Local adequacy as a design strategy in place-based making

References

• Avtokonstruktory ponevole [Automobile makers willy-nilly]” 2002. Za rulem, no. 5, p. 124
   Google Scholar
• Abel, B. V., ed. 2011. Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive; [With Visual Index]. Amsterdam: BIS.
   Google Scholar
• Ardener, E. 2012. “‘Remote Areas’: Some Theoretical Considerations [Reprint 1987].” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2 (1): 519–533. doi:https://doi.org/10.14318/hau2.1.023.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, C., C. Hienerth, and E. Von Hippel. 2006. “How User Innovations Become Commercial Products: A Theoretical Investigation and Case Study.” Research Policy 35 (9): 1291–1313. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.012.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, C., and E. Von Hippel. 2011. “Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation.” Organization Science 22 (6): 1399–1417. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618.
   Google Scholar
• Barca, F., P. McCann, and A. Rodríguez-Pose. 2012. “The Case for Regional Development Intervention: Place-based versus Place-neutral Approaches*.” Journal of Regional Science 52 (1): 134–152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, K. 2009. “The Art of Truck Modding on the Nile (Sudan): An Attempt to Trace Creativity.” In The Speed of Change: Motor Vehicles and People in Africa, 1890-2000, by Sabine Luning and Klaas Van Walraven, edited by J. B. Gewald, 13. by Sabine Luning and Klaas Van Walraven. Leiden, Netherlands: BRILL.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton, R. 1992. “‘Place Prosperity Vs People Prosperity’ Revisited: An Old Issue with a New Angle.” Urban Studies 29 (2): 185–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989220080261.
   Google Scholar
• Botero, A., and S. Hyysalo. 2013. “Ageing Together: Steps Towards Evolutionary Co-Design in Everyday Practices.” CoDesign 9 (1): 37–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.760608.
   Google Scholar
• Botero, A. 2013. Expanding Design Space(s): Design in Communal Endeavours. Helsinki: Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Department of Media.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, A. D. 2017. “Lay Designers: Grassroots Innovation for Appropriate Change.” Design Issues 33 (1): 30–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00424.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiklin, S., and J. Lave, eds. 1993. Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625510.
   Google Scholar
• De Laet, M., and A. Mol. 2000. “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump Mechanics of a Fluid Technology.” Social Studies of Science 30 (2): 225–263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002.
   Google Scholar
• Eder, W. E. 2012. “Engineering Design Vs Artistic Design - A Discussion.” In Proc. 2012 Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA12) Conf., 1–7. Winnipeg: MB.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, R. 2018. “Motorcycles on the Steppe: Skill, Social Change, and New Technologies in Postsocialist Northern Mongolia.” Nomadic Peoples 22 (2): 330–368. doi:https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2018.220208.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, R. A., J. Levänen, and J. Bonvoisin. 2021. “Challenges of Open Design in Low-Income Communities: A Case Study of Residential Rainwater Harvesting Systems.” CoDesign (February): 1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.1883066.
   Google Scholar
• Gerasimova, E., and S. Chuikina. 2009. “The Repair Society.” Russian Studies in History 48 (1): 58–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.2753/RSH1061-1983480104.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C., S. Luckman, and J. Willoughby-Smith. 2010. “Creativity without Borders? Rethinking Remoteness and Proximity.” Australian Geographer 41 (1): 25–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180903535543.
   Google Scholar
• Golubev, A., and O. Smolyak. 2013. “Making Selves through Making Things: Soviet Do‑it‑yourself Culture and Practices of Late Soviet Subjectivation.” Cahiers Du Monde Russe 54 (54/3–4): 517–541. doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/monderusse.7964.
   Google Scholar
• Golubev, A. 2020. The Things of Life: Materiality in Late Soviet Russia. Ithaca, [New York]: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, J., C. Phelan, M. Vigil-Hayes, N. M. Su, S. Wyche, and P. Sengers. 2019. “Designing from the Rural.” Interactions 26 (4): 37–41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3328487.
