“You’re printing DiaBs!”

“Not the whole thing,” Lester said. “A lot of the logic needs an FPGA burner. And we can’t do some of the conductive elements, either. But yeah, about 90 percent of the DiaB can be printed in a DiaB.”

Excerpt From: Doctorow, Cory. “Makers.” iBooks.

This week I have been thinking a lot about Indra’s net and the extension of one thing into the next.  We are like 3d printers.  We can produce, with help, new almost identical iterations of ourselves, and then these iterations can do the same.  We build 3d printers and they can build themselves.  We are related to most things in this world and our daily interactions with everything should reflect this relation.  If I’ve learned anything from my experience as an ethnographer it’s that we are all the same, 3d printers, technology, students and teachers.

Click POP-OUT for a bigger full screen view!

Part A: InDesign Chapter

Download (PDF, 182KB)

Part B: Favorite CST Chapter as an InDesign page

Download (PDF, 71KB)

In the following post I will answer the 5 questions presented by Cultural Anthropology (culanth.org) after their review of the primary research article CODE IS SPEECH: Legal Tinkering, Expertise, and Protest among Free and Open Source Software Developers by Gabriella Coleman.  This article is about how the Open Source community is fighting against the “dominate regime” of intellectual property and highlights two programmers and the movement and protests that they have provoked to have code fall under the rights of free speech.

1. What is the distinction between “free speech” and “free beer” and why is this difference significant for the hackers Coleman discusses?

“Free speech” differs from “free beer” in relation to software in that “free speech” software can be used and altered as a building block for new software and “free beer” software just means that you can download it for free, but that’s it.  “free beer” just means that you didn’t have to pay any money for it, “free speech” software you have as much power to do with it what you please as the original developer.

2. Is the technical work of writing code, designing software, etc. inherently political?  If so, in what ways?  If not, how are such activities politicized? 

I think that anything worth lots of money will eventually become political.  Once the software industry started creating billionaires I think that it became political.  The powers that be will always try and exploit any situation, the issue here is that people are making their code available for free and someone wants to make money off of them.

3. How did the epistemological shift from software as property to software as speech occur?

There was a growing school of thought between academics and programmers that the act of programming should be thought of as literary, it then was related to copyright and literary creation and naturally evolved into writing and free speech.  Programmer’s technical training also made it easier to adapt to the understanding of laws and how to use them in their favor to not allow the copyright regime to dictate and restrict creativity.

4. According to Coleman, how does equating source code with speech relate to liberalism as a political philosophy?  How does F/OSS embody the principles of liberalism?

Liberalism as a political philosophy generally support ideas such as free speech, civil rights, free trade, freedom of religion…This is the same philosophy that the Open Source Software community is trying to follow within the software philosophy.  Any code you write should be treated no differently than a book or poem.  You have the right to speak your opinion.

5. In what ways is the ability to challenge formal legal structures made possible by the digital form with which hackers work; how might the efficacy of their arguments change if they were working with an analog or print form instead?

I’ve left the last question open to those who wish to read the article and answer question 5 in the comment section below.  I look forward to reading your responses.

The article can be found here:

https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/984/Coleman-Code-is-Speech.pdf

Images:

http://www.erenkrantz.com/Geeks/Research/ics-280/img11.jpg

http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ZSpeech.jpg

Article Reference:

Coleman, Gabriella. “Code Is Speech: Legal Tinkering, Expertise, and Protest among Free and Open Source Software Developers.” Cultural Anthropology 24, no. 3 (2009): 420-454.

Intellectual Property rights and 3d printing

            This post is a bridge to a primary research paper about “The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing” written by Bradshaw, S., Bowyer, A. and Haufe, P.   This issue is one that we should all be aware of when designing and 3d printing objects that might resemble something similar in design.

The author of this article sets out to help us ‘makers’ decide what is the proper or improper way of using 3d printing technology and how to not break intellectual property laws in the process.  Below is a direct layout of the top 4 classes of IP laws that you could be breaking while designing and 3d printing.

See the linked article for more information if you have any concerns about your designs to get a more in-depth explanation on each class.

Here is a link to the original article in PDF form:

http://opus.bath.ac.uk/18661/2/bradshaw.pdf

Article Reference

Bradshaw, S., Bowyer, A. and Haufe, P. (2010) The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing. ScriptEd, 7 (1). pp. 5-31. ISSN 1744-2567 

This article review is one geared towards those interested in cultural studies surrounding piracy, intellectual property and design. The article, After Piracy, is written by Yi-Chien Jessica Lin, the author of Fake Stuff: China and the Rise of Counterfeit Goods, and examines the piracy of goods and ideas within Taiwanese culture. Is there such thing as an original idea anymore? Does piracy or the imitation of others ideas help fuel creativity? How is piracy being used to help advance the modern cultural identity of a peoples often forgotten in pop culture? These are the main questions I will explore in the following paragraphs.

Intellectual property or creation of the mind is something that is protected by law against copying or imitation. The reasoning behind Intellectual Property laws is to advance creativity and innovation. If you cannot make money off of an existing idea, this should motivate you to come up with your own original ideas. Our author traces Trademark Laws back to the US industrial revolution and argues “that the introduction of such laws generate conditions for struggles over culture, ownership and property.” Most likely I believe to encourage the capitalist way of life.

This brings up the question of what an original idea is and if the concept even exists anymore. Mark Twain would argue that there are no original ideas, “For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing.” This means that every new idea is essentially just a pirated version of a number of previous thoughts and ideas.

Piracy in Taiwan, as examined by Lin goes hand in hand with innovation and the creative process. Young Taiwanese designers, when reflecting on piracy, “argued that copying facilitates new ideas of creativity from everyday life experiences.” I believe this to be true and if everyone can get past of the idea of Intellectual Property more innovation will occur.

Piracy is not only being used as a facilitator for new innovation but also as a way of advancing cultural identity within the often forced western influences. “In popular music, the remixing of lyrics with Chinese cultural references and western rhythms is more and more popular and widely accepted by the younger generation in Taiwan, Mainland China and even the population on the west coast in North America.” By making these ‘remixes’ of western influenced songs and making them relevant to their own culture, this allows them to preserve their culture instead of falling victim to western globalization.

Piracy is not a black and white issue and I now feel well informed on the positive effects that piracy may have on cultures outside of my own. I have attached the original article to this post and hope that my efforts will encourage you to read it.

Citations:

Image from:

John Grieco

10/26/14

Week Four Entry

“Have you managed to fill the flea market?” It had taken Perry a long time to fill his, and still he had a couple of dogs—a tarot reader and a bong stall, a guy selling high-pressure spray-paint cans and a discount porn stall that sold naked shovelware by the petabyte.”[356]

Excerpt From: Doctorow, Cory. “Makers.” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=53FBC78B36F00BF389830E420322DA54

“Yeah, I got proteges up and down New England. A lot of them settled here after the crash. One place is as good as another, and the housing was wicked-cheap once the economy disappeared. They upped stakes and came to Boston as soon as I put the word out. I think everyone’s waiting for the next big thing.”[356]

Excerpt From: Doctorow, Cory. “Makers.” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=53FBC78B36F00BF389830E420322DA54

While observing my classmates this week, with the assigned readings fresh in mind, I am reminded of the creative flea market Cory Doctorow described in Makers.  As I walked around the room I observed small groups of people sharing with one another the projects they have been working on.  Musical instruments, Sunglasses, Bells and Vases among many other designs ready to be turned into physicals object at any moment.  Right before my eyes was the Making Meaning Matter flea market of what I am confident is filled with meaningful things; much different from any flea market I had ever attended.

Michael Taussig’s “I Swear I Saw This”

This is my reflection on an article written about the underestimated value of drawing and sketching alongside field notes and how this very much relates to our studies this quarter.  Michael Taussig, the author of Pearls, released a book in 2011 titled, I Swear I Saw This: Drawings in Fieldwork Notebooks, Namely My Own and a professional Anthropologist earlier this year wrote an article highlighting some quotes from his book.  This article not only contains some inspiring quotes but also got me really exited about adding sketches and drawings to my field notes in the weeks to come.

This quarter in Making Meaning Matter, we each will be playing the role of an embedded journalist, tasked with observing our classmates as they experience 3d design and 3d printing.  As we observe, it’s important to document our observations inside of a journal or field notebook for later reflection.  This documentation can come in various forms and mediums and Michael Taussig encourages us to add drawings and sketches to our field notes as another ethnographic field method.  Below are a few quotes I found relevant to MMM, from the mentioned article, along with a short reflection.

“…the notebook is actually an extension of oneself if not more self than oneself, like an entirely new organ alongside one’s heart and brain, to name but the more evocative organs of our inner self. What this new organ does is incorporate other worlds into one’s own. Is this not obvious when Benjamin himself states that the genuine collector’s object do not come alive in him, but rather it is he who lives in them?” (105).

Where does one object end and another begin?  A journal is an extension of you, your thoughts and observations recorded to be summoned for later reflection.  Your journal is the connection between you and those you observe.

“…photograph is a taking, the drawing a making…John Berger certainly thinks so, with this enigmatic notion that a photograph stops time, while drawing encompasses it…” (21).

In a class where we will be ‘Making’ most of the quarter I thought that the above quote seemed appropriate to share.  Taussig explores the idea that photography is an act of ‘taking’ that stops time and drawing an act of ‘making’ that encompasses it.  By drawing an observation you are making a new interpretation of this observation instead of just taking an exact copy of it.

