View source for Fab Research further discussion at Fab 8

=== Tomas Diez ===

One of the questions is if we want merely theoretical papers, or if they are related with applied cases of processes in relation with learning, teaching, social implications, etc. One of the things I think differentiate fab labs from a lot of existing initiatives and ideas around "the third industrial revolution", is that we make things, or make them possible

How in a theoretical scenario can we keep our spirit? and also take this as a potential engine for creating projects/applications and not only stays in a few people saying to other people how good they are and viceversa (traditional academy)... Please do not take this as a mean comment, ;)


=== Chris Jackson ===

I feel certain boxes still need to be ticked.

Traditional academia is a model under stress and pressure to change, as there are particular flaws, especially in terms of research practices. Having a forward facing approach to the subject, and one relative to the work in labs (projects, innovation, design, technology - but essentially making) is something that should obviously be of utmost importance.

The flip-side of this is that it is also a model or mode that allows academics to get funding to attend meeting's especially when they are far away for lots of people :). In that sense how the research stream(s) are handled in terms of peer review etc is very important for some institutions, especially planning toward fab 9 in Japan.

I realise you are all more than aware of these points, but I thought it good to contribute.


=== Peter Troxler ===

To me, there is a third challenge we're facing, and that is the challenge of interdisciplinarity.  Some of us are engineers, some architects, some designers, some are computer schientists and others are in humanities and social sciences.  Together, this looks more like the renaissance man than the current state of academia.

Personally, I am looking forward to dealing with these issues and move that research stream forward over the coming years.


=== Chris Jackson ===

I think in terms of academic research the design disciplines are very well set-up for, and actively welcome transdisciplinary practice. It is my view that 'Design' is the matrices in the composite material of what others regard to be STEM subjects.

I think the transdisciplinary and multi-discplinary projects and research that comes out of the labs is the biggest opportunity, as opposed to challenge, and could prove to be the key defining factor for the future of the labs IMHO.

Maybe that could form the focus for the research papers next year? - But in the meantime, I too look forward to unpacking some of these, and other topics in four weeks time.


=== Betty Barrett ===

Your plan sounds really workable and I agree with Tomas that the paper topics need to span a broad continuum of theory and practice.  For most of us, the practice papers would be of great benefit in the short term while the theory work will sustain us during the long term.

Having standards for the papers is important for the participants as well as the fab movement.  We need to assure that the quality is as high as possible while keeping the participation as open as we can.  There are many people in the labs who don¹t have academic backgrounds or training but have a tremendous amount to teach us about running and sustaining a lab.  So while I do understand the need for academic rigor, I hope we can be creative and inclusive in our knowledge creation and sharing.  To this end I think that the reviewers might be a mix of people across the fab lab movement and that paper submissions might be given a preliminary breakdown.  This might be a juncture at which more practical papers could be tracked differently than the more academic ones.  One question, is there a publishing stream for this work?

I wholeheartedly embrace Chris¹ comments on design as a central cog in this machine.  It really does need to be kept front and center.


=== Matt Norris ===

Perhaps the theoretical and practical papers could be split another way...or 4 ways...

What you do in a lab like design or build projects, How you run a lab like sustainable funding, safety, or operating practices, or How you measure the impact a lab has on its community, What applications have people, communities, industries or academics found for the fab lab concept.

The DO track could be practical or theoretical.  The RUN A LAB track would probably be practical.  The IMPACT track be practical or theoretical.  The APPLICATIONS track might be likewise.

Of course this arrangement is probably better for Fab9.


=== Kelly Zelesnik ===

definitely would be interested in participating in the future as a reviewer.  I am delighted that you are initiating a process for submission and review of papers (research, applied, other) and I agree with the many comments in the replies, especially with Betty's call for "rigor" in the review process.