   Google Scholar
• Hartswood, M., R. Procter, R. Slack, A. Voß, M. Büscher, M. Rouncefield, and P. Rouchy. 2002. “Co-Realization: Toward a Principled Synthesis of Ethnomethodology and Participatory Design.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14 (2): 9–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-901-9_3.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, A., and M. Kyng. 1991. “There Is No Place like Home - Continuing Design in Use.” In Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, edited by J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng, 219–240. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Humphrey, C. 2014. “The Changing Significance of Remoteness in Contemporary Russia.” Ètnografičeskoe Obozrenie 3: 8–24.
   Google Scholar
• Hussain, S. 2015. Remoteness and Modernity: Transformation and Continuity in Northern Pakistan. Yale Agrarian Studies Series. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S., M. Johnson, and J. K. Juntunen. 2017. “The Diffusion of Consumer Innovation in Sustainable Energy Technologies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 162 (September): S70–82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.045.
   Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S., and S. Usenyuk. 2015. “The User Dominated Technology Era: Dynamics of Dispersed Peer-Innovation.” Research Policy 44 (3): 560–576. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.002.
   Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S. 2009. “User Innovation and Everyday Practices: Micro-Innovation in Sports Industry Development.” R&D Management 39 (3): 247–258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00558.x.
   Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S. 2021. Citizen Activities in Energy Transition: User Innovation, New Communities, and the Shaping of a Sustainable Future. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Illich, I. 1973. Tools for Conviviality. Open Forum. London: Calder and Boyars.
   Google Scholar
• Isaksson, O., and C. Eckert. 2020. “Product Development 2040.” The Design Society. doi:https://doi.org/10.35199/report.pd2040.
   Google Scholar
• Kohtala, C., S. Hyysalo, and J. Whalen. 2020. “A Taxonomy of Users’ Active Design Engagement in the 21st Century.” Design Studies 67 (March): 27–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.008.
   Google Scholar
• Kohtala, C. 2016. “Making Sustainability: How Fab Labs Address Environmental Sustainability.”
   Google Scholar
• Kosmachov, K. P. 1974. Pionernoye Osvoyeniye Taygi (Ekonomiko-geograficheskiye Problemy) [Pioneer Development of the Taiga (Economic and Geographical Problems)]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
   Google Scholar
• Kotut, L. 2020. “Using Stories to Understand Technology Needs and Technology Reuse by Rural Communities.” In Companion of the 2020 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, 45–48. Sanibel Island Florida USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3323994.3372139.
   Google Scholar
• Kuklina, V., and E. C. Holland. 2018. “The Roads of the Sayan Mountains: Theorizing Remoteness in Eastern Siberia.” Geoforum 88 (January): 36–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.10.008.
   Google Scholar
• Larkin, B. 2013. “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (1): 327–343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522.
   Google Scholar
• Latoufis, K., and A. Tympas. 2018. “Makeshift Engineering: Resilience through Adaptive Design in Locally Manufactured Small Wind Turbines Guxnter, Getzinger ed. .” In Book of Abstracts, 76–77. Austria: TU Graz.
   Google Scholar
• Laviolette, P., and A. Sirotina. 2015. “Karakats: The Bricolage of Hybrid Vehicles that Skate and Swim.” Journal of Ethnology & Folkloristics 9 (1): 21–40.
   Google Scholar
• Lüthje, C., C. Herstatt, and E. Von Hippel. 2005. “User-Innovators and ‘Local’ Information: The Case of Mountain Biking.” Research Policy 34 (6): 951–965. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.005.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, E. 2019. Politics of the Everyday. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, L. 1964. “Authoritarian and Democratic Technics.” Technology and Culture 5 (1): 1. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3101118.
