Cited by 33Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesOpen Source Software InnovationsArt, Technology, and Culture

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

What are you printing? Ambivalent emancipation by 3D printing

Bosqué, Camille·2015·Rapid Prototyping Journal

Abstract

Purpose: – The purposes of this paper are to study how entry-level 3D printers are currently being used in several shared machine shops (FabLabs, hackerspaces, etc.) and to examine the ambivalent emancipation often offered by 3D printing, when users prefer the fascinated passivity of replicating rather than the action of repairing. Based on a field study and on a large online survey, this paper offers to examine different practices with entry-level 3D printers, observed in several shared machine shops (FabLabs, hackerspaces, etc.). The recent evolution of additive manufacturing and the shift from high-end additive technologies to consumer’s entry-level 3D printing is taken as an entry point. Indeed, digital fabrication has recently received extensive media coverage and the maker movement has become a trendy subject for numerous influential publications. In the makerspaces that were taken for this field survey, 3D printers were very often used for demonstration, provoking fascination and encouraging a passive attitude. Design/methodology/approach: – As part of the work for a PhD research on personal digital fabrication as practiced in FabLabs, hackerspaces and makerspaces, since 2012, a large-scale field survey at the heart of these workshops was carried out. Particular attention has been paid to the relationships established between the inhabitants of these places and their machines, observing the logic of developing projects and the reactions or techniques used to counter unforeseen obstacles – that shall be demonstrated to be an essential occurrence for these moments of production. From Paris to Amsterdam, Barcelona, Rome, Lyngen (Norway), San Francisco, New York, Boston, Tokyo, Kamakura (Japan) to Dakar, a means of observing at the heart of more than 30 makerspaces (FabLabs, hackerspaces) has been created, with the aim of looking beyond the speeches relayed by the media and to constitute an observatory of these places. The field observations are confirmed by a quantitative study, based on a survey submitted online to 170 users, coming from 30 different makerspaces in more than ten countries in the world and reached through social networks or mailing lists. This survey offers a rigorous insight on the uses of 3D printing and leads to the consideration of the types of attention applied to 3D printing and the part played by the “default” or “trivial” productions used for their demonstrations or performances. Findings: – Based on both the observations and the quantitative survey, it can be discussed how the question of so-called “user-friendliness” is challenged by practices of repairing, fixing and adjusting, more than that of replicating. Indeed, it is claimed that this offers a possible meaning for 3D printing practices. In the description and analysis of the behaviours with 3D printers, this leads to privilege the idea of “disengaging” and the notion of “acting” rather than simply passively using. Originality/value: – 3D printing is just one of the many options in the wide range available for personal digital fabrication. As a part of the same arsenal as laser cutters or numerical milling machines, 3D printing shares with these machines the possibility of creating objects from designs or models produced by a computer. These machines execute the instructions of operators whose practices – or behaviours – have yet to be qualified. These emerging technical situations pose a series of questions: who are those who use these 3D printers? What are they printing? What are the techniques, the gestures or the rituals imposed or offered by these machines?

