{"id":7111,"date":"2018-05-16T02:50:25","date_gmt":"2018-05-16T02:50:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=7111"},"modified":"2018-06-30T18:29:20","modified_gmt":"2018-06-30T18:29:20","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-12-makerspaces-and-institutions\/peer-reviewed-papers\/can-one-size-fit-one\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Can one size fit one)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

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

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

The subject matter of the article, custom production in 18th<\/span>\u00a0and 19th<\/span>\u00a0century dressmaking, is relevant to peer production in shared machine shops. The author\u2019s thesis is, initially, surprising in the context of this special issue. Through the article, however, the author successfully persuades readers of not just its relevance but also its truth. One can look to the past to better understand aspects of the potential of customized production in shared machine shops. In supporting this argument, the author advances a fresh methodology through which shared machine shops may be studied, and generates useful insights about a potential opportunity to improve custom production.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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?<\/b><\/p>\n

I found the treatment of custom production by the author stimulating and insightful. I admit that the disciplinary field of the article, and the literature cited therein, is not squarely in my area of expertise. Therefore, I refrain from commenting on\u00a0citations or literature in respect of dressmaking and\/or product customization, except to say\u00a0the range of sources seems eclectic.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u00a0feel\u00a0that the author might have engaged much more deeply in both theoretical and empirical literature on peer production, including in relation to the maker movement and makerspaces. Doing so would significantly strengthen the work, and make its relevance to the special issue much clearer.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The author draws distinctions between mass customization and custom production. The explanation of parametric customization in that context is clear. The comparative application the concepts to historical custom dressmaking and modern mass-customization\u2014discussing users, interfaces, and parameters\u2014sets up useful insights in the section that follows. The intellectual payoff of the article comes in its application of these insights to what the author describes as \u201chumane customization\u201d. I am especially intrigued by the author\u2019s insights regarding scalability, and the benefits of staying small-scale. In an era when so much focus is placed upon the virtues of scaling up (whatever that term may be taken to mean), the author\u2019s analysis is refreshing.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, the author leaves an important issue unexplored.\u00a0In section three, s\/he\u00a0discusses the relative costs of components versus\u00a0labour\u00a0in 18th<\/span>\u00a0and 19th<\/span>\u00a0century dressmaking. S\/he also discusses the nature of employment, including outsourcing, in that context. Through this discussion, and indeed through the entire paper, the author inevitably treats the economic\u00a0activity involved as the sale of a good. This same characterization pervades the analysis of both mass\/parametric customization and humane customization.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I would like to propose to the author an entirely different framing of the comparison: that of a good versus a service. Could it be that the key difference between parametric and humane customization is that the former involves manufacturing goods while the latter involves providing service? If my hunch is correct, then what impact does that have on the author\u2019s conclusions. Are shared machine shops then simply places where services are provided, rather than places where goods are produced? What are the implications of this framing for the author\u2019s discussion of scalability. Are services ever truly scalable? And\u00a0so\u00a0what?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Is the article well written?<\/b><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>The article is very well written. Some typos will have to be addressed during editing. I suggest using shorter paragraphs to make the piece more readable. Otherwise, the style is excellent.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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

See above.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Final recommendation: Minor edits, major edits, or reject?<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Honestly, it is tough for me.\u00a0I do a\u00a0lot of interdisciplinary work with management and economics; less so with history or cultural studies, which the paper seems to draw mostly on.\u00a0Some of the sources are from the field of management. But I think my final insight in the review \u2014regarding the distinction between goods and services \u2014 is so obvious (at least that\u2019s what struck me) that to not engage it, and the literature about that, is a major flaw of the paper.<\/p>\n

I would have to add that when combined with the tangential way in which the paper deals with shared machine shops and the (enormous) relevant literature on making\/makers\/makerspaces, there\u2019s a big gap in the analysis.<\/p>\n

At the same time, I\u2019m intrigued by the central thesis, and persuaded by it. There\u2019s enormous benefit to exploring this angle. I love the insights regarding scalability. This question of whether scaling is good or bad, how to do it, or even what it means, is timely and important. That alone could constitute a valuable contribution to the literature.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, I would have to recommend publication with major edits.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

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

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 article addresses the theme of the special issue through discussions on modes of production (and implicitly the institutional logics which inform them).\u00a0The author compares an historic case, that of dress making in the 18th and 19th centuries, with a contemporary case, that of mass customisation in contemporary athletic – leisurewear industries.\u00a0The paper seeks to draw together evidence and ides that might inform a proposed concept of humane custom production.\u00a0In doing so it seeks to make a methodological contribution, through historical comparative case studies.\u00a0The paper seeks to make a second, more normative contribution, making the case for greater mass customisation practises in makerspaces.<\/p>\n

