An Empirically Informed Taxonomy for the Maker Movement

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9934)


The Maker Movement emerged from a renewed interest in the physical side of innovation following the dot-com bubble and the rise of the participatory Web 2.0 and the decreasing costs of many digital fabrication technologies. Classifying concepts, i.e. building taxonomies, is a fundamental practice when developing a topic of interest into a research field. Taking advantage of the growth of the Social Web and participation platforms, this paper suggests a multidisciplinary analysis of communications and online behaviors related to the Maker community in order to develop a taxonomy informed by current practices and ongoing discussions. We analyze a number of sources such as Twitter, Wikipedia and Google Trends, applying co-word analysis, trend visualizations and emotional analysis. Whereas co-words and trends extract structural characteristics of the movement, emotional analysis is non-topical, extracting emotional interpretations.


Maker movement Internet science Taxonomy Development Co-word analysis Clustering Emotion profiling 



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


  1. 1.
    The Blueprint Talks with Dale Dougherty.
  2. 2.
    Gershenfeld, N.: How to make almost anything: the digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Aff. 91, 43 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gershenfeld, N.: Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop–from personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic Books (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Etsy’s total annual merchandise sales volume from 2005 to 2015.
  5. 5.
    Dini, P., Iqani, M., Mansell, R.: The (im) possibility of interdisciplinarity: lessons from constructing a theoretical framework for digital ecosystems. Culture Theory Critique 52, 3–27 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiedler, K.D., Grover, V., Teng, J.T.: An empirically derived taxonomy of information technology structure and its relationship to organizational structure. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 13, 9–34 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bailey, K.D.: Typologies and taxonomies: an introduction to classification techniques. Sage (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stewart, K.J., Gosain, S.: The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. MIS Q. 30, 291–314 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baichtal, J.: Hack this: 24 incredible hackerspace projects from the DIY movement. New Riders (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rich, P.: The organizational taxonomy: definition and design. Acad. Manag. Rev. 17, 758–781 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horan, T., Lafky, D.: Toward an empirical user taxonomy for personal health records systems. In: AMCIS 2006 Proceedings, p. 341 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Menichinelli, M.: Mapping the structure of the global maker laboratories community through Twitter connections. In: Levallois, C., Marchand, M., Mata, T., Panisson, A. (eds.) Twitter for Research Handbook 2015–2016, pp. 47–62. EMLYON Press, Lyon (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ratto, M.: Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. Inf. Soc. 27, 252–260 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anderson, C.: Makers: the New Industrial Revolution. Crown Business, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dougherty, D.: The maker movement. innovations. 7, 11–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trant, J.: Studying social tagging and folksonomy: a review and framework. J. Digital Inf. 10 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carmody, T.: Big DIY: The Year the Maker Movement Broke. Wired, 6 August 2011.
  18. 18.
    Eisenberg, M.: Educational fabrication, in and out of the classroom. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bull, G., Haj-Hariri, H., Atkins, R., Moran, P.: An educational framework for digital manufacturing in schools. 3D Printing Additive Manuf. 2, 42–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scopus (bibliographic database).
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Meho, L.I., Yang, K.: Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 58, 2105–2125 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Small, H., Sweeney, E.: Clustering the science citation index® using co-citations: I. A comparison methods. Scientometrics 7, 391–409 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leydesdroff, L.: Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Res. Policy 18, 209–223 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W.A., Bauin, S.: From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Soc. Sci. Inf. 22, 191–235 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Comprehensive R Archive Network.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    3,100 teachers, administrators gather to promote STEM education.
  31. 31.
    American Association of School Librarians.
  32. 32.
    Mattel is Using 3D Printing to Resurrect an Old Hit.
  33. 33.
    Adafruits Industries.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    Package “gtrendsR.”Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Technology: Print me a Stradivarius.
  38. 38.
    Bougie, R., Pieters, R., Zeelenberg, M.: Angry customers don’t come back, they get back: the experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 31, 377–393 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ortony, A., Clore, G.L., Foss, M.A.: The referential structure of the affective lexicon. Cogn. Science. 11, 341–364 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kakkonen, T., Kakkonen, G.G.: SentiProfiler: creating comparable visual profiles of sentimental content in texts. In: Language Technologies for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage, vol. 62 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Suero Montero, C., Munezero, M., Kakkonen, T.: Investigating the role of emotion-based features in author gender classification of text. In: Gelbukh, A. (ed.) CICLing 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8404, pp. 98–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Strapparava, C., Valitutti, A.: WordNet affect: an affective extension of WordNet. In: LREC. pp. 1083–1086 (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jain, A.K.: Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 31, 651–666 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Boyd, D., Golder, S., Lotan, G.: Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In: System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on. pp. 1–10. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fischer, G.: Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions 18, 42–53 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum Für Soziale Innovation, Technology and KnowledgeViennaAustria
  2. 2.University of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  3. 3.IAAC | Fab Lab BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.School of Art, Design and Architecture Media Lab HelsinkiAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations