The Power of Makerspaces: Heterotopia and Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article attempts to study makerspaces as heterotopias with special focus on Shenzhen, China. From the vantage point of Cultural Studies, the authors argue that the makerspaces provide possibilities for innovation. In other words, through creating four kinds of culture (tolerance, liminality, compensation and confrontation), the makerspaces create 'other spaces' that are deviant in nature and inspire innovation. It is an interesting read as it connects cultural studies with digital technology and changing nature of the society, thereby providing an understanding of the intersection of technology and everyday life. The article can be published with some minor revisions. Some of the points, that can be considered while revising, are given below.

1. One of the interesting aspects of the paper is Foucault's idea of Heterotopia. It would be better if the authors could give some examples from Foucault's text on heterotopia. For instance, how a library or a cinema work as an 'other space'. This would help the readers who are unfamiliar with the concept itself to understand your arguments better.
2. It would be useful to look at the way aspiration work in forming such a makerspace. And how does it connect to the capitalist market forces?
3. Who are the participants in such makerspaces? Their location in the social structure? How inclusive is the space? Though the authors mention some of these points in the paper, it could be explained further in order to weave the connection between aspiration, capitalism and the socially marginalized groups.
4. The authors compare makerspaces in China with the ones in the west. Similarly, one could also look at how such makerspaces work in developing countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. This is necessary to widen the understanding of makerspaces beyond the west-east binary.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I am very happy to have the opportunity to read your interesting article. I hope that a few of my remarks will help to make it even better. Here they are:

1. The manuscript entitled “The Power of Makerspaces: Heterotopia and Innovation “is a theoretical case study written at the correct scientific level. The authors should be appreciated for the choice of topics for their deliberations and the attempt to objectively look at the subject.
2. The aims of the article should be clearly stated in the abstract and in the introduction.  Where are the hypotheses or at least research questions?  Who is this article addressed to?  What is the benefit of reading it?  What does the text contribute to science?
3. In my opinion, the work should have clearly separated, independent sections: Introduction and Literature review. In the Introduction section, please present the aims of the article, research hypotheses or research questions. Moreover, please write to whom the article is directed. Finally, please add a separate paragraph to describe the structure of the article.
4. What is Section 2. From makerspaces to heterotopias? What role does it play in the structure of the article?
5. Section 3. Theoretical framework and methods: theoretical framework - yes, but where are the methods described?  I do not see them.  This should be an entire, clearly separated section.
6. Why is there no Discussion section? The material presented in the  Analysis and findings section is very rich. Now, in the Discussion section, this material should be confronted with the results of similar studies described in the literature on the subject. After this confrontation of the authors' results with those of other researchers, conclusions should be drawn.
7. Researchers do not recognize the limitations of their research. 
8. What theoretical and practical implications does the text prepared by the authors have? It would be worth mentioning them in the Conclusion section, which should be called simply Conclusions, not "Conclusions: Space, power and innovation". I don't understand this.
9. How does all this relate to sustainable development?  Why did the authors submit their text to this journal?

 

I hope that the indicated remarks will help the Authors to improve their text so that the work will be published. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I consider that this article offers an innovative topic on an interesting topic, however, it is considered necessary to redo the text and address the following substantial observations:

a) In the Abstract, he analyzes heterotopias, neglecting the central part of the article (Power of Makerspaces), as well as not touching on the subject of innovation. It is important to redo this section in accordance with the general content of the document and taking as reference the proposals for its structure, offering as an alternative to review APA 7th edition on how to represent the Abstract of theoretical articles.

b) In the introduction it should be redone and stop offering comparisons on the conceptualizations of the subject in the West. It is recommended to focus on the core issues of the article.

c) In addition to not understanding the meaning of DIY, it is not understood what point 2 is, it seems the theoretical framework, however, point 3 is really the theoretical framework.

d) Point 3 should not mix the theoretical framework with the method. If the method is going to be treated, a small section on method should be generated.

e) In point 4 there is confusion in the headings when using numbering and expressions in italics. If numbering is used, it is not necessary to differentiate the titles in any other way.

f) In the conclusions, the text confuses by expressing that heterogeneity is the main research problem.

g) Eliminate the Acknowledgment section, which seems like a mockery and a lack of respect for scientific seriousness. The acknowledgments are regularly to institutions that supported the financing of the research project. This kind of jokes should be a definite rejection reason.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

 

Despite the fact, that the fulfillment of my recommendations did not meet all of my expectations, in the current version the article can be published.

Author Response

Thanks so much for your approval. We have refined the discussion section to make the article more convinced and there is still much to do in the further study. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I observe a well-structured article that responded to my observations. Just one detail that you must attend to: the excessive use of the word "therefore", which can be replaced by some synonyms

Author Response

Thank you so much for your advice. Truly we used too much "therefore" to make the article more in line with academic writing. In revision, we replaced some of the "therefore" words into "in that case", "hence" or deleted the word.