Advertisement

Open Design: Non-professional User-Designers Creating Products for Citizen Science: A Case Study of Beekeepers

  • Robert Phillips
  • Yelena Ford
  • Karl Sadler
  • Sarah Silve
  • Sharon Baurley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8015)

Abstract

Affiliated technologies have opened up opportunities for people, no matter what their design competency or expertise, to engage in the design of the products they use. The notion of “Open Design” or the open sharing of information relating to the design and manufacture of products, services or objects, can be seen as part of a much more encompassing phenomenon whereby users are the innovators and fabricators of their own products. Digital fabrication can enable the remote fabrication of objects tailoring artefacts to specific users or environmental needs. Open fabrication makes manufacturing processes accessible and can respond to niche needs with bespoke production. Citizen science uses non-professionals to conduct research in their own environment or location, extending the impact of research. This process of “amateur scientist” and community monitoring has positive and negative aspects that design can help to address. The workshop conducted as part of this research involved 15 amateur beekeepers and led to a probe study involving 150 participants in the UK, testing a new approach to co-collaboration yielding positive outcomes. The bee population is currently under threat from environmental change, pollution, disease and they are users with a specific interest, bespoke needs and a knowledge base outside of their profession. The decline in bees is a scientific issue as they are seen as a barometer for the health of the environment. Through analysis of observations and insights gained through active design-led workshops, this paper examines the potential barriers, opportunities, benefits and pitfalls of user-designers engaging with citizen science using open design and open fabrication tools. Workshop results included: methods, motivations, designer and manufacturer opportunities and insights into repeatable processes forming the start of a citizen science toolkit. The objective was to ascertain the possible pitfalls of a group of user-designers creating their own citizen science tools enabled by technologists and designers.

Keywords

User centred design user-designers open design open fabrication citizen science beekeeping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, C.: DIY DRONES (November 12, 2012), http://diydrones.com/
  2. 2.
    Anonymous (2012a) Open PCR ( November 12, 2012), http://openpcr.org/
  3. 3.
    Anonymous 2012b, The Public Laboratory for open technology and science (November 12, 2012), http://publiclaboratory.org/home
  4. 4.
    Björgvinsson, E.B.: Open-ended participatory design as prototypical practice. Co-Design 4(2), 85–99 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carson, K.A.: The Homebrew Industrial Revolution. Center for a Stateless Society Paper No (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohn, J.P.: Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? Bioscience 58(3), 192–197 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cramp, D.: The Complete Step-By-step Book of Beekeeping, 1st edn. Lorenz Books, Leicestershire (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gershenfeld, N.A.: Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop-from personal com-puters to personal fabrication, 1st edn. Basic Books, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanington, B., Martin, B.: Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Pub. (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardwick, S.W.: Humanising the technology landscape through a collaborative peda-gogy. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24(1), 123–129 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hasan, H., Pfaff, C.: Emergent Conversational Technologies that are Democratising Information Systems in Organisations: the case of the corporate Wiki. Information Systems Foundations, p. 197 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hess, K.: Community technology. Harper and Row, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keogh, B.: Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation. International Journal of Science Education 21(4), 431–446 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langworthy, G., Henein, M.: The Vanishing of the Bees, 1st edn. Hive Mentality Films, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, D.R.Y.: Designing for the people, with the people and by the people (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    LUMA Institute, Innovating for people, handbook of human centred design methods, First edition edn., LUMA Institute, Pittsburgh (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozkaya, I., Akin, Ö.: Use of requirement traceability in collaborative design environments. CoDesign 1(3), 155–167 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phillips, R., Silve, S., Baurley, S.: The practical maker: investigating the definitions and requirements of and exploring the motivations behind bespoke making. In: 10th European Design Conference Crafting the Future. University of Gothenburg (April 2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Resink, E., Van Dijk, D., Reitenbach, M.: “waag society” (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robson, C.: Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Blackwell Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thorpe, A., Gamman, L.: Design with society: why socially responsive design is good enough. CoDesign 7(3-4), 217–230 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Abel, B.: Open design now: why design cannot remain exclusive. Bis, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Visser, F.S., Stappers, P.J., Van der Lugt, R., Sanders, E.B.N.: Context mapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2), 119–149 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Von Hippel, E.: Democratizing innovation. The MIT Press (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilkie, A., Gaver, W., Hemment, D., Giannachi, G.: Creative assemblages: organisation and outputs of practice-led research. Leonardo 43(1), 98–99 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Phillips
    • 1
  • Yelena Ford
    • 1
  • Karl Sadler
    • 1
  • Sarah Silve
    • 1
  • Sharon Baurley
    • 1
  1. 1.Brunel UniversityUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations