Denaturalizing 3D Printing’s Value Claims

  • Gabby ReschEmail author
  • Daniel R. Southwick
  • Matt Ratto
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


This chapter examines how 3D printing has been framed as a liberatory technology that confers agency to users on the one hand, and an automated system that de-centers the user on the other. These entangled visions, we argue, can be traced to values that are threaded into 3D printing’s DNA. By historically situating the social context of 3D printing, tracing its roots to the CAD/CAM revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, we denaturalize assumptions about the technology’s users, its modes of interaction, and its societal impact, offering third wave HCI new insights for broadening how it considers context and values.


  1. Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2016) Humanistic HCI. Interactions 23(2):20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Gothenburg, Sweden, October 2006. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  3. Bødker S (2015) Third-wave HCI, 10 years later – participation and sharing. Interactions 22(5):24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bookchin M (1968) Towards a liberatory technology. Anarchos 2:43–60Google Scholar
  5. Coons SA (1966) Computer, art & architecture. Art Educ 19(5):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coons SA, Mann RW (1960) Computer-aided design related to the engineering design process technical memorandum 8436. MIT Electronic Systems Laboratory, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Frauenberger C (2016) Critical realist HCI. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, USA, May 2016. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 341–351Google Scholar
  8. Gillespie T (2006) Engineering a principle: ‘end-to-end’ in the design of the internet. Soc Stud Sci 36(3):427–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14(3):575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison S, Tatar D, Sengers P (2007) The three paradigms of HCI. In: alt.chi Session of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, USA, May 2007. Association for Computing MachineryGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrison S, Sengers P, Tatar D (2011) Making epistemological trouble: third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact Comput 23(5):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horkheimer M (1972) Critical theory: selected essays. Continuum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Jasanoff S (2012) Science and public reason. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Mann RW, Coons SA (1965) Computer-aided design, McGraw Hill Yearbook Science & Technology. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Nissenbaum H (2001) How computer systems embody values. Computer 34(3):120–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Noble DF (1984) Forces of production: a social history of industrial automation. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Parsons Corporation (1952) Digitron. Parsons Corporation, Traverse CityGoogle Scholar
  18. Pease W (1952) An automatic machine tool. Sci Am 187(3):101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ratto M, Qua Hiansen J, Kaweesa M, Taremwa J et al (2017) An international multi-center clinical study: gauging patient experience with digitally designing, 3D trans-tibial prosthetic devices compared to manually produced prosthetic devices. In: International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics World Congress, Capetown, SA, May 2017Google Scholar
  20. Record I, Ratto M, Ratelle A, Ieraci A, Czegledy N (2013) DIY Prosthetics Workshops: “Critical Making” for Public Understanding of Human Augmentation. In: IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS): Social Implications of Wearable Computing and Augmediated Reality in Everyday Life, Toronto, Canada, June 2013. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp 117–125Google Scholar
  21. Reintjes JF (1991) Numerical control: making a new technology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Ross DT (1956). Gestalt programming: a new concept in automatic programming. In: Papers presented at joint ACM-AIEE-IRE Western computer conference, San Francisco, USA, February 1956, pp 7–9Google Scholar
  23. Ross DT (1958) Papers on automatic programming for numerically controlled machine tools. Servomechanisms Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Ross DT (1965) The MIT Computer-aided Design Project A Half-Decade Summary. Computer Applications Group, Electronic Systems Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Ross DT (1978) Origins of the APT language for automatically programmed tools. ACM SIGPLAN Not 13(8):61–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith DG, Burgess EM (2001) The use of CAD/CAM technology in prosthetics and orthotics – current clinical models and a view to the future. J Rehabil Res Dev 38(3):327–334Google Scholar
  27. Southwick D (Forthcoming) High-noon on the creative frontier: Configuring human machine expertiseGoogle Scholar
  28. Suchman L (2007) Human-machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Viseu A (2003) Simulation and augmentation: issues of wearable computers. Ethics Inf Technol 5(1):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Winner L (1983) Technologies as forms of life. In: Cohen R, Wartofsky M (eds) Epistemology, methodology, and the social sciences, springer. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations