A bibliometric content analysis of do-it-yourself (DIY) science: where to from here for management research?

ABSTRACT Do-it-yourself (DIY) science research is currently in an expansion phase both in terms of its depth (with an increasing number of papers published each year) and its scope (with the core ideas being linked to an increasing number of constructs). To develop a more holistic appreciation of how the field has developed and to identify potential avenues of future research we undertake a bibliometric content analysis of the DIY science literature post 1980. We find four major clusters pertaining to education, culture, the operationalising of DIY science (including commercialisation) and technology-related issues. We review each of these clusters and the main themes contained within the cluster, including highlighting possible research questions that align to these key themes. We find the field to be highly dispersed theoretically on the basis of the bibliometric content analysis. In considering a range of sample papers in each thematic cluster, we identify a range of potential research topics going forward. Identifying the key thematic foci of DIY science research to date provides the researchers within the field the opportunity to clearly locate their work within a highly diverse literature and to build new research trajectories around core concepts.

[1]  Martin O'Connor,et al.  Science for the Twenty‐First Century: From Social Contract to the Scientific Core , 2001 .

[2]  Ivan Zupic,et al.  Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization , 2014 .

[3]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Visualizing Bibliometric Networks , 2014 .

[4]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.

[5]  W. Ng,et al.  Do-It-yourself laboratories as integration-based ecosystems✰ , 2020 .

[6]  Timo R. Nyberg,et al.  Removing barriers to sustainability research on personal fabrication and social manufacturing , 2018 .

[7]  Junyeong Lee,et al.  What makes a maker: the motivation for the maker movement in ICT , 2017, Inf. Technol. Dev..

[8]  Anton Klarin.  Mapping product and service innovation: A bibliometric analysis and a typology , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[9]  P. Galvin,et al.  Understanding cross border innovation activities: The linkages between innovation modes, product architecture and firm boundaries , 2020 .

[10]  Janjaap Semeijn,et al.  A barrier analysis for distributed recycling of 3D printing waste: Taking the maker movement perspective , 2019 .

[11]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[12]  Qile He,et al.  DIY Laboratories and business innovation ecosystems: The case of pharmaceutical industry , 2020 .

[13]  A. Bowser,et al.  Innovation in open science, society and policy – setting the agenda for citizen science , 2018, Citizen Science.

[14]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  The emergence of the maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research , 2019, Journal of Business Venturing.

[15]  D. Audretsch,et al.  Cultural diversity and knowledge in explaining entrepreneurship in European cities , 2019, Small Business Economics.

[16]  Anil Gurung,et al.  Makers: The New Industrial Revolution , 2014 .

[17]  Slava M. Katz,et al.  Technical terminology: some linguistic properties and an algorithm for identification in text , 1995, Natural Language Engineering.

[18]  Richard B. Nyuur,et al.  Leveraging inter-industry spillovers through DIY laboratories: Entrepreneurship and innovation in the global bicycle industry , 2020 .

[19]  V. Scuotto,et al.  Overcoming stressful life events at do-it-yourself (DIY) laboratories. A new trailblazing career for disadvantaged entrepreneurs , 2021 .

[20]  Lisa Z. Scheifele,et al.  The First Three Years of a Community Lab: Lessons Learned and Ways Forward , 2016, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[21]  L. White.  A Neglected Ethical Issue in Citizen Science and DIY Biology , 2019, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[22]  D. Dougherty.  The Maker Movement , 2012, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization.

[23]  S. Cheah,et al.  How the effect of opportunity discovery on innovation outcome differs between DIY laboratories and public research institutes: The role of industry turbulence and knowledge generation in the case of Singapore , 2020 .

[24]  Weifeng Chen,et al.  The business model of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) laboratories – A triple-layered perspective , 2020 .

[25]  R. Barton.  ‘Men of Science’: Language, Identity and Professionalization in the Mid-Victorian Scientific Community , 2003 .

[26]  T. Schmidt,et al.  Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies , 2016 .

[27]  J. Waller.  Gentlemanly Men of Science: Sir Francis Galton and the Professionalization of the British Life-Sciences , 2001, Journal of the history of biology.

[28]  D. Sarpong,et al.  Narrating the future: A distentive capability approach to strategic foresight , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[29]  Albrecht Fritzsche,et al.  Making without fabrication: Do-it-yourself activities for IT security in an open lab , 2020 .

[30]  Martinho Guimaraes Pires Pereira Angela,et al.  From Citizen Science to Do It Yourself ScienceAn annotated account of an on-going movement , 2014 .

[31]  Joyce M Lee,et al.  A Patient-Designed Do-It-Yourself Mobile Technology System for Diabetes: Promise and Challenges for a New Era in Medicine. , 2016, JAMA.

[32]  Brian J. Gorman,et al.  PATENT OFFICE AS BIOSECURITY GATEKEEPER: FOSTERING RESPONSIBLE SCIENCE AND BUILDING PUBLIC TRUST IN DIY SCIENCE , 2011 .

[33]  Peter Galvin,et al.  Inter-organizational collaboration, knowledge intensity, and the sources of innovation in the bioscience-technology industries , 2005 .

[34]  Peter Galvin,et al.  Product modularity, information structures and the diffusion of innovation , 1999 .

[35]  B. Devoldere,et al.  Trajectories to reconcile sharing and commercialization in the maker movement , 2017 .

[36]  Jessica D. Giusti,et al.  Makers and clusters. Knowledge leaks in open innovation networks , 2020, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge.

[37]  Sarah R. Davies,et al.  Characterizing Hacking , 2018 .

[38]  Valuating Practices, Principles and Products in DIY Biology , 2020 .

[39]  Kylie Peppler,et al.  Hands On, Hands Off: Gendered Access in Crafting and Electronics Practices , 2014 .

[40]  John Cullen,et al.  Democratizing Innovation , 2020, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

[41]  Dominik Niopek,et al.  Are artists and engineers inventing the culture of tomorrow , 2013 .

[42]  Matt Bower,et al.  By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers' makerspaces pedagogical capabilities , 2019, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[43]  N. Mishra,et al.  Understanding rural Do-It-Yourself science through social learning in communities of practice , 2020 .

[44]  Stephen Fox,et al.  Third Wave Do-It-Yourself (DIY): Potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure , 2014 .

[45]  F. Clear,et al.  Do-it-yourself (DiY) science: The proliferation, relevance and concerns , 2020 .

[46]  Mark Richardson,et al.  This home is a factory: implications of the Maker movement on urban environments , 2013 .

[47]  Martin Ebner,et al.  The Maker Movement. Implications of new digital gadgets, fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and teaching , 2014 .

[48]  D. Sarpong,et al.  The rise of do-it-yourself (DiY) laboratories: Implications for science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy , 2021 .

[49]  José Adrián Rojas-Dosal.  [Technology development]. , 2005, Cirugia y cirujanos.

[50]  E. Lhoste.  Can do-it-yourself laboratories open up the science, technology, and innovation research system to civil society? , 2020 .