Advertisement

Diversity in FabLabs: Culture, Role Models and the Gendering of Making

  • Christian VoigtEmail author
  • Elisabeth Unterfrauner
  • Roland Stelzer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10673)

Abstract

Diversity and inclusion in the technology sector is increasingly debated, specially in the context of equal opportunities for all and a shortage of experts in many tech related industries. The need to be more inclusive can refer to different age groups, people with diverse culturally and linguistically backgrounds or gender. All in all, ethnic, gender and socio-economic diversity is not yet at the forefront of fabrication laboratories (FabLabs) agendas for change. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion of diversity and inclusion by primarily elaborating gender relations in FabLabs and, to a lesser extent, discussing age and socio-economic conditions of makers. Our analysis is based on 39 interviews and the analysis of 55,450 data points extracted from the log files of 3d-printers, CNC milling machines, laser cutters and cutting plotters. This combination of qualitative and quantitative data reveals that, indeed, some machines are used more frequently by men or women. However, the main difference is in absolute numbers, i.e. women are not joining FabLabs for a variety of reasons ranging from uninviting cultures to the lack of role models in technology driven areas in general.

Keywords

Digital social innovation Making FabLab Gender Log file analysis Inclusion 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 688241.

References

  1. 1.
    Carstensen, T., Walter-Herrmann, J., Büching, C.: Gendered fab labs. In: Fab Lab: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, pp. 53–64 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wajcman, J.: Feminism Confronts Technology. Polity, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gershenfeld, N.: How to make almost anything: the digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Aff. 91, 43 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Voigt, C., Montero, C.S., Menichinelli, M.: An empirically informed taxonomy for the maker movement. In: Bagnoli, F., Satsiou, A., Stavrakakis, I., Nesi, P., Pacini, G., Welp, Y., Tiropanis, T., DiFranzo, D. (eds.) INSCI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9934, pp. 189–204. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45982-0_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faulkner, W.: The technology question in feminism: a view from feminist technology studies. In: Women’s Studies International Forum, pp. 79–95. Elsevier (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berg, A.-J., Lie, M.: Feminism and constructivism: do artifacts have gender? Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 20, 332–351 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bishu, S.G., Alkadry, M.G.: A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Adm. Soc. 49, 65–104 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blackaby, D., Booth, A.L., Frank, J.: Outside offers and the gender pay gap: empirical evidence from the UK academic labour market. Econ. J. 115, F81–F107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mills, M., Martino, W., Lingard, B.: Attracting, recruiting and retaining male teachers: policy issues in the male teacher debate. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 25, 355–369 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meadus, R.J.: Men in nursing: barriers to recruitment. In: Nursing Forum, pp. 5–12. Wiley Online Library (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tiwari, R., Fischer, L., Kalogerakis, K.: Frugal innovation in scholarly and social discourse: an assessment of trends and potential societal implications (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ames, M.G., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Lindtner, S., Mellis, D.A., Rosner, D.K.: Making cultures: empowerment, participation, and democracy-or not? In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1087–1092. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henry, L.: The rise of feminist hackerspaces and how to make your own. Model View Cult. 2 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Millard, J., Deljanin, S.R., Sorivelle, M.N., Munk, K.B., Langley, D., Broek, T. van den Blankers, I., Voigt, C., Kieslinger, B., Unterfrauner, E., Pelka, B., Zirngieb, M.: D2.1 conceptual and methodological framework (2016). http://make-it.io/download/119/
  15. 15.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 1 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Unterfrauner, E., Voigt, C.: Makers’ ambitions to do socially valuable things. Presented at the European Academy of Design Conference – EAD 2017, Rome, Italy (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N., Hoagwood, K.: Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv. Res. 42, 533–544 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turkle, S., Papert, S.: Epistemological pluralism: styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc. 16, 128–157 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rasmussen, B., Håpnes, T.: Excluding women from the technologies of the future?: a case study of the culture of computer science. Futures 23, 1107–1119 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wuschitz, S.: Female Makers (2013). http://www.p-art-icipate.net/cms/female-makers/
  21. 21.
    Dunbar, R.: How many “friends” can you really have? IEEE Spectr. 48 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Waskom, M.: Seaborn Distribution Plot (Python Package) (2017). http://seaborn.pydata.org/tutorial/distributions.html
  23. 23.
    Sestini, F.: Collective awareness platforms: engines for sustainability and ethics. Technol. Soc. Mag. IEEE 31, 54–62 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zephoria: The Top 20 Valuable Facebook Statistics (2017). https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/. Accessed May 2017
  25. 25.
    Nascimento, S., Pólvora, A.: Maker cultures and the prospects for technological action. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 1–20 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ozbekhan, H.: The triumph of technology: “can” Implies “ought”. System Development Corporation (1967)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Voigt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elisabeth Unterfrauner
    • 1
  • Roland Stelzer
    • 2
  1. 1.Technology and KnowledgeZentrum für Soziale InnovationViennaAustria
  2. 2.Happylab GmbHViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations