Age tour (British Museum 2017; Rae & Edwards 2016). The\u00a0Wellcome\u00a0Collection, meanwhile, opened in 1932 and is now the second-richest charitable foundation in the world (Dunjerski\u00a02000),\u00a0based around\u00a0a vast public collection focused on the study of medical histories. Its benefactor Sir Henry\u00a0Wellcome\u00a0always envisaged bringing a museum, library and gathering space together, but it was not until extensive re-designs in 2014 to meet future visitor demands that the Reading Room (RR) re-emerged as a radical public venue for hands-on exploration (Wellcome\u00a0Trust 2012). While it is the most \u201cpre-tech\u201d of the sites in this study, there are echoes of makerspaces everywhere in its myriad invitations from facilitators (c.f.\u00a0Vigour\u00a02016) to co-create and build through learning, making,\u00a0rummaging and discussing.\u00a0As part of their\u00a0public\u00a0mandates,\u00a0the sessions and events of\u00a0all three sites are offered for free.<\/p>\n

In employing a multi-site\u00a0ethnography as the\u00a0primary method of research,\u00a0this project\u00a0was inspired by research that was\u00a0distributed,\u00a0iterative\u00a0and based on\u00a0collaborations\u00a0with site users, allowing\u00a0for\u00a0immersive engagement instead of distance,\u00a0a gradual “deferral to subjects’ modes of knowing” (Holmes &\u00a0Marcus 2008: 82; Atkinson et al 2001).\u00a0In addition to\u00a0working with\u00a0primary sites,\u00a0the\u00a0research was also enriched by\u00a0informal interactions, from tours to workshops, at other\u00a0kinds\u00a0of fourth-wave SMSs associated with institutions, from innovation\u00a0hubs\u00a0to privately-funded cultural bodies.\u00a0These\u00a0ranged\u00a0from\u00a0iHub\u2019s\u00a0\u2018Gearbox\u2019 open hardware hackspace in\u00a0Nairobi,\u00a0Kenya\u00a0to\u00a0\u2018Hangar.org\u2019,\u00a0a\u00a0medialab\u00a0and cultural\u00a0centre\u00a0opened in 1997 by the Association of Visual Artists\u00a0of Catalonia in\u00a0Barcelona.\u00a0Meanwhile,\u00a0acting\u00a0as\u00a0researcher-in-residence\u00a0at the primary sites allowed for\u00a0many\u00a0moments of\u00a0casual\u00a0experimentation through\u00a0hands-on making and hacking alongside\u00a0site users,\u00a0in\u00a0a setting\u00a0of\u00a0co-present\u00a0collocation (Trainer et al 2016).\u00a0This included\u00a0150\u00a0unstructured hours of\u00a0hanging out and making;\u00a0participant observation\u00a0of\u00a020\u00a0workshops\u00a0and public gatherings;\u00a0action research\u00a0[14]<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0of digital archive websites and workshops\u00a0built\u00a0in partnership with sites;\u00a045\u00a0recorded\u00a0individual and group\u00a0interviews\u00a0with\u00a0site\u00a0staff\u00a0(managers, A\/V teams,\u00a0curators, facilitators)\u00a0and collaborators\u00a0(external artists,\u00a0practitioners); and\u00a050 questionnaires\u00a0with site\u00a0users (youth\u00a0learners,\u00a0adult learners,\u00a0families)\u00a0[15]<\/a>.\u00a0Interviews,\u00a0questionnaires\u00a0and participant observation\u00a0notes\u00a0were then\u00a0coded, queried and organized\u00a0manually\u00a0into a set\u00a0of\u00a0thematic\u00a0nodes\u00a0using\u00a0the qualitative analysis software\u00a0NVivo. It was\u00a0through this process that I started to understand\u00a0that\u00a0a core theme\u00a0uniting\u00a0user\u00a0practices across\u00a0sites was their similarity to \u2013 and also their distinctiveness from \u2013\u00a0the practices of\u00a0other fourth-wave shared machine shops.\u00a0The next section of this paper\u00a0analyses\u00a0the data\u00a0with regards to these\u00a0guiding\u00a0themes,\u00a0while reflecting\u00a0on\u00a0the ways that the\u00a0deployment of\u00a0making and learning\u00a0practices correspond\u00a0to spatial politics and flows\u00a0of power.<\/p>\n

Analysis: Collections makerspaces, practices and power<\/h2>\n

An example of the\u00a0kinds of\u00a0activities\u00a0typically\u00a0observed\u00a0at\u00a0collections makerspaces\u00a0was\u00a0\u201cFuture Makers:\u00a0Clay\u201d, a two-part weekend\u00a0workshop\u00a0in\u00a0the spring of 2017\u00a0which\u00a0I built the curriculum for in\u00a0collaboration with site managers at\u00a0the Samsung Digital Discovery\u00a0Centre for the families-focused Innovation Lab\/ Future Makers series. Inspired by\u00a0science fiction and speculative design,\u00a0participants\u00a0were asked\u00a0to\u00a0analyse the British Museum\u2019s collection of Korean pottery as if they were aliens from parallel universes\u00a0who were beholding Earth-made artifacts for the first time.\u00a0The\u00a0session started with a brief presentation of the seven Earth-like planets that had recently been identified in the Trappist-1 galaxy,\u00a0followed by a tour of the British Museum\u2019s\u00a0Korean pottery exhibit, where photos and notes were taken\u00a0on\u00a0tablets (provided by Samsung). The\u00a0group\u00a0then\u00a0returned to the SDDC to share their\u00a0galaxy\u2019s\u00a0versions of pottery with\u00a0Earthlings. Bringing together a diverse array of crafting materials, from model clay to fabrics to ornamental gemstones,\u00a0families\u00a0created their own ceramic artifact.\u00a0Free\u00a0glitching apps and\u00a0design tools\u00a0were then employed\u00a0on\u00a0tablets\u00a0and mobile phones\u00a0to\u00a0\u2018remix\u2019\u00a0physical\u00a0artifacts into\u00a0digital\u00a0renderings. The\u00a0resulting\u00a0images were projected onto a wall, with\u00a0participants\u00a0building a dynamic visual\u00a0mosaic by\u00a0adding\u00a0their\u00a0own\u00a0physical and digital\u00a0creations and then\u00a0connecting\u00a0them to\u00a0others\u2019 works using\u00a0thread and\u00a0other\u00a0materials. The result was a\u00a0colourful,\u00a0mixed media\u00a0alien artwork\u00a0that had been\u00a0co-designed by all.<\/p>\n

Many of the practices\u00a0observed\u00a0at collections makerspaces\u00a0were\u00a0historically similar to\u00a0typical\u00a0making or hacking\u00a0activities\u00a0found at\u00a0other fourth-wave\u00a0SMSs.\u00a0For example,\u00a0all three\u00a0sites put a\u00a0primary\u00a0emphasis on\u00a0enabling\u00a0users\u00a0to\u00a0co-create and learn in groups. Site facilitators\u00a0often acted\u00a0more like peers than conductors, avoiding\u00a0traditional presentation styles where possible and ensuring\u00a0furniture, equipment and environments\u00a0helped\u00a0build\u00a0the atmosphere of a \u201ctrying-out space\u201d in the words of a TDS manager.\u00a0Sites were proud of their \u201cinherent dynamism\u201d (Massey 1994, p.\u00a02) as compared to that of the\u00a0external institutional environment, displaying a non-hierarchical modularity\u00a0in their workshops and actions\u00a0aimed at\u00a0empowering\u00a0users to\u00a0also\u00a0act flexibly. \u201cI think,\u201d mused a RR site manager, \u201cwatching how people use this space in different moments is fascinating, because it\u2019s not a space with overt rules. So sometimes when people come over the threshold, it takes them\u00a0a while to figure out what they\u00a0can<\/i>\u00a0do in the space and what they\u00a0want<\/i>\u00a0to do\u2026\u00a0[the room] is\u00a0designed to be\u2026 egalitarian, there\u2019s not the expert, there\u2019s not the audience. No one is going to tell you what to do.\u201d\u00a0A\u00a0TDS manager explained\u00a0how he felt\u00a0digital\u00a0innovation\u00a0had \u201calways been all about open source, accessible versions of high-end software emerging\u2026\u00a0this kind of\u00a0sharing is how\u00a0so many\u00a0great\u00a0things have been made. And that\u2019s a big part of the Studio. Reminding us to create\u00a0new things\u00a0together<\/i>, instead of being all fancy about it.\u201d\u00a0In user feedback from sessions at all three sites, phrases like \u201cI enjoyed making things with the group \/ working together was fun \/ I didn\u2019t expect to do this in a team\u201d was common in answer to the question \u201chow did this space feel to you\u201d, connoting that for many users (especially those new to the site), spatial engagement also meant spatial interaction.<\/p>\n

Building and sustaining a sense of\u00a0a\u00a0community\u00a0amongst site users, despite the limitations of doing so inside an institution traditionally focused more on patrons who donated funds and international visitors who only engaged sporadically,\u00a0was\u00a0another core\u00a0priority\u00a0for all three sites, much as it has been for other\u00a0fourth-wave SMSs. As\u00a0a\u00a0TDS\u00a0manager\u00a0described, the\u00a0Digital Studio from the very\u00a0beginning insisted\u00a0on loads of collaboration [\u2026] bridging between teams [\u2026]\u00a0because\u00a0we had\u00a0to bring\u00a0so\u00a0many\u00a0facilitators, artists, technologists, curators, producers together to do\u00a0any of it.\u201d\u00a0Another\u00a0TDS\u00a0manager noted that while\u00a0her aim had always\u00a0been to invite\u00a0a\u00a0diverse\u00a0subset of\u00a0users\u00a0into the space, in her\u00a0background\u00a0in education\u00a0she had learned the hard way that it would not be enough to \u201cjust open the doors and expect the community to come to you.\u201d Relationships \u2013 and trust \u2013 had to be built\u00a0manually\u00a0with local organisations and schools, \u201cso\u00a0we started by setting up as many collaborations as we could. And it\u2019s taken a while. It\u2019s been slow.\u201d\u00a0SDDC facilitators were also thoughtful in their\u00a0analysis of user demographics.\u00a0As one explained\u00a0in a group discussion: \u201cWe do see that while about 70% of visitors to the British Museum are foreigners or tourists, this is not the same for the Samsung Centre\u2026 it is much more local, people\u00a0come over and over, or they\u00a0heard\u00a0about\u00a0it\u00a0through their schools.\u201d\u00a0The majority of site users\u00a0also\u00a0spoke\u00a0English\u00a0as a first language, unlike many of\u00a0those\u00a0who\u00a0typically\u00a0visited the museum\u2019s galleries above the SDDC. Staff wondered whether it was the digitality of the room that kept\u00a0them away, its basement location,\u00a0or the lack of promotional materials\u00a0for the SDDC being\u00a0provided\u00a0in other languages. \u201cThis is really above my pay grade,\u201d a\u00a0facilitator reflected, \u201cbut I think the families who come into this room come into museums a lot already\u2026\u00a0so,\u00a0who isn\u2019t confident to come in\u00a0yet? I feel like we still need more data on that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed,\u00a0while the SDDC\u2019s weekday sessions catered to a wide variety of schools across the U.K.,\u00a0many of\u00a0the parents I spoke with at the\u00a0site\u2019s\u00a0weekend\u00a0workshops,\u00a0echoing similar demographics observed at other kinds of\u00a0shared machine shops (Nesta 2015),\u00a0already felt it was valuable to engage with\u00a0sites of this kind\u00a0in general. When asked to compare the SDDC to other hands-on learning sites of its kind, almost all\u00a0of them\u00a0responded with another site they had been to in London. None said it was their first time at a museum, or that they had travelled from a location outside of\u00a0the city, except for one family who were visiting from New York. One\u00a0woman\u00a0said\u00a0she and her children spent every weekend rotating between free activities at the V&A and other museums. \u201cI want them to take advantage of the culture here,\u201d she said. \u201cPlus, they just love it.\u201d\u00a0SDDC staff\u00a0were\u00a0quite proud, therefore,\u00a0about the launch of a\u00a0new\u00a0initiative\u00a0to\u00a0engage lesser-served\u00a0families\u00a0by providing roaming hands-on digital activities\u00a0in the main galleries of the British Museum upstairs, in order\u00a0to draw in new participants\u00a0who might not\u00a0enter\u00a0the SDDC otherwise.\u00a0At the RR,\u00a0by far the most\u00a0publicly-oriented and busy\u00a0of the\u00a0sites, a group of facilitators undertook\u00a0an\u00a0extensive\u00a0ethnographic research project in collaboration with external academics when the\u00a0site opened in order to build a better\u00a0understanding of user\u00a0behaviours\u00a0and needs.\u00a0From this they\u00a0built\u00a0a framework to\u00a0enable\u00a0those who looked\u00a0hesitant\u00a0to learn and play, \u201cinvigilating\u00a0more\u00a0participation by staying out of the way,\u00a0feeling it out\u201d in the words of a site manager.\u00a0This enabled an\u00a0informal environment which\u00a0gave\u00a0users the freedom to explore, touch and look before settling.<\/p>\n

As was the case for many of the other fourth-wave SMSs I spoke to who\u00a0had\u00a0opened in partnership with\u00a0institutions,\u00a0maintaining\u00a0equilibrium\u00a0in funders ite\u00a0relationships\u00a0was\u00a0a\u00a0key\u00a0consideration\u00a0for\u00a0collections makerspace\u00a0staff.\u00a0Due\u00a0to cultural funds disappearing across the U.K. as a result of increased austerity measures, a\u00a0trip through the British Museum\u00a0is\u00a0a trip through\u00a0a\u00a0history of corporate transactions,\u00a0with names like\u00a0\u2018Air Korea\u2019 and \u2018Goldman Sachs\u2019\u00a0listed aside exhibition titles. The\u00a0SDDC, for example,\u00a0was\u00a0both\u00a0named and built in the image of its donor, its\u00a0white\u00a0cupboards filled with Samsung-only\u00a0kit. Staff\u00a0and user\u00a0opinions on this matter were\u00a0largely ambivalent; they\u00a0were\u00a0aware\u00a0the site\u00a0would not have been possible without\u00a0such a\u00a0friendship, and expressed\u00a0gratitude for having\u00a0been able to engage so many\u00a0young learners\u00a0through the project.\u00a0After all, sponsorship at institutions like the British Museum\u00a0also means power \u2013 for staff,\u00a0the mandate to deliver experimental\u00a0programmes;\u00a0for funders,\u00a0the prestige associated with being\u00a0a part of the arts by association.\u00a0As\u00a0a non-governmental\u00a0public body,\u00a0the British Museum\u00a0in particular\u00a0seeks\u00a0out\u00a0a great deal of external support for its research and exhibitions.\u00a0Under a new Corporate Membership scheme launched in 2014, sponsoring companies were offered a variety of additional\u00a0privileges, from special “behind the scenes access and invitations” to exclusive opportunities to “entertain clients and staff in galleries” outside of public access hours (British Museum 2014).<\/p>\n

One of the\u00a0most infamous cases\u00a0of\u00a0institution-funder relations has been\u00a0that of\u00a0the\u00a0multinational oil and gas company BP (formerly British Petroleum), which\u00a0regularly donates large sums of money to cultural institutions across the U.K., from the Royal Opera House to the British Museum. In the late 2000s, its sponsorship of the Tate was thrust into the\u00a0public\u00a0spotlight due to its negative\u00a0human rights and\u00a0environmental reputation\u00a0after events like\u00a0the 2012 Gulf oil spill. Platform, Liberate Tate and other protest groups\u00a0(their activities\u00a0unhindered\u00a0by Tate\u00a0security and other staff, themselves in conflict regarding the relationship)\u00a0held a series of high-profile occupations of the Tate Modern,\u00a0which included\u00a0a 25 hour stint of writing anti-BP messages on the floor of\u00a0the Tate\u2019s Turbine Hall,\u00a0tattooing CO2 concentrations in the\u00a0surrounding\u00a0atmosphere on\u00a0activists\u2019\u00a0skin,\u00a0and pushing through a freedom of information tribunal that exposed BP\u2019s\u00a0sponsorship amounts to its recipient institutions, accusing BP of \u201cusing its donations to buy \u2018cultural power\u2019\u201d (BBC 2015). In\u00a02017,\u00a0BP ended its 26-year relationship with the Tate, citing\u00a0only\u00a0an \u201cextremely challenging business environment\u201d (Khomami\u00a02016).\u00a0Staff and\u00a0users across\u00a0all three sites\u00a0discussed the opaque nature of\u00a0these kinds of\u00a0relationships,\u00a0a sense\u00a0that what was deemed possible\u00a0when it came to digital\u00a0innovation\u00a0was often based on the whims of those\u00a0in\u00a0ascendancy. As a\u00a0BM\u00a0facilitator reflected in a group chat: \u201cIn the end, it really does\u00a0all come down to funding, and power, who has it, what they use it for… unless there\u2019s specific funding for digital, a museum this big is not going to\u00a0prioritise\u00a0that when they have so many other concerns.\u201d\u00a0Staff\u00a0and external collaborators\u00a0across all\u00a0sites\u00a0nevertheless\u00a0expressed\u00a0the\u00a0belief that inside their\u00a0spaces, the\u00a0motivation had\u00a0always\u00a0been\u00a0to ensure\u00a0site\u00a0users\u00a0themselves\u00a0had\u00a0the most power \u2013 to reframe their engagements with collections, and\u00a0even to reframe the museum.<\/p>\n

Practices distinct from those of other fourth-wave SMSs<\/h2>\n

Other\u00a0practices\u00a0and interactions observed\u00a0appeared to\u00a0originate\u00a0from\u00a0the unique\u00a0spatial geographies\u00a0of the\u00a0collections makerspace, situating\u00a0it\u00a0squarely\u00a0within its\u00a0environment.\u00a0The\u00a0emphasis on good facilitation over the latest technologies, for example, was often\u00a0stressed\u00a0by both staff and collaborators.\u00a0Despite being the most visibly \u2018high-tech\u2019 of all sites, SDDC facilitators felt that\u00a0the\u00a0\u201ccareful framing of an activity\u201d always trumped the introduction of fancy tools.\u00a0Relying on\u00a0the use of\u00a0new technologies \u201cto the exclusion of old or existing technologies\u201d, they asserted, would be foolish.\u00a0The TDS took a similar approach.\u00a0\u201cA very interesting bit of learning I had here,\u201d a collaborator reflected, \u201cwas\u00a0that you can do deep learning about digital culture with very few tools \u2013 it\u2019s the concepts and the exchanges \u2013 not the computers \u2013 that matter.\u201d\u00a0As a space fully dedicated to youth-focused digital learning workshops, the majority of which needed to be booked in advance, the\u00a0SDDC was\u00a0especially\u00a0thoughtful about its employment of\u00a0the digital,\u00a0aiming for\u00a0\u201cclever\u201d\u00a0integrations that\u00a0aligned with the\u00a0U.K. national\u00a0schools\u00a0curriculum.\u00a0Sites also cited the influence of constructivist\u00a0[16]<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0hands-on pedagogies for peer-led learning. \u201cWorking in e-learning in the 1990s,\u201d a TDS collaborator explained, \u201cI really started to understand how teaching approaches are always socially constructed. Hands-on learning\u2026 is the most emotionally satisfying, and useful.\u201d RR staff described\u00a0their motivation to \u201chack\u201d typical\u00a0power relationships\u00a0through Open Platform, a user-led series where anyone could come and hold a workshop or conversation about the RR collections.\u00a0Indeed, it was during these sessions randomly run on a variety of topics,\u00a0from artist discussions on dyslexia\u00a0and creativity to\u00a0conversations about health and resilience while stitching personal well-being postcards, that\u00a0the RR\u00a0really came alive.<\/p>\n

