‘Pop-up’ Maker-spaces: Catalysts for Creative Participatory Culture

Abstract

The changing technology landscape has reshaped the relationship between producers and consumers and has signaled a shift towards more collaborative and social cultural forms. These changing cultural practices are referred to as ‘Participatory Culture’. While the Internet offers an always on and readily accessible mode of engagement and involvement within participatory culture, these platforms need to be complemented with collaborative and creative participation in physical spaces for sustained engagement in real world cultural activities. Recent research on maker cultures and the growth of maker-spaces offers very relevant lessons in this regard. Using this research as a point of departure, we propose a decentralized and semi-organized form of maker-spaces called ‘pop-up’ maker-spaces that could act as triggers to create engagement within communities towards creative and collaborative production and informal knowledge sharing. Further, we describe three workshops that were setup as ‘pop- up’ maker-space environments as a part of a case study to discuss our findings and insights. While all the workshops had a pre-defined thematic area, the final outcomes were very different and represented differing conceptual and material explorations conducted by the participants.

Full text

‘Pop-up’ Maker-spaces: Catalysts for Creative Participatory Culture
Sumit Pandey
Design of Information Systems, Department of Informatics
University of Oslo
Oslo, Norway
sumitp@ifi.uio.no
Swati Srivastava
Design of Information Systems, Department of Informatics
University of Oslo
Oslo, Norway
swatisr@ifi.uio.no
Abstract—The changing technology landscape has reshaped
the relationship between producers and consumers and has
signaled a shift towards more collaborative and social cultural
forms. These changing cultural practices are referred to as
‘Participatory Culture’. While the Internet offers an always on
and readily accessible mode of engagement and involvement
within participatory culture, these platforms need to be
complemented with collaborative and creative participation in
physical spaces for sustained engagement in real world cultural
activities. Recent research on maker cultures and the growth of
maker-spaces offers very relevant lessons in this regard. Using
this research as a point of departure, we propose a
decentralized and semi-organized form of maker-spaces called
‘pop-up’ maker-spaces that could act as triggers to create
engagement within communities towards creative and
collaborative production and informal knowledge sharing.
Further, we describe three workshops that were setup as ‘pop-
up’ maker-space environments as a part of a case study to
discuss our findings and insights. While all the workshops had
a pre-defined thematic area, the final outcomes were very
different and represented differing conceptual and material
explorations conducted by the participants.
Keywords- Participatory Culture; Collaborative Spaces;
Creative Engagement; Co-operation; Awareness; Motivation;
Digital Engagement.
I. INTRODUCTION
The changing technology landscape has reshaped the
relationship between producers and consumers and has
signaled a shift towards more collaborative and social
cultural forms. These cultures re-consider the passive role of
the consumer as mere users of content from controlled and
established channels to a much more active social and
collaborative role - one where they actively access content
through ever increasing number of dispersed channels,
discuss, re-appropriate and share it. Media scholars and the
HCI community refer to these changing cultural practices as
“participatory culture” [1] - a culture of creation, re-
appropriation, sharing and collaboration. Literature points to
the importance of participatory culture in today’s society
including collaborative learning, an informed attitude
towards intellectual property, better civic engagement and a
more empowered concept of citizenship [1]. While the most
common and current examples of participatory culture do
seem to come from internet based services and platforms, the
history of participatory cultures predates these technologies
and has always existed as a form of de-centralized
expression particularly amongst the youth [2].
While the Internet offers an always on and readily
accessible mode of engagement and involvement within
participatory culture [3], research suggests that such
platforms are not always successful in sustained engagement
in real world civic and cultural activities [4][5]. Papert [6]
also stressed on the importance of face to face interaction,
with a diverse mix of skill levels, from complete beginners to
experts, for informal learning in a social setting. While
participatory culture is discussed exclusively as a form of
internet based media production and sharing [7]–[9] there is
growing interest in the HCI community on a different but, in
our opinion, closely related phenomenon of ‘maker cultures’
[10]. Maker cultures refer to alternative practices of material
and technology ownership and use with a focus on DIY
repairs, craft, hacking, digital fabrication and electronic
tinkering [10][11]. Research has also highlighted [11]–[13]
the role of collaborative co-creation spaces called ‘maker-
spaces’ [14] and ‘fablabs’ [15] in catalyzing maker cultures.
These spaces aim to create accessible co-production
platforms for physical products and promote collaborative
and social problem solving [14][16], which is in-line with
Jenkins’ [1] description of participatory culture. Hence, we
propose that platforms like maker-spaces should be seen as
the physical counterparts of online content production and
sharing platforms and have the potential to configure
participatory cultures within communities by aiding creative
production and discussion. However, while maker-spaces
and maker culture in general have an openness,
democratization and empowerment driven intent
[10][12][14], critical research has also pointed out the gaps
between the ideal nature of their intent and the realities of
practice [17][18]. The highly technological nature of the
material and culture in maker-spaces tends to also make
them exclusive and limited to a ‘techno-savvy’ audience
[13]. In light of such critiques, we suggest that maker-spaces
need to take a more decentralized and semi-organized form
with permanent spaces being complemented by ‘maker’
community run temporary or ‘pop-up’ maker-spaces that
could serve to engage larger communities in the means of
creative and collaborative production and informal
knowledge sharing. We argue that the temporal nature of
these pop-up maker-spaces could serve to create interest in
otherwise disengaged communities and help translate the
open and democratic intent of the maker culture without
requiring the investment large scale investments needed for a

traditional maker-space. Moreover, the advent of ‘maker’
oriented portable kit based technology platforms like
littleBits [19], SAM [20] and Printrbot [21] allows these
spaces to take a mobile and decentralized shape and does not
limit them to fixed areas with expensive hardware on site.
Hence, we suggest these ‘pop-up’ maker-spaces could act as
bridges for grassroots participation by virtue of being
accessible and offering a low barrier to entry.
In this paper, we use one such platform, littleBits [19],
and examine the role it can play in conjunction with specific
spatial arrangements and low-fidelity materials in
configuring a ‘pop-up’ maker-space setup intended to
provoke creative engagement within different communities.
We describe three workshops that were setup as ‘pop-up’
maker-space environments as a part of a case study to
discuss our findings and insights. While all the workshops
had a pre-defined thematic area, the final outcomes were
very different and represented differing conceptual and
material explorations conducted by the participants.
The paper is structured as follows: The conceptual
considerations and the technological platform that we build
on to develop the construct of pop-up maker spaces is
introduced in Section II. In Section III, we present our case
study using three workshops that used the pop-up maker
space construct in real world scenarios and highlight our
approach with participants from different age groups and
professional areas of practice. Finally, we discuss our
findings in Section IV followed by a conclusion in Section
V.
II. CONCEPTUAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
In this section, we briefly outline the theoretical
considerations that helped frame the approach and design of
the elements of decentralized and mobile “pop-up maker-
spaces”.
A. Participatory Cultures
Jenkins et al. [1], in their seminal work, defined
participatory culture as
“a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic
expression and civic engagement, strong support for
creating and sharing creations, and some type of informal
mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along
knowledge to novices.”
They also argue that a participatory culture also allows its
members to believe in their contributions and feel “some
degree of social connection” [1] with others and their
opinions about their creations. In general, participatory
cultures reward participation but do not force it. This idea
stems from the advancements in technology that has allowed
people to shift from their roles of passive consumers to
active creators of content and more recently products using
self-fabrication techniques [22][23]. Further, Delwiche and
Handerson [24] discuss three broad classifications within
participatory culture, depending on the nature of
participation. Their work suggests that the nature of
participatory culture is largely defined by real world factors
like space, participants and their level of engagement with
the community and the media being generated.
1) Consensus cultures
This is an “agreement based” culture that is typically
work or productivity oriented, usually with specific goals
that need to be met or problems that need to be addressed. A
special form of this kind of participatory culture can be seen
in “expert cultures” where people with “specialized
knowledge” come together like in think tanks.
2) Creative cultures
This is a culture which encourages its participants to
create, re-purpose, remix, share and comment within a safe
and supportive environment. Participants are often very
passionate about their areas of interest and creativity and are
willing to share and build on their knowledge and creations.
This kind of participatory culture is known to foster
sustained engagement. The maker, remix and art cultures are
examples of this type of culture. Work within this thesis
would primarily explore participatory culture in this context.
