Emphasising how background conditions forms the perception of purpose and function, is valuable for understanding how technologies continue to develop. As such, these conditions are argued as relevant for analysing how developments in AM occur. In my review of critical theories of technology (see section 2.3), I mentioned that technological determinism as a view gives little emphasis to social agency. I then discussed social agency in relation to emergent technology, which led to the introduction of theories such as inscription and materialisation, and how they take both technical and social agencies into account. This sociotechnical emphasis provides a useful position to this study, because it provides a framework through which to interpret developments in technology from a design perspective. This design perspective gives a nuanced view to the forces at play in the emergence of AM.
In my assessment of AM technology and emergence, design practice is arguably important in negotiating the space between that of technical feasibility and social understanding. To make this analytical move, I talk about the practice of design, and specifically that of product design, as a practice which is engaged with understanding theoretical concepts and issues through modes of observing, conceptualising, making and re-making. While such methods may be equally relevant for a marked-driven design practice, my intention is to position them towards an anticipative, RtD practice (Stappers & Giaccardi, 2017).
5.1.1 Tracing contemporary AM uses
Discussions on AM are found on both micro and macro scales, from individual applications of technology, to systemic changes to the production of goods. However, many of these analyses are inherently biased because
they fail to form analyses from both ends of the scale, thereby entangling themselves in positive, negative, utopian or dystopian visions. As discussed above in sections 2.4 and 5, such utopian and dystopian visions might also be the result of technological determinism at play.
To facilitate a designerly analysis of AM development, I position my discussion between a macro view, in which technical capacities must be abstracted and conceptualized, and a micro view, in which subjective use and interpretation may vary. As such, I recall Misa’s (1988) attention to a meso-level analysis. This is a view in which different use and interpretations are made apparent through revealing connections between a micro- and macro-level. The need for this mid-level analysis is to illuminate the intersection between broad technical influence and subjective uses.
In the second publication contained within this thesis, titled ‘A Design Sociotechnical Making of 3D Printing’, I attempt to identify different design views on AM through a study of the social constructions which together allow me to discuss and recollect a contemporary view on AM. This view was formed through analyses of different stakeholders and relevant social actors. This method builds on Bijker’s (1997) framework for analysing Figure – The relevant social groups relate to a technological artefact through a technological frame. Illustration: William Kempton (a).
the social constructions of technological development. In my analysis, I identified these actors as designers, business management, 3D printer innovators and laypeople (Figure 32). The reason for using such a relatively wide scope of actors, was to make an account of the different uses and discussions surrounding AM. These are discussions which vary widely, and range from the current designers’ uses of AM, as being oriented towards RP and new product development strategies, to a political discussion of AM.
This is a discussion which draws closer to economic theory such as economies-of-one, and the on-shoring of goods manufacture (see Figure 32).
The relevant social groups selected for the study on AM were chosen from top-level actors, as my point of discussion was to unpack the design capabilities that were introduced among its relevant users. Through a common technological frame, consisting of characteristics such as end-goals, key problems and current theories, it was possible to unpack and develop an analysis based on their diverse and disciplinary standpoints.
It could be argued that such an analysis orients too heavily towards the social forces which make up a view on AM. As Bijker (1997) argues,
‘Technological development should be viewed as a social process, not an autonomous occurrence. In other words, relevant social groups will be the carriers of that process’ (p. 48). The point of discussion here is not to draw on either-or arguments. Rather, it is to introduce theories for analysing social factors to AM, which I argue is broadly dominated by technical research.
5.1.2 Tracing emergent use groups
The process of identifying relevant social groups can be carried out through various forms of sampling. Social groups may be sampled through snowball sampling, where acquaintances are sampled at the end of a dialogue with existing research subjects, or through a survey of relevant literature. In the study conducted in publication 2, the relevant users such as laypeople and 3D printer inventors were identified through a scope review of the literature which discussed design in the context of AM. Aside from being a general selection of users (one could argue that laypeople could be arranged into many different sub-groups), they were also identified as relevant to my particular analysis. As a key point of departure for my analysis, I attempted to identify and evaluate uses of 3D printing which had contributed to a different interpretation than the dominant, developmental, RP use.
