solutions that emerge, and about the distribution of costs, benefits, risks and
uncertainties involved. While well-designed initiatives need to be clear on these
matters, and the best involve the intended beneficiaries themselves, encounters that
adapt and insert grassroots innovation unreflexively into STI institutions ignore
the way engagements are framed in the first place. So, for example, it is often
presumed that grassroots innovations need to be scaled up or replicated widely,
and this then feeds back to become a criterion for supporting particular grassroots
initiatives.
Or, to put it another way, the performance of a grassroots innovation may
be associated narrowly with a particular artefact of the initiative and measured
according to conventional policy criteria, such as a community energy initiative
being assessed in terms of the quantity and costs of electricity provided. What these
instrumental readings of grassroots innovation miss is some of the purposes and
framings of the people involved in the initiative. In the case of community energy
initiatives, this can include feelings of community identity, a sense of justice and
claim over local renewable resources like the wind and sun, and promoting a degree
of social and economic self-determination in matters of (electrical) power.
Beyond individual artefacts, approaches such as the number of designs, patents
or other forms of intellectual property provide an indicator of the volume of
‘grassroots ingenuity’ (combined with the attention and support paid to it).
Aggregating the value added from such grassroots innovations provides another
(economic) output metric. It is common, for example, to hear arguments made
about the potential to scale up a grassroots innovation or to replicate across a great
number and variety of locations. Alternatively, calls have been made to develop
indicators and other measures of grassroots innovation (Letty et al., 2012). A
reasonable point is made that policy interest in grassroots innovation will be attracted
only when the scale and significance of grassroots innovation activity is quantified
in some general way. And if this can be done using metrics already appreciated by
policy-makers, such as jobs or value added, then so much the better. Such activity
may help raise the profile and credibility of grassroots innovation in the eyes of
elite innovation institutions, but it also represents grassroots innovation in particular
ways familiar to elites, and not necessarily how all activists promoting alternative
innovation pathways would wish it to be represented.
The emerging world of grassroots digital fabrication is an example of where
multiple framings and metrics converge, clash and contest one another. The
increasing accessibility of relatively affordable, yet increasingly versatile machine
tools (such as laser cutters, 3D printers, milling machines) and design software (such
as computer-aided design freeware and hacked scanners) are increasingly being taken
up by a grassroots maker movement that is connecting on-line through social media
platforms and physically at meet-ups, maker faires, and in community workshops
such as hackerspaces, makerspaces and FabLabs. Ideas, designs and collaborative
projects are shared on-line and off-line in these digital and physical spaces.
In some cases, this activity is self-organized, in other cases it receives institutional
impetus and support through universities, or charities, or government programmes.
Green transformations from below? 111
uncertainties involved. While well-designed initiatives need to be clear on these
matters, and the best involve the intended beneficiaries themselves, encounters that
adapt and insert grassroots innovation unreflexively into STI institutions ignore
the way engagements are framed in the first place. So, for example, it is often
presumed that grassroots innovations need to be scaled up or replicated widely,
and this then feeds back to become a criterion for supporting particular grassroots
initiatives.
Or, to put it another way, the performance of a grassroots innovation may
be associated narrowly with a particular artefact of the initiative and measured
according to conventional policy criteria, such as a community energy initiative
being assessed in terms of the quantity and costs of electricity provided. What these
instrumental readings of grassroots innovation miss is some of the purposes and
framings of the people involved in the initiative. In the case of community energy
initiatives, this can include feelings of community identity, a sense of justice and
claim over local renewable resources like the wind and sun, and promoting a degree
of social and economic self-determination in matters of (electrical) power.
Beyond individual artefacts, approaches such as the number of designs, patents
or other forms of intellectual property provide an indicator of the volume of
‘grassroots ingenuity’ (combined with the attention and support paid to it).
Aggregating the value added from such grassroots innovations provides another
(economic) output metric. It is common, for example, to hear arguments made
about the potential to scale up a grassroots innovation or to replicate across a great
number and variety of locations. Alternatively, calls have been made to develop
indicators and other measures of grassroots innovation (Letty et al., 2012). A
reasonable point is made that policy interest in grassroots innovation will be attracted
only when the scale and significance of grassroots innovation activity is quantified
in some general way. And if this can be done using metrics already appreciated by
policy-makers, such as jobs or value added, then so much the better. Such activity
may help raise the profile and credibility of grassroots innovation in the eyes of
elite innovation institutions, but it also represents grassroots innovation in particular
ways familiar to elites, and not necessarily how all activists promoting alternative
innovation pathways would wish it to be represented.
The emerging world of grassroots digital fabrication is an example of where
multiple framings and metrics converge, clash and contest one another. The
increasing accessibility of relatively affordable, yet increasingly versatile machine
tools (such as laser cutters, 3D printers, milling machines) and design software (such
as computer-aided design freeware and hacked scanners) are increasingly being taken
up by a grassroots maker movement that is connecting on-line through social media
platforms and physically at meet-ups, maker faires, and in community workshops
such as hackerspaces, makerspaces and FabLabs. Ideas, designs and collaborative
projects are shared on-line and off-line in these digital and physical spaces.
In some cases, this activity is self-organized, in other cases it receives institutional
impetus and support through universities, or charities, or government programmes.
Green transformations from below? 111