3) Discussion cultures
This is a culture that fosters participation around specific
topics of personal and professional interest rather than
specific objects and outcomes. Engagement in this kind of
culture is varied with participant’s interests changing over
time. Since the objective of this kind of culture is discussion
and debate, the nature of participant exchange may vary from
support to heated disagreement, often in real time. News
sites and fan forums are examples of this type of culture. The
discussion outlined in this paper primarily concentrates on
creative cultures, with its focus on collaborative exchange,
sustained engagement and creative production.
B. Maker Culture
Maker culture refers to practices related to DIY, craft,
electronic tinkering and technology repair leading to the
development of alternate notions of material ownership and
use within ‘maker communities’ [12]. Lately, maker cultures
have been given a lot of interest within HCI with empirical
studies on maker identities and values [12], analysis of the
modes of material engagement [25][26] and larger
investigations into the democratizing effects of maker culture
on technology and technological practices. Maker culture is
also turning into a popular phenomenon rather than a fringe
activity for specialized communities largely propelled by the
rise of maker-spaces, hacker-spaces or fab labs across the
world [10]. While discussions on maker cultures tend to take
a largely technology centric stand point as opposed to the
media centric outlook of participatory cultures, we argue that
there is a natural overlap between them with a focus on
practices of community building, knowledge sharing and
democratized expression and material access. Further, we
suggest that maker spaces provide the spatial setting and
cultural framework for sustained engagement with diverse
means of creative production.
C. LittleBits
LittleBits [19] is a technological platform for aiding rapid
prototyping and electronic tinkering aimed at people with
little to no prior experience with electronics. The platform is

designed to be modular and plug and play in nature with
little to no configuration needed. It consists of an assorted set
of color coded magnetic ‘bits’ that encapsulate a specific
function like temperature sensing, light sensing, USB power,
DC powered motors, servo motors, LED lights and so on.
Based on the nature of the bits, they are divided into four
categories – power (blue), input (pink), output (green) and
wire (orange). These functions can be arranged in linear
sequences that can then be triggered using programmatic,
cloud connected or sensor driven bits. The color coding of
the functions allows for ease in identification and
configuration aided by their magnetic nature that only allows
the bits to be connected in their correct orientation (since the
bits repel each other in an incorrect orientation). The bits by
themselves are intended to act as alternatives to bare bones
electronics components and allow ease of use while
prototyping the interactive functions of a concept. Therefore,
they are intended to be used along with other lo and hi-
fidelity materials that would create the external form and
tangible interfaces for the concept being prototyped.
LittleBits [19] were chosen as the technological material for
the purposes of our workshops because of their ease of use
and configurability due to the limited time available to the
participants in a pop-up maker-space scenario.
III. CASE STUDIES
As stated in the introduction, our goal was to explore the
portable kit-based platform littleBits [19] as a material in a
workshop setting to explore the construct of a ‘pop-up’
maker-space for configuring creative participatory cultures.
These workshops were conducted as a part of larger project,
which aims to investigate technology centric design
interventions as a means of configuring public engagement
and participatory culture. In this paper we describe and
discuss the outcomes from three workshops conducted with
different user groups: (i) Children from the age group of 7 to
12 years, (ii) Design researchers, (iii) Professional graphic
designers. These groups highlight a broad spectrum of
creatively inclined individuals with differences in age, nature
of practice and access to technology. While all three groups
identified engaged with creative production, with children
regularly engaging in creative activities at school and in their
home environment, design researchers using various
prototyping methods in their design projects and graphic
designers primarily engaging with creative production in a
professional setting, all groups had limited to no experience
with the use of tangible technological materials in practice.
We organized pop-up maker spaces in a workshop setting
with each group of participants separately. Due to the
differences in the nature of each group, the approach used to
engage with them in the workshop was different. However,
the physical space in each case was temporarily converted
into a maker space like setting, with free and easy access to
prototyping materials like colored paper, card sheets, foam
boards, paints, scissors, brushes, ice-cream sticks, rubber
bands, cups, assorted lego bricks and play-doh (Figure 1).