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/rpj-09-2014-0128

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Akrich, M. (1993), “Les objets techniques et leurs utilisateurs. De la conception à l’action”, in Conein, B. , Dodier, N. and Thévenot, L. (Eds), Les Objets dans l’action. De la maison au laboratoire , EHESS, Paris, pp. 35-58.
  2. Bernard, A. and Fischer, A. (2002), “New trends in rapid product development”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology , Vol. 51, pp. 635-652. · DOI
  3. Bibb, R. , Eggbeer, D. and Evans, P. (2010), “Rapid Prototyping technologies in soft tissue facial prosthetics: current state of the art”, Rapid Prototyping Journal , Vol. 16, pp. 130-137. · DOI
  4. Birtchnell, T. and Urry, J. (2013), “3D, SF and the Future”, Futures , June, Vol. 50, pp. 25-34. · DOI
  5. Blikstein, P. (2013), “Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention”, in Walter-Herrmann, J. and Büching, C. (Eds), FabLabs: of Machines, Makers and Inventors , Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bosqué, C. and Kohtala, C. (2014), “The story of MIT-Fablab Norway: community embedding of peer production”, Journal of Peer Production , available at: http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/the-story-of-mit-fablab-norway-community-embedding-of-peer-production/ (accessed 1 April 2015).
  7. Burns, M. and Howison, J. (2001), “Napster fabbing: internet delivery of physical products”, paper presented at O’Reilly Peer-to-Peer Conference, San Francisco, CA, available at: www.ennex.com/∼fabbers/publish/200102-napster.asp (accessed 1 April 2015).
  8. Dalgarno, K.W. , Pallari, J.H. , Woodburn, J. , Xiao, K. , Wood, D.J. , Goodridge, R.D. and Ohtsuki, C. (2006), “Mass customization of medical devices and implants: state of the art and future directions”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping , Vol. 1, pp. 137-145. · DOI
  9. De Certeau, M. (1980), “L’Invention du quotidian”, Arts de Faire , Union Générale, Paris, Vol. 1.
  10. Fox, N. (2010), “After the factory [Post-Industrial Nations]”, Engineering & Technology , No. 5, pp. 59-59. · DOI
  11. Gershenfeld, N. (2012), “How to make almost anything: the digital fabrication revolution”, Foreign Affairs , Vol. 91, pp. 43-57, available at: www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138154/neil-gershenfeld/how-to-make-almost-anything (accessed 1 April 2015).
  12. Gibson, I. , Cheung, L.K. , Chow, S.P. , Cheung, W.L. , Beh, S.L. , Savalani, M. and Lee, S.H. (2006), “The use of rapid prototyping to assist medical applications”, Rapid Prototyping Journal , Vol. 12, pp. 53-58. · DOI
  13. Hatch, M. (2013), The Maker Movement Manifesto: Rules for Innovation in the New World of Crafters, Hackers, and Tinkerers , McGraw-Hill Professional, New York, NY.
  14. Hopkinson, N. , Hague, R. and Dickens, P.M. (Eds) (2006), Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for the Digital Age , Wiley, New York, NY. · DOI
  15. Huang, S.H. , Liu, P. , Moskadar, A. and Hou, L. (2012), “Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature review”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , Vol. 67, pp. 1191-1203. · DOI
  16. Liu, Q. , Leu, M.C. and Schmitt, S.M. (2006), “Rapid prototyping in dentistry: technology and application”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , Vol. 29, pp. 317-335. · DOI
  17. Malone, E. and Lipson, H. (2007), “Fab@Home: the personal desktop fabricator kit”, Rapid Prototyping Journal , Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 245-255. · DOI
  18. Mazzoli, A. (2013), “Selective laser sintering in biomedical engineering”, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing , Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 245-256. · DOI
  19. Mazzoli, A. , Germani, M. and Raffaeli, R. (2009), “Direct fabrication through electron beam melting technology of custom cranial implants designed in a PHANToM-based haptic environment”, Material & Design , Vol. 30, pp. 3186-3192. · DOI
  20. Melchels, F.P.W. , Domingos, M.A.N. , Klein, T.J. , Malda, J. , Bartolo, P.J. and Hutmacher, D.W. (2012), “Additive manufacturing of tissues and organs”, Progress in Polymer Science , Vol. 37, pp. 1079-1104. · DOI
  21. Melchels, F.P. , Feijen, J. and Grijpma, D.W. (2010), “A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering”, Biomaterials , Vol. 31 No. 24, pp. 6121-6130. · DOI
  22. Oxman, N. (2012), “Programming matter”, Architectural Design , Vol. 82, pp. 88-95. · DOI
  23. Oxman, N. , Keating, S. and Tsai, E. (2011), “Functionally graded rapid prototyping”, Innovative Developments in Virtual and Physical Prototyping: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Research in Virtual and Physical Prototyping, CRC Press, Leiria. · DOI
  24. Pisano, G.P. and Shih, W.C. (2009), “Restoring American competitiveness”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 87, pp. 114-125.
  25. Rancière, J. (2008), Le spectateur émancipé , La Fabrique, Paris. · DOI
  26. Raymond, E. (2001), The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary , O’Reilly Media, Cambridge, MA.
  27. Rengier, F. , Mehndiratta, A. , von Tenng-Kobligk, H. , Zehmann, C.M. , Unterhinninghofen, R. , Kauczor, H.U. and Giesel, F.L. (2010), “3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications”, International Journal for Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery , Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 335-341. · DOI
  28. Rifkin, J. (2001), The Age of Access: How the Shift from Ownership to Access is Transforming Modern Life , Penguin, London.
  29. Söderberg, J. (2013), “Automating amateurs in the 3D printing community: connecting the dots between ‘deskilling’ and ‘user-friendliness’”, World Organisation, Labour & Globalisation , Vol. 7, pp. 124-139. · DOI
  30. Tochetti, S. (2012), “DIY biologists as ‘makers’ of personal biologies: how MAKE magazine and Maker Faires contribute in constituting biology as a personal technology”, Journal of Peer Production , available at: http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/diybiologists-as-makers/ (accessed 1 April 2015).
  31. Turkle, S. (1984), The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit , MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  32. Von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation , MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Winder, J. and Bibb, R. (2005), “Medical rapid prototyping technologies: state of the art and current limitations for application in oral and maxillofacial surgery”, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery , Vol. 63, pp. 1006-1015. · DOI
  34. Stephenson, N. (2012), The Diamond Age , Penguin Books, London.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bosqué, C.
Affiliations
Université Rennes 2 (FR)
Corresponding author
Bosqué, Camille
Venue
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2015-08-17
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
572-581
ISSN
1355-2546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1721202445
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5
FWCI
4.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Rapid Prototyping Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
Keywords
3D printing, FabLab, hackerspaces, makerspaces, maker culture, ease of use, replication, user practices, digital fabrication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review