The use of remix\u00a0as a primary\u00a0method for\u00a0interacting\u00a0with museum collections is\u00a0another\u00a0legacy that remains\u00a0distinctive\u00a0to\u00a0the collections makerspace and its unique\u00a0institutional affordances. From\u00a0an analysis of\u00a0archival data\u00a0[17]<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0over 50\u00a0events\u00a0since the\u00a0TDS\u00a0opened in 2006,\u00a0ranging from\u00a0drop-in meme-making workshops to digital artist \u2018show-and-tells\u2019 where\u00a0external practitioners\u00a0explained their practice and lead hands-on making activities,\u00a0it was found that\u00a080%\u00a0of events\u00a0had employed remix practices to\u00a0engage with\u00a0Tate collections. Site facilitators explained\u00a0almost all of their young peoples\u2019\u00a0programmes\u00a0made some use of the collection. \u201cWhen teens get to choose classical art images and then\u00a0remix, repurpose, recombine\u00a0them,\u201d\u00a0an artist collaborator\u00a0explained, \u201cnow that\u2019s a very powerful way to change ideas about museums.\u201d\u00a0Another\u00a0external practitioner\u00a0who had\u00a0lead\u00a0art\u00a0workshops in the space\u00a0described\u00a0her motivation:\u00a0\u201cWe are\u00a0so alienated from our own culture. That\u2019s really interesting but also problematic, and we need to take it\u00a0back. We need to appropriate it now, not defy it\u2026\u00a0rebuilding the elements\u2026\u00a0we think are worth re-creating\u00a0together.\u201d\u00a0The rich variety of interesting out-of-copyright works available at Tate Britain made its remix-focused sessions especially popular for younger users who regularly engaged with the TDS. At the RR, meanwhile, a manager\u00a0explained her favourite artifact in the site\u2019s\u00a0collection\u00a0was\u00a0a reproduction of the Ripley Scroll from the 1600s. For many years, she said,\u00a0it had sat alone in the Rare Materials Room due to its fragility\u00a0and value. But when the RR opened, a reproduction of it\u00a0was made openly available for people to see, touch, and work with. \u201cIt\u2019s an amazing moment in our time,\u201d she said, \u201cwhere that kind of thing can be allowed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Enabling possibilities for youth leadership was another core method employed by sites to reconfigure the traditional hierarchies and elitisms of museum power geometries. Tate Collectives is a leadership programme for young people aged 13-25 who curate events for other young people at the Tate. The TDS has been a primary site for Tate Collectives planning sessions and events. \u201cI remember one of the first youth meetings I\u2019d ever been at,\u201d reflected a user who had started volunteering at the Tate as a teen. \u201cThere were Jaffa cakes, they were trying to get young people interested, but it just wasn\u2019t really possible because we were in a really boring board room. It felt so power heavy. Like being at a business! How can we get young people from disadvantaged backgrounds involved in a place like that? So we needed a room to make them feel more comfortable\u2026 and this space came at the perfect time for that, because they really do feel like it is theirs.\u201d The SDDC also put an emphasis on finding ways for young people to engage their parents in co-creation during family sessions. In the \u201cDigital Makers: Clay\u201d workshop outlined earlier in this section, the parents started by making it clear to us that in joining a free digital making activity for families, they had not intended to participate themselves. Instead of picking up the Samsung devices on the tables, most began by disengaging from the session entirely, staring intently at their phones \u2013 until a facilitator came over to ask them if they would like to make an artefact alongside their children. After a moment of surprise, most parents rose to the challenge.<\/p>\n

The last\u00a0characteristic\u00a0distinctive to the\u00a0experience\u00a0of the\u00a0collections makerspace, distinguishing its environment from that of other fourth-wave SMSs, was the intricate complexity\u00a0of the relationship\u00a0each site had\u00a0with its mother institution.\u00a0Unlike\u00a0a similar partnership\u00a0at a\u00a0SMS within an academic institution, for example, where the SMS\u00a0essentially\u00a0acts as\u00a0a hands-on extension of\u00a0the school\u2019s\u00a0educational mission (for more on this, see Culpepper 2016), collections makerspaces were viewed by\u00a0site\u00a0staff and collaborators as \u201ccutting-edge proof of concept site[s]\u201d that would\u00a0inspire\u00a0museums\u00a0themselves.\u00a0Invigorating the external institution\u00a0to employ more open, collaborative methods was a primary motivation.\u00a0A SDDC facilitator explained their feeling that sites of this kind should act as precedents for new ways of working within the organisation; being at the cutting-edge, he said sites could act\u00a0as \u201cexperimentation labs\u201d to ensure a different future for everyone.\u00a0A\u00a0museum\u00a0collaborator\u00a0described\u00a0his\u00a0continual\u00a0frustration with the glacial pace of change due to institutional hierarchies:\u00a0\u201cIn terms of what we do\u00a0at this museum, we\u2019re still baby-stepping in terms of technology used innovatively in its\u00a0actual galleries.\u00a0Why is it only allowed in this one room?\u00a0Everyone\u2019s using classical methods still, ignoring this\u2026 so how do we get the rest of them to listen?\u201d At the TDS, a\u00a0manager relayed a\u00a0more hopeful perspective: \u201cWe can\u2019t remove this room from its surrounding infrastructures. It was built to be a part of the museum.\u00a0But\u00a0helping the Tate become more\u00a0experimental\u00a0and open, when its departmental structures and architectures don\u2019t really support that, is an ongoing project \u2013 and an important one.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