   Google Scholar
• Nefedova, T., and J. Pallot. 2006. Neizvestnoye Sel’skoye Khozyaystvo, Ili Zachem Nuzhnakorova? (Unknown Agriculture, or What Is a Cow For?). Moscow: Novoye Izdatel’stvo.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K. H. 2016. “How User Assemblage Matters: Constructing Learning by Using in the Case of Wind Turbine Technology in Denmark, 1973-1990.” In The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies, edited by S. Hyysalo, T. E. Jensen, and N. Oudshoorn, 42:101–22. Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organization and Technology. New York and London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ornetzeder, M., and H. Rohracher. 2006. “User-Led Innovations and Participation Processes: Lessons from Sustainable Energy Technologies.” Energy Policy 34 (2): 138–150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.037.
   Google Scholar
• Papazafeiropoulou, A. S. 2012. “Technology Users as Empirically-Trained Mechanics: Assembly and Decoration of Improvised Vehicles in Greece during and after World War II.” Icon 18: 157–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23789346.
   Google Scholar
• Penfield, A. 2019. “The Wild inside Out: Fluid Infrastructure in an Amazonian Mining Region.” Social Anthropology 27 (2): 221–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12647.
   Google Scholar
• Riggs, W., and E. Von Hippel. 1994. “Incentives to Innovate and the Sources of Innovation: The Case of Scientific Instruments.” Research Policy 23 (4): 459–469. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90008-6.
   Google Scholar
• Shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. Los Angeles: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Shove, E., M. Watson, M. Hand, and J. Ingram. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. New York, NY: Berg Publishers . doi:https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474293679.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, S., G. Sharma, and M. Mahendru. 2011. “The Jugaad Technology (Indigenous Innovations) (A Case Study of Indian Origin).” Undefined. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1827622
   Google Scholar
• Sirotina, A. 2011. “Karakat as A Social Phenomenon: A Car Can Swim.” MA Thesis. Tallinn, Estonia: Estonian Institute of Humanities/Tallinn University.
   Google Scholar
• Slavin, S. V. 1962. “Promyshlennoye I Transportnoye Osvoenie Severa SSSR [Industrial and Transport Development of the Soviet North].” In The Fundamental Proceedings on the Development of the Soviet North [Kapital’niy Trud Ob Osvoenii Severa SSSR], edited by V. F. Burkhanov, 137–139. Vol. 2 (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ekonomicheskoy literatury).
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. 2017. Grassroots Innovation Movements. London; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, R. E. 2000. “Case Studies.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 435–453. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. 2002. “Located Accountabilities in Technology Production.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14 (2): Article 7.
   Google Scholar
• Usenyuk-Kravchuk, S., N. Garin, N. Klyusov, N. Dedevich, and M. Pokataeva. 2019. “Light, Local, Repairable: A Designerly Exploration into an Ideal All-Terrain Vehicle.” The International Journal of Designed Objects 13: 3–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1379/CGP/v13i02/1-14.
   Google Scholar
• Usenyuk, S., S. Hyysalo, and J. Whalen. 2016. “Proximal Design: Users as Designers of Mobility in the Russian North.” Technology and Culture 57 (4): 866–908. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2016.0110.
   Google Scholar
• Verhaegh, S., E. C. J. van Oost, and N. E. J. Oudshoorn. 2016. “Innovation in Civil Society: The Socio-Material Dynamics of a Community Innovation.” In The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies, edited by S. Hyysalo, T. E. Jensen, and N. E. J. Oudshoorn, 193–218. Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organization and Technology. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E., and G. Von Krogh. 2015. “Crossroads — Identifying Viable ‘Need–Solution Pairs’: Problem Solving Without Problem Formulation.” Organization Science (December). orsc.2015.1023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1023.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. 1994. “‘Sticky Information’ and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation.” Management Science 40 (4): 429–439. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. 2016. Free Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press. http://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=1004041.
   Google Scholar
• Voss, A., ed. 2009. Configuring User-Designer Relations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 1998. “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System.” Systems Thinker. https://thesystemsthinker.com/communities-of-practice-learning-as-a-social-system/
   Google Scholar