Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Vanessa Heitplatz, C. Bühler, Matthias Hastall (2019)
Caregivers' Influence on Smartphone Usage of People with Cognitive Disabilities: An Explorative Case Study in Germany
(2018)
The maker movement. Ambigutiy in potentials and risks for politics, science, civil society and economy
(2019)
Do-it-yourself: lehr- und hilfsmittel durch digitale fertigung am beispiel der initiative selbermacher*in
The Journal of Peer Production, 12
C. Vindrola‐Padros, Tom Pape, M. Utley, N. Fulop (2016)
The role of embedded research in quality improvement: a narrative reviewBMJ Quality & Safety, 26
Jooyoung Seo (2019)
Is the Maker Movement Inclusive of ANYONE?: Three Accessibility Considerations to Invite Blind Makers to the Making WorldTechTrends
Andrea Marshall, J. Rode (2018)
Deconstructing sociotechnical identity in maker culturesProceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT
(2014)
Replicable low cost blind accessible makerspace
S. Hartung, P. Wihofszky, M. Wright (2020)
Partizipative Forschung
I. Bosse, H. Linke, Bastian Pelka (2019)
THE MAKER MOVEMENT'S POTENTIAL FOR AN INCLUSIVE SOCIETY
C. Kaletka, Mona Markmann, Bastian Pelka (2016)
Peeling the Onion. An Exploration of the Layers of Social Innovation Ecosystems. Modelling a context sensitive perspective on driving and hindering factors for social innovation, 1
Vanessa Bean, N. Farmer, B. Kerr (2015)
An exploration of women’s engagement in MakerspacesGifted and Talented International, 30
Jun Axup, AnnMarie Thomas, A. Waldman, Susan Faulkner, Carolina Odman-Govender, J. Leger, Jessica Polka, M. Gregg, B. Johnson (2014)
The World of MakingComputer, 47
J. Howaldt, M. Schwarz (2010)
Social innovation. Concepts, research fields and international trends
Tamami Cipriani, C. Kaletka, Bastian Pelka (2020)
Transition through design: enabling innovation via empowered ecosystemsEuropean Planning Studies, 28
Peter Heumader, C. Edler, K. Miesenberger, Sylvia Wolkerstorfer (2018)
Requirements Engineering for People with Cognitive Disabilities - Exploring New Ways for Peer-Researchers and Developers to Cooperate
C. Kohtala (2015)
Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature reviewJournal of Cleaner Production, 106
Kat Braybrooke, Adrian Smith (2018)
Liberatory Technologies for Whom? Exploring a New Generation of Makerspaces Defined by Institutional Encounters
Erin Buehler, A. Hurst, M. Hofmann (2014)
Coming to grips: 3D printing for accessibilityProceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers & accessibility
E. Dayton (2017)
Drawing women into the maker movement
P. Karlsson, C. Johnston, K. Barker (2017)
Stakeholders' views of the introduction of assistive technology in the classroom: How family‐centred is Australian practice for students with cerebral palsy?Child: Care, Health and Development, 43
(2012)
abduktion, deduktion und induktion in der qualitativen sozialforschung
Jonathan Awori, Joyce Lee (2017)
A Maker Movement for Health: A New Paradigm for Health Innovation.JAMA pediatrics, 171 2
Nuno Antunes, M. Vieira (2014)
Penetration Testing for Web ServicesComputer, 47
(2015)
Hacking culture, not devices
J. Langston (2015)
How makerspaces can be accessible to people with disabilities
People with disabilities (PWD) produce aids using 3D printing in an inclusive MakerSpace in Germany. This study aims to demonstrate the pathways enabling people with disabilities to be “makers” of aids, creating a “medium-quality market”.Design/methodology/approachThis study conceptualizes the foundation of the MakerSpace as a social innovation and traces supporting and hindering factors on three different layers: normative, structural and functional contexts.Findings3D printing can empower PWD to design and construct aids by themselves. The emerging “medium-quality” market offers potentials for availability for individualized aids. The design-thinking method used and the developed scalable approach empower PWD to create aids that best meet their own needs. The study found three arguments for printing aids that involve 3D printers: “New”: objects that are not available without a 3D printer. “Better”: objects that are available through established channels but were produced either more cheaply, quickly or on a more individualized level. “More”: objects that are available through other channels, but where 3D printing allows more of them to be produced for more people.Research limitations/implicationsThe qualitative study has limitations because of sample size and context dependency. Research has only been carried out in Germany. Future research should be conducted in other countries to generalize the results.Practical implicationsThe article allows to understand the emergence of a new market for aids. It can steer producers (including PWD or sheltered workshops) in producing new aids and making them available to more people.Social implicationsUnderstanding the functioning of the “new market for aids” can boost the accessibility of aids. Empowering PWD to produce aids can support their independence, self-determination and self-esteem. Supporting PWD to become producers of aids can support them in becoming experts and boost the quality and availability of aids.Originality/valueAll data presented has been collected by the authors.
Journal of Enabling Technologies – Emerald Publishing
Published: May 4, 2020
Keywords: Making; 3D-printing; Assistive technology
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.