In order, then, to extend such an analysis into inquiries on emerging and future uses, it is relevant to ask the following question: What about emergent uses which are not easily indefinable, and whose users may not be easily found on a map? While users could be located through conventional sampling methods, it may not necessarily be possible to do so for an inquiry stressing emergent use. Additionally, we may need to consider the ways these diverse uses adapt to AM, and how one may better unpack the
sociotechnical trajectories of AM by looking at emergent uses, human with technical, as opposed to emphasis only on human participants.
In the latter part of this chapter, I will analyse a situated practice that has been conducted throughout this study using a similar structure to that of the relevant social groups as discussed in publication 2. However, in the
following analysis, I focus on identifying relevant uses. I therefore introduce the concept of emergent use groups, which is a categorisation of practices similar to relevant social groups, but is instead analysed from the perspective of uses (Figure 33). The concept is meant to locate different societal uptake of AM, such as the use of digital fabrication within medicine, for sports activities or in gastronomy. Emergent uses may also encompass relevant users, in the sense that they provide a particular interpretation of
technology, and can be found in similar ways as a sociologist would locate his next research subject.
The emergent use group, however, is more oblique than the former emphasis on relevant users, as its presence may not always be easily located.
In this sense, the notion of emergent uses bears resemblance to the notion of emergent users from studies of social development. Here, it may be used to describe users who are ‘located away from commercial and political centres, and are culturally different not only from the traditional (that is, urban and educated) users but from each other as well’(Devanuj & Joshi, 2013, p. 1) and are thus barely within reach of digital fabrication technologies. Similarly within HCI, studies on the adoption of smartphones by users in developing countries describe emergent users as those who inherit technologies that were primarily designed for users in developed countries (Jones et al., 2017).
While they may have access to the gadgets themselves, their use is hindered by the lack of reliable data connectivity.
In relation to my later analysis in section 5.2, emergent uses are formed around the periphery of the known, contemporary use of AM. Much like the non-intended users of smartphones in developing countries, the emergent uses of AM may inherit, and subsequently re-interpret, the material characteristics of a given technology. As such, emergent AM uses may be found among individuals or communities which see digital
fabrication tools as an avenue for re-evaluating commonly held assumptions on everyday activities. These emergent AM uses might be for 3D printing of gingerbread dough, which adopts parts of the 3D printing toolkit to reinterpret a Christmas ritual; body hacking, which sees personal fabrication as a way to modify human bodily capacities; or entrepreneurial endeavours which see AM as a production platform for ski pole grips which might improve a cross-country skier’s efficiency.
Figure 33 aims to illustrate the relation between an identified relevant social group and an emergent use context. As I have argued earlier (see Section 1.2.2), definitions of AM spring out of these different disciplinary interpretations. Terms, such as Rapid Prototyping, Additive Manufacturing and 3D printing, are relative to each users’ technological frame. Similarly, the stakeholders within an emergent use group may bring these
interpretations into their own technological frame.
As Bijker (1997, p. 123) explains, the technological frame is what enables and structures the interaction among users within a given social group.
Therefore, the choice of elements within this technological frame, such as
‘key problems’, ‘goals’ and ‘current theories’ are selected to facilitate a common consensus around a technology. However, for the concept of the emergent use groups that I introduce throughout this study, design activity Figure – An illustrative model showing relations between emergent use groups and contemporary user groups. Illustration: William Kempton.
plays a more foundational role. This attention towards design is reflected in the selection of analytical elements, which are discussed in the following section. The technological frame is therefore named a technological design frame, to stress the relation between design activities and sociotechnical analysis. Here, conditions such as ‘prototyping strategies’, ‘material requirements’ and ‘alternative fabrication methods’ play important roles, in addition to those outlined by Bijker (1997).
5.1.3 Sampling emergent users through design
What makes the emergent use group unique, as opposed to an emphasis on actors, stakeholders or relevant social groups, is that it may be revealed through design practice itself. In other words, the individual design
experiments and making of activities could be used as sampling methods for locating research subjects and contexts. The objective of this sampling method is to step out of problem-oriented, practical and tinker-dominated role into one that sees its engagements from a broader perspective. The goal of identifying emergent use groups, then, is not to uncover all possible emergences of AM through relevant amateur, craft-oriented or expert users, but rather to emphasise the uptake of AM through the context of use.