Multiple littleBits [19] workshop kits were used as the
primary technological material for provoking electronic
tinkering. The quantity of each material differed based on the
themes of each workshop. This also helped us evaluate the
role and impact of supportive materials on the nature and
form of engagement when used in conjunction with littleBits
[19].
Figure 1. The spatial setup (top) and the materials used (bottom) in the
pop-up maker-space.
As the workshops were conducted in the form of open
pop-up maker spaces, the format of participation was either
open (walk-in) or sign-up (pre-registation) based. While the
sign-up based workshops began with an informal
introduction to the littleBits [19] platform and a loosely
defined theme for the day and ended with a presentation and
feedback, in the open workshop setting, the introduction was
interspersed between the activities. Previous experience with
littleBits [19] or any other technological tools was not
required for any of the workshops.
The sub-sections below describe each workshop in
greater detail. Photo-documentation was the main analytical
tool used for the purposes of this research. Therefore, a large
number of photographs were collected during the workshops,
both of the final outcome as well as the interim explorations
by the participants. These photographs were then analyzed to
identify differences in the mode of engagement and
processes undertaken by each group of participants to arrive
at their respective outcomes.
A. The First Workshop with Children
The first workshop was conducted as an open (walk-in)
exploratory pop-up maker space with children. It was
conducted as a four hours long workshop, with 23
participating children. There were three moderators in the
workshop. All moderators were well versed with littleBits
[19] and were practicing designer researchers and ‘makers’.
The theme of this workshop was “Sound and Motion”. This
workshop was setup as a part of a larger maker event, open
for children from the age group of 7-12 years. An enclosed

hall was taken up for the workshop adjacent to a library’s
open lounge area. The materials for the workshop included
the littleBits [19] kits and craft materials described earlier.
As there was no planned introductory session, artifacts such
as a bend sensor controlled wind mill and a simple draw-bot
were made and displayed on the tables in the workshop area
along with the littleBits [19] and the craft materials to give a
visual explanation of the bits’ potential and to provoke
interest. Multiple copies of the littleBits [19] ‘getting
started’ guide containing simple projects were also placed on
the tables. The tables were arranged linearly with chairs for
working. The bits themselves were grouped by color and
kept on a central table along with other materials.
The workshop started with children observing the
demonstrative interactive artifacts. The moderators gave a
quick demo of the different ways of connecting the bits to
the children in small groups by connecting and making a
small circuit with sound and light. The participants explored
the bits on their own for half an hour in the workshop. The
interaction between the participants and moderators was
more intense during this exploratory phase when the children
were trying to identify different possibilities of using the bits.
However, after the first half an hour, children started
working on their own projects. Some of them who knew
each other beforehand worked in groups of two while rest
engaged with them individually. While most of the projects
started with creating sound or light driven artifact, slowly
they progressed towards creating a button driven car, a
drawing car and interactive music boxes that worked through
different sensors (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Some outcomes from the first workshop.
Looking at the artefacts made by the participants,
littleBits [19] in conjunction with the available craft
materials and the open spatial configuration where all the
participants engaged in similar activities played a pivotal role
in triggering creative engagement. Further, the ease of
connecting littleBits [19] lowered the barrier to entry
tremendously and a quick demo was effective and sufficient
for the children to get started with making things. Finally,
successfully being able to build feedback in the system
developed confidence in them leading to greater engagement
and attempts at creating more complex artifacts.
B. The Second Workshop With Design Researchers
This workshop was conducted in a design lab with
similar materials as the first case at a university with eight
participating design researchers. Amongst them, four were
PhD fellows and the remaining participants were professors
in design research. Participation in this workshop was based
on pre-registration and it was conducted over a duration of
three hours. The theme of the workshop was light and
motion. The participants in this workshop had no previous
experience with using littleBits [19].
This workshop started with a formal presentation on
littleBits [19], which introduced the participants to the
platform and its basic functions and interactions. Possibilities
of using the platform as a prototyping tool in design projects
were also explained briefly to closely relate the materials
with the participant’s practice. After the introduction, the
participants used the littleBits [19] manual do some initial
exploration followed by a round of brief ideation. They
moved organically from very roughly thought out ideas to
trying to make interactive prototypes of their concepts,
highlighting the really low barrier to entry to the prototyping
process. One wireless remote based car was made by one
group of three participants while other participants made by
a ‘head banging’ light device that blinks with neck motion, a
drawing machine and Arduino [27] connected lights (Figure
3).