As a new generation of\u00a0sites for making and learning\u00a0practices\u00a0have\u00a0emerged\u00a0in the U.K. with a focus on cultural collections,\u00a0it has become\u00a0possible to\u00a0examine\u00a0discourses of hegemony and\u00a0reinterpretation\u00a0that\u00a0co-exist within\u00a0the\u00a0institutionalization\u00a0process. It has also become\u00a0possible to build an understanding of\u00a0their unique circumstances, woven together from\u00a0overlapping\u00a0cosmopolitics\u00a0of traditions, values and\u00a0cultures.\u00a0In exploring staff and user experiences at\u00a0collections makerspaces within\u00a0the Tate, the\u00a0Wellcome\u00a0Collection and the British Museum, this paper revealed\u00a0evidence of canonical practices\u00a0that were\u00a0reminiscent\u00a0to those\u00a0found\u00a0at\u00a0other fourth-wave SMSs, from\u00a0co-creation and group learning\u00a0activities, to\u00a0maintaining\u00a0a\u00a0sense\u00a0of community amongst users, to\u00a0the cautious equanimity of funder-site relations. Distinctive practices specific to the time-space continuum of the collections makerspace\u00a0were also found,\u00a0from\u00a0a staff\u00a0emphasis on\u00a0good\u00a0facilitation over\u00a0the\u00a0latest technologies, to\u00a0deployments\u00a0of remix as a\u00a0primary method for engaging with collections, to the\u00a0influence of host\u00a0institutions.\u00a0As a result of these practices and their effects on the overlapping cosmos of sites and\u00a0their\u00a0institutions, this paper argues the collections makerspace is emerging as a critical field of\u00a0institutional inquiry\u00a0situated around\u00a0tactical deployments of peer production practices.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As\u00a0a fourth-wave actor in the U.K.\u2019s tradition of shared machine shops,\u00a0marked by a unique set\u00a0of circumstances that foster the proliferation of both hegemonic and counterhegemonic discourses,\u00a0the collections makerspace\u00a0both perpetuates and reframes\u00a0the legacies of\u00a0its host\u00a0institution.\u00a0Through\u00a0the use of experimental\u00a0practices\u00a0and concepts,\u00a0the\u00a0cosmopolitics\u00a0of values and priorities between sites, funding bodies\u00a0and institutions\u00a0are always being\u00a0renegotiated.\u00a0In discussing\u00a0a project\u00a0in collaboration with\u00a0an\u00a0indigenous community\u00a0from Australia,\u00a0an artist and\u00a0Tate collaborator\u00a0explained to me how\u00a0they had described\u00a0their\u00a0precolonial\u00a0tradition\u00a0of\u00a0continually remaking their\u00a0society\u2019s\u00a0shared\u00a0\u2018jukurrpa\u2019\u00a0(dreaming) histories\u00a0through the\u00a0creation and recreation of\u00a0specialized paintings that depicted these traditions,\u00a0the\u00a0cultural\u00a0expertise of which was\u00a0shared collectively amongst the community.\u00a0\u201cThis is the problem with institutions like the Tate,\u201d she\u00a0explained.\u00a0\u201cThey have historically\u00a0taken\u00a0our\u00a0shared culture\u00a0and\u00a0they\u00a0have made it elite, and we\u2019re supposed to feel they\u2019re\u00a0now\u00a0being generous \u2013 but\u00a0I think something powerful\u00a0about\u00a0digital culture\u00a0is it can\u00a0allow people to\u00a0make something of their own again. There is\u00a0something about having these\u00a0sites\u00a0in cultural\u00a0institutions,\u00a0saying you\u00a0need to remake this\u00a0together\u00a0with us\u00a0to help it come alive\u00a0again\u00a0[\u2026]\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0everything.\u00a0That\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0the change.\u201d\u00a0Perhaps it is in these meeting places of\u00a0time and space, these\u00a0emergent-yet-familiar\u00a0constellations\u00a0of artifacts and\u00a0actors\u00a0and\u00a0practices,\u00a0that collections makerspaces can help cultural institutions themselves come back to life, too.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgements<\/h2>\n

The author\u00a0is extremely grateful to the\u00a0educators, thinkers and makers\u00a0who shared their experiences and wisdom at the Tate, the British Museum and the\u00a0Wellcome\u00a0Collection.\u00a0Sincere thanks also goes to\u00a0Tim Jordan, Caroline Bassett,\u00a0Mark Graham and Adrian Smith for their\u00a0patience, their\u00a0comments and\u00a0their\u00a0encouragement in this paper\u2019s early phases, and its two anonymous reviewers for their\u00a0time and helpful\u00a0feedback.\u00a0A special\u00a0thanks also to\u00a0the contributing team (and mentors!) of 4S\/EASST 2016 Barcelona for being there to discuss, critique and collaborate and inspire from the very beginning.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/h2>\n
\n

[1]<\/a> This paper is informed by Yochai\u00a0Benkler’s\u00a0(2006:60) characterisation of peer production as practices that are “decentralized, collaborative, and\u00a0nonproprietary, based on sharing resources and outputs among widely distributed, loosely connected individuals who cooperate with each other without relying on either market signals or managerial commands.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> A method based on the belief that the role of museums in society needed to become more innovative and less elitist, allowing for new forms of expression and discourse and a redistribution of power (McCall and Gray 2013)<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Hooper-Greenhill &\u00a0Moussouri\u00a0(2000) describe free learning as a set of pedagogies that are non-sequential, self-paced, voluntary and free in choice, where users co-lead the learning experience alongside facilitators.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> A concept first developed by N.\u00a0Bourriard\u00a0in 1996 to describe interventionist artworks aimed at building social environments between artists and viewers to collaborate as a ‘community’.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Due to spatial and funding constraints, collections makerspaces typically do not carry largescale digital fabrication tools such as CNC routers or laser cutters, focusing more on digital design and lo-fi making tools, from tablets and printers to photographic equipment and crafting materials.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> A Living Lab can be defined as a collaborative working environment, usually situated within a city or geographic region, that builds from a private-public partnership to foster local, citizen-led innovations.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> While there are many variations, a hackathon can typically be defined as an intensive multiday event where a group of collaborators engage in (usually unpaid) labour for the rapid production of software, prototypes and other digital projects.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Here I refer to Massey’s definition of space as a site where the social is “stretched out” (2013: 3), brought to existence through multiple narratives, histories and social interactions that allow it to intersect with time.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Here I refer to Science and Technology Studies.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Evidence of hominid technology usage as seen through the development of stone tools can currently be dated to around 2.5 million years ago, around the same time the genus Homo appeared.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a>Ascott\u00a0defined ‘telematic art’ as art forms that combined computer-mediated technologies to network between individuals who were geographically dispersed while involving viewers as participants. In the ‘Terminal Art’ piece, participants would be able\u00a0to “tell the computer to turn up any mentions of giraffes and ice cream\u2026 the surrealists could have a field day.” More at http:\/\/telematic.walkerart.org\/timeline\/timeline_shanken.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Term used to describe works made in the 1990s-2000s that used the internet as a medium for critical exploration.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Site is still available online as of 2018 at http:\/\/www2.tate.org.uk\/netart\/mongrel\/home\/intro.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> By ‘action research’, I refer to the inclusion of generative or active outputs which are co-designed in collaboration with subjects. This may include the researcher and subjects swapping roles, sharing tools, building things and\/or engaging in reciprocal sharing of materials, skills and ownership over the work (Pain 2003).<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Interviews were semi-structured around questions examining staff and collaborator perceptions of site practices, interactions and power relations, and ranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours in length.\u00a0Questionnaires explored user perceptions and experiences, and were filled out and discussed during public workshops and events.Due to the confidential nature of interviews,\u00a0all\u00a0names have been\u00a0anonymised, and titles have been replaced with the following general terms: 2) Site user; 2) Site collaborator; 3) Site facilitator; and 4) Site manager.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Here I refer to the learner-centric approach to digital pedagogy that is based on the\u00a0belief that learners construct knowledge through hands-on experience. For more, see texts like “The museum and the needs of the people” by George E. Hein at CECA: https:\/\/www.exploratorium.edu\/education\/ifi\/constructivist-learning<\/a><\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> A digital archive of this data is openly available online as of 2018 at http:\/\/digitalstudioremix.tumblr.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