“We amateurs feel little hesitation in speaking, although we are not professional speakers, just as we run, although we are not professional athletes, make love, swim, or email, et cetera. Most of us even live life amateurishly. But drawing, for the amateur? off limits. Drawing is precious in every sense of the word, except for the Littlies” (33-34).

Many of you, like myself, don’t draw because we just don’t see ourselves as very good at it.  It is important to note that we do many things everyday that we may not be the best at.  Taussig reminds us that we speak although we are not professional speakers, we run although we are not professional athletes and in fact most of our daily activities are quite amateur.  Don’t deprive yourself or others of something that you may not think you are good at.  There is value in all expression, draw in your journals, as it is just another interpretation of your observation, an extension of your mind.

I hope this blog post inspires you all to go check out the article written about Michael Taussig’s I Swear I Saw This: Drawings in Fieldwork Notebooks, Namely My Own and explore the many other quotes from his book.  Lets get excited about our task as Ethnographers and enjoy the many creative methods of recording our observations.  A copy of the actual book will on reserve for our class at the library for those interested in the full text.

Hello Making, Meaning, Matter!

My name is John Grieco and I will be one of your classmates this quarter.  My experience with conducting Ethnography’s in the technology field (mainly software) and with 3d printing, both design and hardware has really pulled me towards this program.  Not only will I be your classmate but on Thursdays I will be dedicating extra time in the CAL lab to assist those in need of any help, advice or motivation having to do with any aspect of the course, including but not limited to, 3d printing design, 3d printing, ethnography’s and cultural technology studies.  After the peer assisted lab each week I will be reviewing, on this site, my observations from the lab session and comparing them to a primary research article on Cultural Studies of Technology for relevancy.

When conducting an Ethnography or any type of research that involves collecting data from a human being it is important to respect the privacy of those you are observing.  Below I have attached an email from John McLain, Evergreen’s academic grants manager and irb administrator containing important information about conducting yourself professionally and ethically.

From: McLain, John
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:29 PM
To: All Staff & Faculty DL
Cc: Forman, Emmie
Subject: Human subjects review and your curriculum: Planning projects and protecting people

Dear Faculty and Staff:

As the school year starts, some of you may be planning class projects or sponsoring independent contracts that will involve collecting data or information about living human beings.   I’m writing to tell you about human subjects review (HSR) requirements at Evergreen, show you where to find HSR resources online, and explain what kinds of projects may or may not need to be reviewed.

It’s possible that the kinds of projects you or your students have submitted for human subjects review in the past may not require review going forward.  It’s also possible that, with some precautions, you and your students can design projects that protect research participants and meet your pedagogical needs without requiring human subjects review.

This message includes a lot of detail and reflects practices that have been in place for a year, but some of what I have to say may still be a departure from your previous understanding of Evergreen’s requirements, so if you or your students plan to conduct studies about living human beings, please take a few minutes and read the rest of this message.

HSR web site

The college has a multi-page web site that provides guidance and information about human subjects review at the college: http://www.evergreen.edu/humansubjectsreview/.  Please share it with your students. please let me know. This is some of the information available via the left navigation bar:

• Who must apply?
• Activities that do not need HSR
• HSR application instructions
• Student-conducted research guide
• Confidentiality and anonymity
• Informed consent
• Using the Internet for human subjects research
• Risk
• Working with other organizations
• Ethical guides for research in several disciplines and interest areas (e.g., oral history, documentary work, journalism, indigenous peoples, health and counseling, education)

 What projects require human subjects review at Evergreen?

Research projects require review and approval by Evergreen’s Institutional Review Board if they meet all of the following three criteria laid out in federal law:

1. They involve collection of data or private identifiable information about living human beings; and
2. They are systematic in methodology; and
3. They are designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge — i.e. the research is intended to be applied to individuals or circumstances beyond those of the people being studied, and to be published, presented, or distributed as such.

See this web page for more information about the definition of human subjects research:http://www.evergreen.edu/humansubjectsreview/hsrdefined.htm.

Types of projects that aren’t human subjects research and typically don’t require HSR

Some types of projects that students, faculty, and staff conduct will involve collecting information from or about people, but under most circumstances do not require an HSR application or review.  Examples include:

• Interviews or surveys that do not collect personal or private information about human beings, such as informational interviews where the topic under study isn’t the persons being interviewed but their area of knowledge or expertise.
• Journalism or documentary projects.
• Oral histories.
• Program evaluations for organizations where the information is intended for internal organizational use only to assess and improve quality.
• Case studies.
• Student teaching and practical experiences in clinical settings that don’t involve collecting data for the student’s own research.

For explanation and more examples of projects that typically don’t require HSR, visit:http://www.evergreen.edu/humansubjectsreview/nonhsr.htm.