Figure 3. Light following bot and drawing bot created by participants in
workshop 2.
We observed all the participants completely engaged in
looking for extra materials on their own in their environment
to complete their prototypes. Although all the participants
felt that they lacked a very clear intent of a project to make
something more complex and just littleBits [19] were not
enough invoke more advanced projects ideas. However, most
of them indicated that they wanted to come back to this
space to prototype their own design ideas.
C. The Third Workshop with Graphic Designers
The third workshop was carried out in the context of a
design school. There were twelve participating graphic
design professionals and students in this workshop. An open
foyer in the design school was identified as the space for
setting up the pop-up maker-space. A similar set of materials
were arranged for the participants in this workshop as well
with a higher quantity of sketching and painting tools like

brushes, different kinds of paints, crayons and markers due
to the workshop theme - ‘printing/drawing machines’. It was
a full day workshop conducted over a duration of five hours.
Like the previous workshop, the first activity in this
workshop was a formal presentation on littleBits [19]. It was
introduced as platform for quick prototyping and sketching
in hardware and a tool that can be easily incorporated by
graphic designers with no experience with technological
prototyping as a means for creative expression. When the
making session started, it was conducted as a round table
activity. The participants formally introduced themselves and
their backgrounds to each other. The initial plan was to do a
similar exploration exercise with the bits followed by
jumping into projects afterwards in groups. However, being
practicing designers, the participants started to work with the
platform while ideating concepts simultaneously. While two
participants who were classmates made a group, others
embarked on individual conceptualization and rapidly
making ideas.
Figure 4. Drawing machines and artwork created in workshop 3.
This time we observed the participants did not spend time
exploring littleBits [19] in isolation. Each one of them took
time to plan their project outcomes and prepared materials
for it. Their final projects were more finished in comparison
to the previous workshops as well in addition to having very
different interactions despite all of them being drawing
machines (Figure 4).
IV. DISCUSSION
We analyzed our first hand observations and
documentation for insights with a keen focus on uncovering
the role of modularized and easy to use technological
platforms like littleBits [19] in shaping the physical spaces
into cultures that foster creative engagement and lead to an
organic sharing of knowledge and ideas.
Firstly, a clearly designated physical space with an open
and exploration friendly configuration helped create a
context for the exploration and use of the technological
material (littleBits [19]) specifically and engaging with
electronic tinkering in general. For example, in the first
workshop with children, even before children could get a
hands on ‘maker’ experience, the set up of the space with
demonstrative artefacts, freely kept materials and bits, and
various manuals combined with free seating arrangements
conveyed the nature of the space. The crafts materials on
display also contributed to the maker space environment.
While the library’s open lounge required greater efforts to
convert it into a space for creative activity, the design studio
for the second workshop and graphic design school foyer in
the third workshop lent itself naturally to the nature of the
activity.
Secondly, the technological material combined with
quick access to seasoned makers in itself played a pivotal
role in driving the creative focus and confidence in exploring
ideas which previously seemed out of reach by the
participants. For instance, during the first workshop children
were fascinated by the interactive windmill on display but
displayed hesitance in lifting and examining the artifact
itself. However, when moderators helped them in making
similar interactions on their own, it led to a realization of the
ease of getting started with electronic tinkering and the fact
that they could also create something similar to the artifact
on display on their own. This led to the children being less in
awe with what they were seeing but more engaged with what
they could accomplish on their own by using the bits.
Although one of the downsides of such a setup was that
many children started making projects very similar to what
was already on display. A similar but slightly different
response was observed in the other two workshops, an
introduction to the platform and a small session with the bits
sufficed in breaking the fear of working with technological
materials and participants then started focusing on their ideas
and concepts rather than trying to learn the technology itself.
We could see modularized easy to use platforms like
littleBits [19] as an encouraging platform that seemed to get
out of the way and instead let the participants have
conversations and engage with making things without having
to go through a prolonged learning processes. We argue that
such quick access platforms are pivotal in creating initial
interest in creative maker cultures at ‘pop-up’ or temporary
spaces where there is limited time to engage with the
materials at hand.