References<\/h2>\n

Anderson, C 2012,\u00a0Makers: The New Industrial Revolution<\/i>,\u00a0Crown Publishing,\u00a0New York.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Atkinson, P & Coffey A & Delamont S &\u00a0Lofland\u00a0J &\u00a0Lofland\u00a0L (eds) 2001,\u00a0Handbook of ethnography<\/i>, Sage, London.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Barringer, T 2006, \u2018Victorian culture and the museum: Before and after the white cube\u2019,\u00a0Journal of Victorian Culture<\/i>\u00a0vol.\u00a011, no. 1, pp.\u00a0133-145.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bassett, C 1999,\u00a0\u2018The Sweet Hereafter? The work of\u00a0Artec,\u2019\u00a0in\u00a0Brickwood, C\u00a0(ed)\u00a0New Media Culture in Europe<\/i>,\u00a0Uitgeverij\u00a0de\u00a0Balie\/Virtual Platform, Amsterdam.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Benkler, Y\u00a02002,\u00a0\u2018Coase’s penguin, or, Linux and the nature of the firm\u2019,\u00a0The Yale Law Journal<\/i>\u00a0vol.\u00a0112:\u00a0pp.\u00a02-46.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Benkler, Y &\u00a0Nissenbaum, H 2006, ‘Commons\u2010based peer production and virtue’,\u00a0Journal of Political Philosophy<\/i>, vol. 14 no. 4, pp. 394-419.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bishop, C 2012,\u00a0Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship<\/i>, Verso,\u00a0New York.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bourriard,\u00a0N 2002,\u00a0Relational Aesthetics<\/i>, Les Presses du reel,\u00a0Paris.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bennett, T 2013,\u00a0The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics<\/i>,<\/i>\u00a0Routledge,\u00a0Abingdon.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bourdieu,\u00a0P\u00a01984,\u00a0Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste<\/i>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

BBC\u00a02017, \u2018Tate\u00a0reveals BP sponsorship figures\u2019,\u00a0BBC News<\/i>,\u00a027 January.\u00a0Available from:\u00a0http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/entertainment-arts-30999722<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Braybrooke, K 2016,\u00a0‘A doctoral day by other means: Power-geometries of space, community and (r)evolution in El\u00a0Poblenou’, EASST Review vol. 35, no. 4. Available from:\u00a0https:\/\/easst.net\/article\/a-doctoral-day-by-other-means-power-geometries-of-space-community-and-revolution-in-el-poblenou\/<\/a>.\u00a0[1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Braybrooke, K & Jordan, T 2017, \u2018Genealogy, culture and technomyth: decolonizing western information technologies, from open source to the maker movement,\u2019\u00a0Digital Culture and Society<\/i>\u00a0vol.\u00a03, pp 25-46.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Brahms, L & Crowley, K 2016,\u00a0\u2018Learning to make in the museum:\u00a0The role of maker educators,\u2019 in K\u00a0Pepler\u00a0& E Halverson & Y Kafai, (eds),\u00a0Makeology<\/i>\u00a0in K-12, higher, and informal education: The maker movement and the future of learning<\/i>,\u00a0pp 19-30, Routledge, Abingdon.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

British Museum 2014,\u00a0Report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015<\/i>,\u00a0Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 9(8) of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992. [1 September 2017].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Castells, M, 2011, \u2018A network theory of power,\u2019\u00a0International Journal of Communication<\/i>\u00a0vol.\u00a05,\u00a0pp.\u00a0773\u2013787.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Cardullo, P &\u00a0Kitchin, R & Di\u00a0Feliciantonio, C 2017, \u2018Living labs and vacancy in the neoliberal city,\u2019\u00a0Cities<\/i>\u00a0(in press). Available from:\u00a0https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S026427511730330X<\/a>\u00a0[1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Chesbrough, H &\u00a0Vanhaverbeke, W & West, J (eds) 2006,\u00a0Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm,\u00a0<\/i>Oxford University Press, Oxford.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Coleman, G 2013,\u00a0Coding freedom: The ethics and a<\/i>esthetic<\/i>s of h<\/i>acking<\/i>,\u00a0Princeton University Press, Princeton.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Culpepper, M.L., 2016, \u2018Types of academic makerspaces, their import to the education mission, and the characteristics of their culture and community,\u2019\u00a0Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces<\/i>,\u00a0MIT, Cambridge,\u00a0pp.\u00a010-13.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Davies, S.R., 2017, \u2018Characterising\u00a0hacking: Mundane engagement in US hacker and makerspaces,\u2019\u00a0Science, Technology and Human Values\u00a0<\/i>vol. XX no.\u00a0X,\u00a0pp.\u00a01-27.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Delbourgo, J 2017,\u00a0Collecting\u00a0<\/i>the world: Hans Sloane and the origins of the B<\/i>ritish Museum<\/i>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2016,\u00a0Use of public libraries, visits to museums and galleries, engagement in the arts<\/i>, 1 February 2016, Available from: Gov.uk. [1 May 2016].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2017,\u00a0Statistical d<\/i>ataset: Museu<\/i>ms and galleries monthly visits<\/i>, 1 February 2017. Available from:\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/statistical-data-sets\/museums-and-galleries-monthly-visits<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dickel, S & Ferdinand, J.P. &\u00a0Petschow, U 2014, \u2018Shared machine shops as real-life laboratories\u2019,\u00a0Journal of Peer Production<\/i>, vol. 5. Available from:\u00a0http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/issues\/issue-5-shared-machine-shops\/peerreviewed-articles\/shared-machine-shops-as-real-life-laboratories\/<\/a>.\u00a0[1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