Designing projects for classrooms and independent learning contracts to teach human research skills

We recognize the importance of providing students with the skills and knowledge that can only be gained through conducting research.  Sometimes individual students and academic programs do conduct systematic, generalizable research collecting data and private identifiable information about human beings.  The college is committed to a robust human subjects review process for student, faculty, or staff projects requiring it.

Not all student work, however, meets the three-part federal definition of reviewable research. Many student projects can be systematic in nature (involving, for example, surveys or scripted interviews) and collect data and private information about human beings.  Unless the project is generalizable, however, the project does not require human subjects review.  If you have students who wish to conduct this kind of work, they do not need to undergo a human subjects review unless the findings are generalizable (most often, this means presented, published, or kept for future use with the idea they may contribute to projects that may be presented or published).

If your class or student has a project where the primary intent is to provide a learning experience about research to students, but the findings themselves are not intended to lead to generalizable results (e.g., the student will simply write a class paper for the faculty alone or make a class presentation to other students), you or the students do not need to complete an HSR application.  Such non-reviewed class or contract projects should meet the following three criteria:

1. Data and information collected and reported must not be identifiable.  Collected information and data should be recorded without identifying information.  Only the faculty and the student researcher should have access to the raw information or data. Researchers and faculty should keep the identity of research subjects, if known, confidential.  Findings (presentations and papers) should be shared in the educational setting only—i.e., between the faculty and student in an independent contract and within the classroom only in a course or academic program.  In sharing with other students, data should be presented in aggregate only and any potentially identifying information redacted.  Please note that names aren’t the only identifying characteristic. Sometimes combinations of demographic and other information can, depending on circumstances, allow identification of someone by inference. Data should be destroyed at the conclusion of the project.
2. Subjects must give informed and voluntary consent.  See here for more information about consent:http://www.evergreen.edu/humansubjectsreview/informedconsent.htm.  In the case of classroom projects that are not generalizable, it is good practice not to collect signatures for consent, but to use a written or oral script and ask for non-written consent to participate.  This keeps the researcher from collecting any identifying information about participants.
3. The project should present no more than minimal risk to the participants in the research.  Read below for more about risk.

For more guidance about student projects about living human beings, click here:http://www.evergreen.edu/humansubjectsreview/studentguide.htm.  You can also get in touch with us for advice.

Student projects should involve no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects

It is standard practice at most colleges and universities, including Evergreen, that students may not lead projects that present more than minimal risk of harm to human subjects.  Minimal risk means, according to the law, “that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.”  That’s a pretty low threshold.

Risks can be physical, psychological, or socio-economic. Students conducting projects should not collect identifiable information that could cause social or economic harm or create criminal or financial liability for the subject.  Students should also not engage in projects that risk significant emotional distress to their subjects.  Subjects that are off limits for student investigators include but are not limited to those that ask about past trauma, past or present criminal behavior, difficult or painful events (loss of loved ones, relationships problems, feelings of shame, etc.) These kinds of topics may be legitimate for generalizable research undertaken by qualified investigators, but they should not be attempted by inexperienced researchers.  In any research project, benefits of the project must outweigh risks to the subjects.  The benefit of a learning experience alone is not adequate justification for risking significant harm to someone. A trip to the library is not only safer for the people they might otherwise interact with, it often can provide a fuller and more complete understanding of the topics they wish to explore than a handful of interviews or a small survey.

With proper training and under adequate supervision of a qualified investigator, students may work on generalizable projects of this nature that have been approved by the IRB.

To read more about risk, click here: http://www.evergreen.edu/humansubjectsreview/risk.htm.

Working together to promote sound research practices

I hope this information helps clarify the role of human subjects review at Evergreen and provides you a better understanding of what projects do and do not require review.  I also hope it might save you and your students some time and work.

Human subjects review is but one tool and process for ensuring ethical conduct of research.  Many other ethical considerations can come into play, even when research does not require HSR. The ethical guides I’ve assembled (with the contributions of many of you) athttp://www.evergreen.edu/humansubjectsreview/ethicsguides.htm are intended to help you with that.  If you have other materials you think could be useful to include, please send them my way.

In supporting human subjects research, our first responsibility as faculty and staff is to protect people from the harm that might result from their participation.  I often tell students that good intentions are frequently not enough to protect someone from harm.  That’s why we have a review process and want to help them develop sound practices.  I am grateful for the partnership you have shown me in this work.  I will continue to be available to speak to your classes or to meet with you and students individually.

If anything raises an issue for you, I hope you feel free to question students or colleagues about their plans and intentions, to encourage them to look for potential consequences to their activities, to guide their efforts, and even to say “no” if you think that’s the right course.  Again, the resources on the new web page may be of help.  And if I can help you in any way, just pick up the phone or drop me a line. Again, I’m happy to talk things through in advance with you or your students.

Best wishes for the new academic year.

john mclain | academic grants manager and irb administrator | the evergreen state college | 360.867.6045