Thirdly, we observed that while the bits themselves
largely formed the internal components of most ideas, they
were the primary drivers of conversations and the exchange
of knowledge. As discussed in Section II, this technological
platform in itself consists of a large number of bits that
encapsulate a single function that compound exponentially
into a huge number of potentially complex interactions when
configured into different kinds of arrangements. Therefore, it
can be difficult and quite monotonous for one individual to
sit and learn all of these functional characteristics and
configurations. However, engaging in act of making and in
an organic and exploratory manner coupled with exchanges
with other participants, the participants inadvertently get
exposed to most of the different components through the
process of helping and watching other people engage with
them. This was observed more prominently in both the
second and third workshop, where individuals working on
their idea kept to themselves during the making process but
constantly engaged in listening and contributing to the

discussions around the function and use of a new bit along
with inquiring about bits that they stumbled into or saw lying
around.
Finally, craft materials were used to construct the
physical form of the ideas conceptualized by the participants
and remained pivotal in all the three workshops. The bits
made complex concepts feasible and quicker to configure
than with traditional electronic toolkits like the Arduino [27]
but the craft materials allowed for the interactive functions to
have an engaging and usable form. For instance, in one of
the projects in the third workshop made by a two graphic
design students, the function of a large scale drawing
machine was prototyped using the bits but the concept could
not have been complete without the rotating plates and the
scaffolding for the paint bucket. Finally, the use of external
camera lights added an element of drama to the art
installation and made it even more engaging. Therefore, we
argue that a technological platform like littleBits [19] needs
to be situated within a larger ecosystem for exploratory and
creative engagement. Specifically, in the case of a ‘pop-up
maker space’ having a diverse set of electronic and non
electronic reconfigurable tangible materials is critical to
engage and fully involve participants and help them in
physically realizing their ideas to their fullest potential. The
temporal nature these pop-up arenas leave little space for
isolated struggles with the tools themselves which can
hamper the drive to work with the ideas in the limited
timeframe.
V. CONCLUSION
The paper illustrates the use of ‘pop-up’ maker-spaces as
a construct to configure creative culture based engagement
and participation, using modular and easy to use
technological platform in conjunction with craft based
materials and an open spatial setup for fostering creativity in
participating communities. Three workshops were
organized, in the form of pop-up maker events. The first
featured children from the age group of seven to twelve
years, while the remaining two were focused on design
researchers and graphic designers. The main tool for
engaging the workshop participants in process of tangible
construction and representation of their ideas was littleBits
[19]. The process was photo documented and analysed.
First, we remark that using the modular technological
platform, littleBits [19] for DIY prototyping proved effective
for the workshop participants. While the intent of
participating in the pop-up maker-spaces differed for all
three categories of participants in the three workshops, the
ease of access and understanding of littleBits [19] played a
pivotal role in engaging the users. We witnessed that the
participants engaged extensively with the bits and the other
craft material provided to make their ideas in all the
workshops.
Our key finding was that a hands on popup maker-space
environment engaged participants in collaborative exchanges
around an easy to use technological platform led to creative
outcomes even though all the participants were completely
new to electronic tinkering. The spatial configuration and
access to technical and craft based materials helped catalyze
the engagement and explorations. Moreover, they also served
as triggers for exchange of knowledge and informal
conversations among the participants who suggested
alternative bits and techniques to each other based on their
limited experience to aid the construction of each other’s
artifacts.
The insights and early results from these pop-up maker-
spaces can serve as a foundation for further research on the
role of technological toolkits and materials on sustained
engagement and creative expression. Our future work would
involve identifying design patterns for configuring pop-up
maker-spaces along with exploring other technological
toolkits, materials and diverse spatial configurations for
exploratory and creative DIY engagements amongst
participants.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to all the workshop participants
for their participation and the Gemini UX Lab at the
University of Oslo for supporting the project with the
littleBits [19] platform. In addition, we would like to
acknowledge Creative Europe for providing partial financial
support through the People’s Smart Sculpture project.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Jenkins, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture:
Media Education for the 21st Century. MIT Press, 2009.
[2] TEDxNYED - Henry Jenkins - 03/06/10. 2010.
[3] R. A. Hart, Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of
Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and
Environmental Care, First Printing edition. New York: Routledge,
1997.
