{"id":7092,"date":"2018-05-16T01:18:18","date_gmt":"2018-05-16T01:18:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=7092"},"modified":"2018-06-30T18:12:04","modified_gmt":"2018-06-30T18:12:04","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-12-makerspaces-and-institutions\/peer-reviewed-papers\/makerspaces-and-urban-ideology\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Makerspaces and urban ideology)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

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

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

The subject matter is highly relevant and I am sure it will be of interest to those who read the journal. It provides a re-contextualisation of maker-spaces, which I think is an important addition to the literature on this subject.<\/p>\n

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or\u00a0bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The paper is intellectually interesting, particularly section 4.2 regarding maker-spaces in Northern Ireland. Sections 2 (background), 3 (significance of study), 4 and 4.1 (China) illustrate a thorough review of literature. However it does not always follow a clear line of thought and sometimes jumps around, citing unrelated literature next to each other.<\/p>\n

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or\u00a0making judgments?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The authors surveyed 4 makerspaces; however there is no indication of how they did this. I think it is important that they explain how they surveyed the maker-spaces.<\/p>\n

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

The article is written to a reasonable standard. Section 4.2 (Northern Ireland) is written very well, it is the most engaging and enjoyable part of the paper. Section 1 up to Section 4 is certainly readable and interesting, however it is often inconsistent and the language can become too colloquial. The consistent use of figures of speech often break the flow of the argument and appear informal.<\/p>\n

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

Section 2 (background) and section 3 (significance of study) could be condensed into one section with a small sub-section specifying significance. Currently these sections read as two literature reviews. The second paragraph of section 4.3 refers to identity politics and the desire to rebrand. This point is interesting and perhaps deserves more time to develop in the introduction or as some sort of justification for choosing the spaces you chose to study. The fourth paragraph of section 4.3 is very interesting and may benefit from expansion, especially regarding the influence of the Chinese government. The final paragraph of section 4 refers to Olma (2017) and social innovation as a field of practice. This needs to be explained. A prior knowledge of Olma\u2019s work cannot be assumed here. From what I understand of it, it may be inconsequential to the argument anyway so may be able to be cut.<\/p>\n

Suggestions for improvement:<\/p>\n

A lot of the arguments lie on the foundation that the cases studied are different from typical makerspaces and having an alternative narrative to these. This being the case it seems that there should be a clear outline of what you think a typical maker-space is, and also what its narrative is. There is reference to some literature but no clear picture of what you are arguing against. Your arguments will become a lot clearer and weightier if you provide this comparison. There seems to be slight bias for Chinese maker-spaces. It is written in a way that does not illustrate the China cases as being alternative, but rather as superior. While this may be a style issue or poor word choice I think you need to tighten this up to prevent an unfounded\/unintended opinion creeping in. I think this is largely down to the description of typical maker-spaces as \u2018western\u2019. I don\u2019t think this geographical label is appropriate when you are discussing maker-spaces from China (east) and maker-spaces in Northern Ireland (west).<\/p>\n

It is not really a question of western values versus eastern values, highlighted by the fact that both examples you discuss are not the typical narratives despite one being in the \u2018west\u2019. An argument about counter-culture appears throughout the paper. You need to define what you mean by counter-culture. It is used in many different ways and it is not always clear what your standpoint is. As I understand, you say that China\u2019s maker-spaces differ from typical maker-spaces in that they do not adhere to the counter-culture rhetoric and by this you mean it is not about reclaiming agency or control. However. you then go on to suggest that Chinese maker-spaces are rejecting maker-culture which in itself can be a type of counter-culture. You should also reconcile this argument between the Chinese maker-spaces and the Northern Irish maker-spaces.<\/p>\n

It currently reads that the paper was written by two authors, perhaps with different objectives and that their studies were forced to fit together in one paper. I think both cases (China and Northern Ireland) would be interesting as independent papers. I think to make it work better as a single paper, they need to be better consolidated and have a consistent style. Additionally, the main phrase used throughout the paper is \u2018alternative narratives\u2019, yet the title is \u2018alternative realities\u2019- perhaps pick one and use it consistently throughout.<\/p>\n

Your use of acronyms are inconsistent, particularly in section 4.1 (China). Write out the acronym in full the first time you use it, followed by the initials in brackets.
\nThe last paragraph of 4.1 (China) makes a big claim in saying that this study demonstrates, \u2018the Chinese state\u2019s attempt to understand and control the process of \u2018creative destruction\u2019\u2026\u2019 The study while interesting and informative was not big enough to demonstrate something as extreme as this. It perhaps illustrates an interest but not an attempt to control, at least not with the evidence in this paper.<\/p>\n

Your conclusion specifies the points to consider from the call. It is not necessary to list them here, you can respond to these in a clear and efficient way using formal academic language. Avoid using first-person, as it comes across as informal and conversational.<\/p>\n

Other questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. How adequately does the paper address the special issue topic of ‘institutions and the institutionalisation’ of makerspaces, and how could the connection be improved (particularly within the three themes in the CfP)?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The paper is particularly relevant and consistently makes this connection very clear. I have no recommendations regarding this.<\/p>\n

2. Where is there room for improvement in the presentation\/use of empirical material?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have identified this in more detail above but the method used in surveying the maker-spaces should be made clear as there is no indication of how the authors did this.<\/p>\n

I recommend the paper is published.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

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

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

The subject matter is highly relevant to the journal and to the special issue. As the authors note, there is a real need to unpick grand narratives of hacker and makerspaces in order to understand their local contexts and internal cultures and the mutual shaping of these. The comparison of Chinese and Northern Irish sites therefore has real potential to parse how these spaces are articulated and experienced according to specific organisational, institutional and national environments.<\/p>\n

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

Unfortunately I found the treatment of this topic odd at best. There seems to have been little attempt to systematically carry out analysis or to organise the literature and conceptual framework. Discussion of the literature is unfocused and includes some odd citation choices (e.g. quoting not original sources, but others who have referenced them). Statements are made such that it is unclear who they are referring to (\u201cMany consider the stories of MIT hackers\u2026\u201d, p.3 – who, exactly? No references are given) or are given without support. The discussion covers Schumpeter, Berman, Castells, and Mouffe in the space of three paragraphs: all of these are major theorists with quite different approaches, and it is unclear that their ideas can be dropped in quite so lightly without any consideration of the broader theoretical or methodological implications of using them.<\/p>\n

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

As noted, I found the article highly unsystematic as a whole. This is a particular problem when it comes to the treatment of the national and makerspace cases. No rationale is given as to why these spaces were chosen as case studies (a key question given that three out of the four are Fab Labs, and therefore a very particular kind of makerspace). Similarly, there is no discussion of methodological approach, how data has been gathered, or how the cases were analysed. We are instead presented with a lot of information about the sites, much of which we have to take on trust as it is not clear how this has emerged from a wider process of empirical (or grey literature) engagement and analysis. As a result the claims that are made – for instance that \u201cThese two maker spaces in Shenzhen demonstrate the Chinese state\u2019s attempt to understand and control the process of \u2018creative destruction\u2019 in China\u2019s manufacturing sector\u201d (p.8) – seem to have little connection with the previous, highly descriptive sections.<\/p>\n

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

The writing is extremely patchy. The article appears to have been written by at least two different authors, with little effort to harmonise the voice or the approach to the cases. As well as a thorough proofread and edit being necessary – in some places the language is poor enough that understanding what is being said is a challenge (was Wired really \u201clamenting\u201d Shenzhen as the Silicon Valley of Hardware?) – I would also suggest looking at the overall structure and seeking to tighten this up such that a clear and consistent argument is made throughout.<\/p>\n

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

My main suggestion is that the article should present a much more systematic analysis of the case study spaces. It should develop a coherent narrative of the existing literature, utilise a consistent theoretical approach that shapes the rest of the discussion, explain the approach taken to data collection and analysis (whether or not that is \u2018hands-on\u2019 or through the literature), and make sure that the arguments are supported by clear examples from the case studies. This will mean, for instance, grounding the distinction between the three levels of organisational cultures in the literature or in new conceptual work, and carefully and consistently explicating these analytical devices for the four case studies, explaining where the material for doing this comes from.<\/p>\n

Other questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. How adequately does the paper address the special issue topic of ‘institutions and the institutionalisation’ of makerspaces, and how could the connection be improved (particularly within the three\u00a0themes in the CfP)?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The paper is a good fit in that it looks at how wider institutional connections shape maker space practices and cultures. What is missing is perhaps the emphasis on newness and change that is in the cfp: there is little consideration of how these particular makerspaces are in flux or are responding to a changing institutional environment.<\/p>\n

2. Where is there room for improvement in the presentation\/use of empirical material?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This paper is frustrating because it has so much potential! I don\u2019t disagree with the claims and arguments that are made; it is simply that they are not backed up with any kind of clear, structured engagement with empirical (or other) material. I wanted to understand, for instance: what is the data here, how has it been gathered, with what rationale, what analytical approach has been mobilised, and on what grounds and through which methods are the cases being compared? Working through these questions will, I hope, help the authors to ground and demonstrate their claims in a more convincing manner.<\/p>\n

As it stands\u00a0I would not recommend this article be published.\u00a0If I were reviewing for another journal, with a different kind of peer\u00a0review\u00a0system, my suggestion would be ‘reject but encourage a re-written manuscript as a new submission\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Editors’ review<\/h2>\n
\n

Thanks again for your commitment to the special issue of Journal of Peer Production. We have now received comments on your paper from the peer reviews. As you will see from their reports, one recommends major revisions, the other recommends reject. Both agree the subject matter is important and highly relevant and the paper attempts an important job in situating makerspaces in local contexts. Obviously, they disagree on how much extra work is needed to deliver on that promise.<\/p>\n

The second reviewer does say that their reject should be taken as re-write and resubmit. Having read the paper carefully, we agree that a major, major rewrite is necessary. But rather than reject, we\u2019d like to have a go at re-writing, and hope we can include you in the Special Issue. We would need a re-written article by 15 February, that addresses the concerns of the Reviewers, especially where they are in agreement, namely:<\/p>\n