The introduction promises a paper that is about different structures of custom production of goods and how users of shared machine shops can intervene in evolving practises of digitally-aided custom production.\u00a0We might expect a discussion of\u00a0different structures of custom production to follow, and given the theme of the special issue, this discussion might comment on institutional aspects of custom production.\u00a0We might also expect in the discussion or conclusions a reflection on how the case study or proposed methodological innovation might contribute to telling us something about\u00a0how users of shared machine shops can intervene in evolving practises of digitally-aided custom production.<\/p>\n

Both the historic and contemporary cases are well handled. The historic case in particular draws on an intriguing array of secondary research. However, the author might better situate this work within the often critical perspectives on makerspaces, including those made in this journal. The author might consider how contemporary (and often plural and diverse) makerspace cultures\/sites\/institutions are or are not similar to the case studies (minor flaw).<\/p>\n

This might be achieved through a direct discussion on how the institutional logics of production play in makerspaces. This discussion is lightly entered into on the final page of the paper with reference to Toombs et al. (2014). However, the author might better situate the work in the paper, and better situate the paper within the themes of the special issue, by discussing production and institutions of makerspaces (major flaw). This more explicitly make the case for the inclusion of this paper in the special issue. Questions that might be addressed include but are not limited to: are modes of production in makerspaces like either of the case studies?; In what ways?; Why does this matter?; If makerspaces are to incorporate \u2018humane custom production\u2019, what will have to change?;<\/p>\n

The author hones in on a fascinating and intriguingly realistic point and one which is actively discussed in makerspaces: the co-existence of custom production and industrial methods in historic cases. The paper might like to reflect on how makerspaces might be locations for these kind of co-existences, and why this might be socially useful? (major opportunity)<\/p>\n

This brings up a wider point about the paper. On a number of occasions the author makes claims regarding the normative value of \u2018humane\u2019 production, production with \u2018users at the centre\u2019 and (e.g. page 4, second last paragraph; page 7 discussion on \u201cthe best parts of the historical practice\u201d)(major flaw). The paper would be significantly strengthened through an explicit discussion of why these modes of production\/customisation are normatively better, and for whom? For example, the author touches on issues of gender in the dressmaking case on page five. Perhaps this might be the entry point for a reflection on in interactions of subjectivity and institutions in the discussion. But more important to deal with than specific issues, is how the issues that the comparative case work exposes, are brought into the realm of the makerspace.<\/p>\n

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

As per the above comments, it is not clear how the empirical data supports the claims made in advance of the secondary argument in the paper, that \u2018humane production\u2019 is normatively better, and for whom (major flaw). \u00a0The author may seek to make these lines of arguement more clear, or drop them to focus more clearly on the methodological contribution.\u00a0For example, on page six, three \u2018important\u2019 differences are made with comparing the historic and contemporary cases. It is not clear on what criteria these observations are made. The author might usefully explain the basis of comparison. Furthermore, it might be useful and even more intriguing to know what similarities exist between the cases. Indeed, institutional analysis is often used to explain stasis and obduracy over time and considering what things don\u2019t change, despite for example the diffusion of ICTs and global supply chains in the 20th C might be useful. An example of this approach in action might be to consider insitutional constraints in the second last paragraph of page six, and not just parameterization. In this way the author might go beyond a technological deterministic perspective, to bring in social\/institutional determinants and strengthen the historical method proposed.<\/p>\n

The author might unpack the concept of \u2018humane production\u2019 at further length (major flaw). The author uses the word \u201chumane\u201d throughout, including the title. In this context this is an intriguing word, but the author does not inform us why this word is used. An explanation early in the text might add weight to the proposed concept of humane production. This core concept is in the title of the paper, we might expect that the author explicitly locates aspects of \u2018humane production\u2019 in the cases, and then discusses in detail how \u2018humane production\u2019 exists or might exists within makerspaces. Indeed, are we to expect that humane production is an institutional form makerspaces might adopt or embed? Why, how and who might do this?<\/p>\n

How else might the paper be improved so that it can make a high-quality contribution to the special issue?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The article may benefit by the removal of much of the reader-signposting (minor flaw). For example, the bottom half of page seven is given over entirely to summarising issues discussed previously in the paper, somewhat impeding the forward progress of this reader.<\/p>\n

The author uses the catch-all term \u2018users\u2019 50 times in the paper. It is not always clear whether this users is a consumer, designer, user of making tools, user of internet platform tools (minor flaw). A case in point is the reference to \u2018real\u2019 users on page seven. Without a more explicit treatment of users earlier in the paper, this reference to \u2018real\u2019 lacks specificity. As well as being confusing, this lack of specificity buries discussion of agency which is something of a shame during the conclusions.<\/p>\n

In setting out a discussion and conclusion that more directly deals with the special issue, the author might usefully reflect on the themes of the special issue. I draw their attention in particular to the following bullet points:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Complex contradictions and possibilities of making, hacking, fabrication and commons-based practices \u2014 practices that are themselves increasingly characterised by institutional interventions. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Is humane production as proposed by the author an institutional intervention?<\/p>\n

      \n
    • The dilemmas of institutionalisation (regarding both the formalization of practices and the fact that many practice-based spaces are now being embedded within larger organizations like museums, municipalities and businesses). <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      The author presents the dilemma that intriguingly, the production facilities of\u00a0larger organizations may be placed within the space of makerspaces. What are the implications?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Editors’ review<\/h2>\n
      \n

      Thanks again for contributing your paper to the Special Issue of Journal of Peer Production. We have now received comments from both reviewers, and which we share with you here. Both think the paper has considerable merit, but\u00a0agree\u00a0some major revisions are necessary before publication.\u00a0We have read your paper\u00a0carefully\u00a0and agree some more work is needed. We hope you are able to respond to\u00a0our\u00a0recommendations.<\/p>\n

      Both reviewers, and us,\u00a0our enthusiastic about\u00a0your method\u00a0and focus, based in thinking with history. It is a real strength.\u00a0Here, you\u00a0could\u00a0also make reference\u00a0to the paper on\u00a0Technology Networks for Socially Useful Production in Issue 5 of\u00a0JoPP, and which\u00a0also used a historical\u00a0method\u00a0to rethink current practices and possibilities\u00a0(and which includes\u00a0references to\u00a0the literature on history\u00a0as a method to analyse contemporary phenomenon (e.g. John Tosh, 2008, Why history matters)).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span>The major revisions relate to how you link the historical study, and the\u00a0more general\u00a0discussion of customization relationships, to the makerspace phenomena.\u00a0Parametric mass customization is, arguably, a product of industrial systems development, commercial firms, and advanced markets. But can you bring the various options and possibilities of customization relationships into makerspaces?\u00a0What happens when \u2018users\u2019 are blurred into a category like \u2018maker\u2019?\u00a0Can you add a section about makerspaces\u00a0near the start, and some of the different framings about them, and relate this to the different kinds of customisation?\u00a0Your historical case can then be used to analyse some of the speculations in the maker literature?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span>The provision of\u00a0versatile\u00a0tools and support in skills\u00a0acquisition\u00a0might be a characteristic of makerspaces\u00a0amenable to different customisation relations. But the kinds of customisation that are actually pursued, whether as production of good or provision as service (see reviewer 2), depend on norms and routines in makerspaces, or participants seeking a\u00a0livelihood\u00a0or practices\u00a0beyond the space.\u00a0Reviewer 1 was quite clear on relating your case(s) to institutions in and around makerspaces. This will need some work, and a working definition of institutions, but we think it can be related to how choices are scripted or constrained, and how the producer-customisation-user relation is made routine. And perhaps how new relations emerge beyond those institutionalised norms, and later become normal practice?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span>Just before the conclusions you write, \u201cI make the more general suggestion that the range of tools frequently used in shared machine shops to increase capacity and production skill (eg: a laser cutter or CNC mill offers the ability to do more complex woodworking than is feasible without) also offers the opportunity for producers situated in such locales to do forms of custom production which are not bounded by strict parameters dictated by existing industrial production processes.\u201d And you make some good points in relation to makerspaces in the Conclusion. But these come in at the end without much prior discussion\u00a0about makerspaces, and the production possibilities they open up. A section along these\u00a0lies\u00a0prior to your historical method and case would serve to draw these conclusions out much more. It is this kind of reflection that we\u2019d like to see more clearly in the revised paper. Maybe makerspaces need also to think carefully about the \u2018users\u2019 and how they are related into the production possibilities available with these tools? But\u00a0also\u00a0how that is organized economically?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span>These are just some illustrative suggestions rather than recommendations. It is an open topic for discussion, and we invite you to make the connection.\u00a0Sabine\u00a0Hielscher\u00a0and Adrian Smith wrote a review paper of makerspace literature that might\u00a0be helpful to you on this point and enable you to add a section relating to makerspaces without a lot of further reading\u00a0(Hielscher, S. & Smith, A.\u00a02014.\u00a0Community-based digital fabrication workshops: A review of the research literature<\/i>.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span>We also agree with reviewer 1 that humane\u00a0customisation\u00a0is insufficiently developed.\u00a0You may not have room to do that.\u00a0We suggest you relate the discussion to prescriptions or suggestions for makerspaces: issues about production-customisation-consumption relations that they need to bear in mind if some of the more progressive and liberating claims made for makerspaces are to be realised.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      We hope these comments help you re-work some of the discussion and conclusions you draw from an important case and method.\u00a0In addition to delivering your revised paper, we would be grateful if you can list and explain your responses to the reviewer recommendations in a cover letter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Reviewer: Anonymous Is the subject matter relevant? The subject matter of the article, custom production in 18th\u00a0and 19th\u00a0century dressmaking, is relevant to peer production in shared machine shops. The author\u2019s thesis is, initially, surprising in the context of this special issue. Through the article, however, the author successfully persuades readers<\/p>\n

      Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":7019,"menu_order":2,"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\/7111"}],"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=7111"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7111\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7590,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7111\/revisions\/7590"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7019"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}