DiMaggio, P J & Powell W 2000, ‘The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields,’ In N Baum (ed),\u00a0Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management<\/i>, pp. 143-166. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dunjerski, M 2000, \u2018Gates foundation becomes world’s wealthiest,\u2019\u00a0The Chronicle of Philanthropy<\/i>,\u00a0January 24. Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/www.philanthropy.com\/article\/Gates-Foundation-Becomes\/168565<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Edgerton, D 2011,\u00a0Shock of the old: Technolog<\/i>y and global history since 1900<\/i>,\u00a0Profile Books,\u00a0London.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fab City Research Lab, \u2018Labs List,\u2019\u00a0Fablabs.io<\/i>. Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/www.fablabs.io\/labs<\/a>. [1\u00a0September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Foucault, M &\u00a0Miskowiec\u00a0J 1986, \u2018Of other spaces,\u2019\u00a0Diacritics<\/i>\u00a0vol. 16, no. 1,\u00a0pp.\u00a022-27.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fleischmann, K & Sabine H & Merritt\u00a0T\u00a02016, \u2018Making things in Fab Labs: a case study on\u00a0sustainability and co-creation,\u2019\u00a0Digital Creativity<\/i>, pp.\u00a01-19.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuller M, 2008,\u00a0Software Studies: A Lexicon<\/i>,\u00a0<\/i>MIT Press, Cambridge.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fressoli, M &\u00a0Arond, E &\u00a0Abrol, D & Smith, A & Ely, A & and Dias, R 2014, \u2018When grassroots innovation movements encounter mainstream institutions: implications for models of inclusive innovation,\u2019\u00a0Innovation and Development<\/i>\u00a0vol. 4 no. 2, pp. 277-292.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Frost, C 2012, \u2018Media\u00a0lab culture in the UK,\u2019\u00a0Further<\/i>field<\/i>, 28 August. Available at:\u00a0http:\/\/www.furtherfield.org\/features\/articles\/media-lab-culture-uk<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Garrett, M 2006, \u2018Revisiting\u00a0Backspc,\u2019\u00a0Furtherfield<\/i>. 3 March. Available at:\u00a0http:\/\/www.furtherfield.org\/reviews\/revisiting-backspace<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Garud, R & Hardy, C & Maguire, S 2007, ‘Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue,’\u00a0Organization Studies\u00a0<\/i>vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 957-969.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Gershenfeld, N 2012, \u2018How to make almost anything: The\u00a0digital fabrication revolution,\u2019\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/i>\u00a0no.\u00a091, pp. 43-57.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Graham, M\u00a02015, \u2018Contradictory connectivity: Spatial imaginaries and\u00a0technomediated\u00a0positionalities\u00a0in Kenya\u2019s outsourcing sector\u2019,\u00a0Environment and<\/i>\u00a0Planning A<\/i>\u00a0vol.\u00a047,\u00a0pp.\u00a0867\u2013883.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Gramsci, A 1971,\u00a0Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci<\/i>, trans. Q Hoare & G Nowell Smith, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, Dagenham.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Hawkey, R 2004, \u2018Learning with digital technologies in museums, science\u00a0centres\u00a0and galleries,\u2019\u00a0Nesta<\/i>\u00a0<\/i>Futurelab<\/i>\u00a0Research Report<\/i>\u00a09. Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/www.nfer.ac.uk\/publications\/FUTL70\/FUTL70.pdf<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Harwood, G 2003, ‘Uncomfortable proximity: The Tate invites Mongrel to hack the Tate’s own web site’,\u00a0Leonardo<\/i>\u00a0vol. 36 no. 5, pp. 375-380.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Hill, P 2015, \u2018Ten statistics that reveal the size and the scope of the maker movement\u2019,\u00a0Extension<\/i>. 3 November.\u00a0Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/www.extension.org\/2015\/11\/03\/ten-statistics-that-reveal-the-size-and-scope-of-the-maker-movement\/<\/a>\u00a0[1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Holman, W 2015, \u2018Makerspace: Towards a new civic infrastructure,\u2019\u00a030 Nov,\u00a0Places Journal<\/i>.\u00a0<\/i>Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/placesjournal.org\/article\/makerspace-towards-a-new-civic-infrastructure\/<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Holmes, D & Marcus, G 2008, ‘Collaboration today and the re-imagination of the classic scene of fieldwork encounter,’\u00a0Collaborative anthropologies<\/i>\u00a0vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81-101.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Hooper-Greenhill, E &\u00a0Moussouri\u00a0T 2000,\u00a0Researching learning in museums and galleries 19<\/i>90-1999: a bibliographic review<\/i>,\u00a0Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, Leicester.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Irani, L 2015, ‘Hackathons and the making of entrepreneurial citizenship,’\u00a0Science, Technology, & Human Values\u00a0<\/i>vol. 40 no. 5, pp.799-824.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Jordan, T 2016, \u2018A genealogy of hacking,\u2019\u00a0Convergence<\/i>\u00a0vol.\u00a022, no.\u00a02, pp.\u00a01-17.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Kelty, C 2008,\u00a0Two bits: The cultural significance of free s<\/i>oftware<\/i>, Duke University Press,\u00a0Durham.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Khomami, N 2016, \u2018BP to end Tate sponsorship after 26 years,\u2019\u00a0The Guardian<\/i>,\u00a011 March.\u00a0Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/artanddesign\/2016\/mar\/11\/bp-to-end-tate-sponsorship-climate-protests<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Latour, B 2005,\u00a0Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory<\/i>, Oxford University Press, Oxford.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Latour, B 2004, ‘Whose cosmos, which\u00a0cosmopolitics? Comments on the peace terms of Ulrich Beck,’\u00a0Common Knowledge\u00a0<\/i>vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 450\u201362.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Lefebvre, H 1991,\u00a0The Production of Space<\/i>,<\/i>\u00a0v<\/i>ol. 142<\/i>,\u00a0Blackwell,\u00a0Oxford.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Levy, S 1984,\u00a0Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution<\/i>,\u00a0v<\/i>ol. 14<\/i>,\u00a0Anchor Press\/Doubleday, Garden City.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Massey, D 1993, ‘Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place,’ in J Bird (ed),\u00a0Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change<\/i>\u00a0vol. 1, pp.59-69. Routledge, Abingdon.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Massey, D 1994,\u00a0Space, place and gender<\/i>, John Wiley & Sons, New York.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Massey, D\u00a02005,\u00a0For Space<\/i>, Sage,\u00a0London.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

March, H & Ribera-Fumaz, R 2016, ‘Smart contradictions: The politics of making Barcelona a Self-sufficient city,’\u00a0European Urban and Regional Studies<\/i>, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 816-830.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

maxigas\u00a02012, \u2018Hacklabs\u00a0and hackerspaces — tracing two genealogies,\u2019\u00a0Journal of Peer Production\u00a0<\/i>vol. 2.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