[4] “Our Space: Online Civic Engagement Tools for Youth.” [Online].
Available:
http://www.issuelab.org/resource/our_space_online_civic_engagemen
t_tools_for_youth. [Accessed: 17-Mar-2016].
[5] “Can Games Motivate Urban Youth for Civic Engagement?”
[Online]. Available:
https://www.academia.edu/11321757/Can_Games_Motivate_Urban_
Youth_for_Civic_Engagement. [Accessed: 17-Mar-2016].
[6] S. A. Papert, “Some Poetic and Social Criteria for Education
Design,” Jun. 1976.
[7] J. Hamilton, “OurPlace: The Convergence of Locative Media and
Online Participatory Culture,” in Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special
Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7, New York, NY, USA, 2009, pp.
393–396.
[8] R. R. Johnson, M. J. Salvo and M. W. Zoetewey, “User-Centered
Technology in Participatory Culture: Two Decades #x201C;Beyond a
Narrow Conception of Usability Testing #x201D;,” IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 50, no. 4, Dec.
2007, pp. 320–332.
[9] D. Rotman, et al., “From Slacktivism to Activism:
Participatory Culture in the Age of Social Media,” in CHI ’11
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New
York, NY, USA, 2011, pp. 819–822.
[10] M. G. Ames, J. Bardzell, S. Bardzell, S. Lindtner, D. A. Mellis and D.
K. Rosner, “Making Cultures: Empowerment, Participation, and
Democracy - or Not?,” in CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp.
1087–1092.

[11] D. K. Rosner, S. Lindtner, I. Erickson, L. Forlano, S. J. Jackson and
B. Kolko, “Making cultures: building things & building
communities,” 2014, pp. 113–116.
[12] A. Toombs, S. Bardzell and J. Bardzell, “Becoming
Makers: Hackerspace Member Habits, Values, and Identities,”
Journal of Peer Production, 2014.
[13] D. Slatter and Z. Howard, “A place to make, hack, and learn:
makerspaces in Australian public libraries,” The Australian Library
Journal, vol. 62, no. 4, Nov. 2013, pp. 272–284.
[14] A. Smith, S. Hielscher, S. Dickel, J. Soderberg and E. van Oost,
“Grassroots digital fabrication and makerspaces: Reconfiguring,
relocating and recalibrating innovation?,” Sep-2013. [Online].
Available: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/research/swps. [Accessed:
17-Mar-2016].
[15] “Fab Foundation – About Fab Foundation.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.fabfoundation.org/about-us/. [Accessed: 17-Mar-2016].
[16] L. Britton, “A Fabulous Labaratory: The Makerspace at
Fayetteville Free Library,” Public Libraries Online. .
[17] G. Hertz, Critical Making. Telharmonium, 2012.
[18] M. Ratto, “Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in
technology and social life,” The Information Society, vol. 27, no. 4,
2011, pp. 252–260.
[19] “littleBits: DIY Electronics For Prototyping and Learning.” [Online].
Available: http://littlebits.cc/. [Accessed: 17-Mar-2016].
[20] “SAM Labs.” [Online]. Available: https://samlabs.me/. [Accessed:
29-Feb-2016].
[21] “Printrbot | Affordable high resolution 3D printers.” [Online].
Available: http://printrbot.com/. [Accessed: 29-Feb-2016].
[22] G. Ritzer and N. Jurgenson, “Production, Consumption,
Prosumption The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital
‘prosumer,’” Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 10, no. 1, Mar. 2010,
pp. 13–36.
[23] J. J. Burke, Makerspaces: A Practical Guide for Librarians.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014.
[24] A. Delwiche and J. J. Henderson, The Participatory Cultures
Handbook. Routledge, 2012.
[25] D. Rosner and J. Bean, “Learning from IKEA hacking: i’m not
one to decoupage a tabletop and call it a day.,” presented at the
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 2009, pp. 419–422.
[26] J. G. Tanenbaum, A. M. Williams, A. Desjardins and K. Tanenbaum,
“Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness
in DIY and maker practice,” 2013, p. 2603.
[27] “Arduino - Home.” [Online]. Available: https://www.arduino.cc/.
[Accessed: 24-Jan-2016].