McCall, V & Gray, C\u00a02014, \u2018Museums and the \u201cnew museology\u201d: theory, practice and\u00a0organisational\u00a0change,\u2019\u00a0Museum Management and Curatorship<\/i>\u00a0vol. 29, no. 1, pp.\u00a019-35.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Meehan, R\u00a0& Gravel J & Shapiro R\u00a02014,\u00a0\u2018A card-sorting task to establish community values in designing makerspaces,\u2019\u00a0<\/i>FabLearn<\/i>\u00a0proceedings,\u00a0<\/i>Stanford.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Moorefield-Lang, H 2015,\u00a0\u2018When makerspaces go mobile: Case studies of transportable maker locations\u2019,\u00a0Library Hi Tech<\/i>\u00a0vol. 33, no. 4, pp.\u00a0462\u201371.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nesta 2015,\u00a0\u2018UK Makerspaces: The data\u2019,\u00a0Nesta<\/i>, 22 February. Available at:\u00a0http:\/\/www.nesta.org.uk\/uk-makerspaces-data<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Oates,\u00a0A\u00a02015, \u2018Evidence of learning in an\u00a0art museum makerspace,\u2019 M.A. thesis, University of Washington.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Pain, R 2003 ‘Social geography: on action-orientated research’,\u00a0Progress in Human Geography<\/i>\u00a0vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 649\u2013657.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Prior, N 2005,\u00a0\u2018A question of perception: Bourdieu, art and the postmodern,\u2019\u00a0Journal of Sociology<\/i>\u00a0vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 123-139.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Rae, J & Edwards, L 2016, \u2018Virtual reality at the British Museum: What is the value of virtual reality environments for learning by children and young\u00a0people, schools, and families?\u2019\u00a0Proceedings of Museums and the Web conference<\/i>, Los Angeles.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Ray Murray, P\u00a0&\u00a0Hand, C\u00a02014, \u2018Making culture: Locating the digital humanities in India,\u2019\u00a0Visible Language<\/i>\u00a0vol. 49, no. 3,\u00a0pp.\u00a0140-155.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Sampsa\u00a0H &\u00a0Kohtala,\u00a0C &\u00a0Helminen, P &\u00a0M\u00e4kinen,\u00a0S &\u00a0Miettinen, V &\u00a0Muurinen, L 2014,\u00a0\u2018Collaborative\u00a0futuring\u00a0with and by makers,\u2019\u00a0CoDesign<\/i>\u00a0<\/i>vol. 10, no. 3,\u00a0pp.\u00a0209-228.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Savigny, E & Knorr-Cetina, K &\u00a0Schatzki\u00a0T (eds) 2001,\u00a0The practice turn in contemporary theory<\/i>, Routledge, London.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Seitanidi, MM & Ryan, A 2007, \u2018A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: From philanthropy to partnerships\u2019,\u00a0International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing<\/i>\u00a0vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 247\u2013266.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Sheridan, K & Halverson, E\u00a0&\u00a0Litts, B & Brahms, L & Jacobs-Priebe, L & Owens, T 2014, ‘Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces,’\u00a0Harvard Educational Review<\/i>\u00a0vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 505-531.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Slatter, D & Howard, Z 2013, ‘A place to make, hack, and learn: makerspaces in Australian public libraries,’\u00a0The Australian Library Journal<\/i>, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 272-284.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Smith, A &\u00a0Fressoli, M &\u00a0Abrol, D &\u00a0Arond, E & Ely, A 2016,\u00a0Grassroots innovation movements<\/i>, Routledge, New York.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Smith, A 2014, \u2018Technology networks for socially useful production,\u2019\u00a0Journal of Peer Production<\/i>\u00a0vol. 5. Available at:\u00a0http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/issues\/issue-5-shared-machine-shops\/peerreviewedarticles\/technology-networks-for-socially-useful-production<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Smith, A & Hielscher, S & Dickel, S &\u00a0S\u00f6derberg, J & Van Oost, E 2013,\u00a0\u2018Grassroots digital fabrication and makerspaces: Reconfiguring, relocating\u00a0and recalibrating innovation?\u2019\u00a0SPRU Working Paper Series<\/i>. Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/www.sussex.ac.uk\/webteam\/gateway\/file.php?name=2013-02-swps-aps-sh-gdf-working-paper.pdf&site=25<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

S\u00f6derberg, J &\u00a0Delfanti, A 2015,\u00a0\u2018Repurposing the hacker.\u00a0Three temporalities of recuperation\u2019.\u00a0SSRN<\/i>. Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=2622106<\/a>.\u00a0[1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Soja, E 1996,\u00a0Thirdspace<\/i>: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real and imagined places<\/i>, Blackwell, Oxford.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Stengers, I 1997. ‘Pour\u00a0en\u00a0finir\u00a0avec la\u00a0tol\u00e9rance’,\u00a0Cosmopolitiques<\/i>\u00a0vol. 7, La\u00a0D\u00e9couverte, Paris.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Tate 2017, \u2018History of Tate\u2019,\u00a0Tate.org<\/i>. Available at:\u00a0http:\/\/www.tate.org.uk\/about-us\/history-tate<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Toupin, S 2014,\u00a0\u2018Feminist\u00a0hackerspaces: The synthesis of feminist and hacker cultures,\u2019\u00a0Journal of Peer Production<\/i>\u00a0vol.\u00a05,\u00a0pp.\u00a01-9.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Trainer, E.H &\u00a0Kalyanasundaram,\u00a0A &\u00a0Chaihirunkarn, C &\u00a0Herbsleb, J.D 2016,\u00a0\u2018How to Hackathon: socio-technical tradeoffs in brief, intensive collocation\u2019,\u00a0Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing<\/i>, San Francisco. Available at:\u00a0https:\/\/www.cs.cmu.edu\/~etrainer\/papers\/trainer-cscw2016-hackathons.pdf<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Troxler, P\u00a0&\u00a0maxigas\u00a02014,\u00a0\u2018Editorial note: We now have the means of production, but where is my revolution?\u2019\u00a0Journal of Peer Production<\/i>\u00a0vol. 5.\u00a0Available at\u00a0http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/issues\/issue-5-shared-machine-shops\/editorial-section\/editorial-note-we-now-have-the-means-of-production-but-where-is-my-revolution\/<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Trust for London 2015, \u2018London Poverty Profile Report 2015\u2019,\u00a0London Poverty Profile,<\/i>\u00a0October. Available at:\u00a0http:\/\/www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk\/publications<\/a>.\u00a0[24 May 2016].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

UABureau\u00a02016, \u201cFablab\u00a0flotante\u2019,\u00a0UABureau\u00a0Business Catalyst. Available at:\u00a0http:\/\/uabureau.businesscatalyst.com\/fablab-flotante.html<\/a>. [1 September 2017].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Vigour, L 2016, \u2018Libraries that are not libraries: Analysing and comparing the Reading Room\u2019, M.A.\u00a0Dissertation,\u00a0UCL\u00a0Department of Information Studies.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Zindy, S &\u00a0Heeks, R 2017, \u2018Researching the emergence of 3D printing, makerspaces, hackerspaces and\u00a0FabLabs\u00a0in the Global South: A scoping review and research agenda on digital innovation and fabrication networks,\u2019\u00a0EJISDC: The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries<\/i>\u00a0vol. 80 no. 5, pp. 1-24.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

About the author<\/h2>\n

Kat Braybrooke<\/b><\/a>\u00a0is a sociotechnical researcher and designer whose work explores the politics of digital making and hacking practices, in particular the interactions between grassroots and institutionalised cultures, spaces and power. For the past decade, she has worked with cause-based organisations from Mozilla to the Open Knowledge Foundation to engage\u00a0marginalised\u00a0communities through digital tools. She is currently in the process of completing a doctoral research project with the University of Sussex Digital Humanities Lab<\/a> that explores imaginaries and realities within the political economies of collections makerspaces at key cultural institutions in Britain, and was part of a British Council’s Living Research<\/a> delegation which explored local maker ecosystems in Chengdu and Xi’an, China in early 2018.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Kat Braybrooke Open as PDF \u201cHow people think about the institutions under which they live, and how they relate to the culture of their economy and society, defines whose power can be exercised, and how it can be exercised.” \u2013 Manuel Castells Introduction Digital studio, innovation lab, makerspace, hackspace,\u00a0fablab,\u00a0incubator,\u00a0Tech<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":7060,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template_full_width.php","meta":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7023"}],"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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7023"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7773,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7023\/revisions\/7773"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7060"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}