Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 101 references

Understanding the Challenges of Maker Entrepreneurship

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Maker entrepreneurs are makers first and entrepreneurs second, entering business accidentally, learning logistics as they go, and driven by non-monetary values.

desk verdict A transparent, well-executed interview study that mostly reproduces known themes; the sample skew toward self-managed sellers should be named in the design implications, not just in the limitations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13765 v2 pith:EUGSACMI submitted 2025-01-23 cs.HC

Natalie Friedman , Alexandra Bremers , Adelaide Nyanyo , Ian Clark , Yasmine Kotturi , Laura Dabbish , Wendy Ju , Nikolas Martelaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords makerentrepreneurshipcreativemicro-entrepreneurshipjust-in-timelearningidentityalternativevaluescraftbusinessqualitativeinterviews
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish what it actually takes for a hobbyist maker of physical goods to become a working entrepreneur, and what technology is missing along that path. Based on interviews with 20 US-based maker entrepreneurs, six creative-service entrepreneurs, and seven support intermediaries, it argues that most makers do not set out to start businesses: they become entrepreneurs accidentally, keep making as their primary identity, and treat business tasks as secondary. Because of that, they learn accounting, pricing, taxes, and marketing just-in-time from online videos, libraries, and peers, and they often decline online marketplaces whose terms and financial features do not fit their values. The paper's constructive claim is that support tools for this group should be built around three design targets: modular just-in-time learning, identity formation, and tracking alternative values like creative expression and community, not just profit.

What carries the argument

The analytical machinery is a semi-structured interview study with a thematic coding scheme. The protocol asked about introduction and background, promotion, production, artistic story, and reflection; five researchers coded the transcripts into six themes: Logistics, Alternative Currencies, Relationships, Identity, Technology, and Mentoring. These six categories are what carry the argument: they turn individual testimony into repeated patterns, and each design implication in the paper's summary table maps to one of them (just-in-time learning from Logistics, identity formation from Identity, alternative-value tracking from Alternative Currencies).

What would settle it

A representative survey of maker entrepreneurs that found most had formal business training, tracked their costs from the start, and maximized profit would undercut the paper's central pattern; so would evidence that most makers use Etsy-style platforms and are satisfied with their financial features.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a descriptive account of the maker-to-entrepreneur transition: maker entrepreneurs are makers first and entrepreneurs second, struggle with business logistics and learn business skills as they go, and are motivated by non-monetary values. The paper reports that 15 of 26 entrepreneur interviewees had craft experience before any business activity; that participants tracked payments in notes apps, learned invoicing only after cash-only mistakes, and priced goods by benchmarking rather than cost accounting; and that they prized relationships, authenticity, nostalgia, and community enough to forgo profit-maximizing choices. It concludes from these patterns that existing business software, which tracks money but not enjoyment or community engagement, misses what maker entrepreneurs actually value, and that platform terms such as mandated free shipping can push makers toward self-managed storefronts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a snowball-recruited, US-only, highly educated sample of 33 interviewees, most of whom avoid online marketplaces, can support general design guidance for all maker entrepreneurs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Business tools for makers should deliver bite-size, just-in-time lessons at teachable moments such as after a first sale, rather than full courses.
  • Platforms that impose free shipping or lack sales-tax handling lose maker entrepreneurs who would otherwise stay for the community; supporting self-managed stores is a real design space.
  • Trackers that let maker entrepreneurs log creative expression, community engagement, and other personal currencies alongside revenue would match how they define success.
  • Support technologies should help makers recognize that they are becoming entrepreneurs, and frame making and business as one integrated identity rather than conflicting roles.
  • Community and relationship features, such as two-way communication with customers, are as central to maker business tools as payments and inventory.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be a value-tracking dashboard that lets makers define their own non-financial metrics; the paper does not build one, but its findings predict such a tool would be used and valued where standard accounting tools are not.
  • Since most interviewees avoided online marketplaces, the findings may describe a self-reliant subset; a broader survey of makers who sell heavily through such platforms could reveal whether the same struggles and values hold there.
  • The accidental-entrepreneurship pattern suggests a natural embedding for just-in-time education: inside the exact platforms where makers first sell, so that the moment of first revenue triggers a lesson on receipts and taxes.
  • If tools succeed at tracking alternative values, they may change what counts as a successful business in adjacent creative work, such as freelancers and service-based creative entrepreneurs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative interview study of 20 US-based maker entrepreneurs, 6 creative service entrepreneurs, and 7 support personnel, conducted over Zoom in 2023. Using thematic analysis, it identifies three main patterns: maker entrepreneurs are 'makers first and entrepreneurs second,' struggle with business logistics and learn business skills just-in-time, and are motivated by non-monetary values. It then translates these patterns into design implications for training and business-support technologies, including just-in-time modular learning, identity formation support, and alternative-value tracking. The central contribution is a descriptive account of the transition from making to entrepreneurship and a set of design recommendations.

Significance. The paper offers a clearly described qualitative method and a useful synthesis of challenges in a population that CSCW has studied less than other micro-entrepreneurs. It explicitly situates the work in relation to prior literature, includes positionality, and provides participant quotes that allow readers to assess the interpretations. Its design implications, if scoped to the studied population, are actionable for future systems. The main weakness is external validity: the snowball sample from researcher networks, US-only and highly educated, with most participants avoiding online marketplaces, leaves open whether the central claims apply to maker entrepreneurs broadly. The authors acknowledge this in §5.4 but do not condition their design recommendations on it.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, §4.3.3, §5.4, Table 2] The sample is recruited by snowball sampling from the researchers' personal networks (§3.2), is US-only and highly educated (§5.4), and §4.3.3 reports that only 4 of the 20 maker entrepreneurs used online marketplaces such as Etsy or Amazon Handmade, while 15 used self-managed solutions. The central claim in the abstract—that maker entrepreneurs are makers-first, struggle with logistics, and learn just-in-time—and the unconditional recommendations in Table 2 are therefore stated for the broader population while the sample systematically under-represents the large platform-based segment (Etsy's 5.3M sellers cited in §2.2.1). Because platform-based sellers may have different business orientations and logistical support, the findings and design implications need to be either scoped to self-managed maker entrepreneurs or supported by additional evidence from marketplace-mediated sellers.
  2. [§4.1, §4.2, Table 1] The analysis treats creative service entrepreneurs as part of the evidence for claims about maker entrepreneurs. For example, P06 and P12 are listed as photographers (creative services) in Table 1, yet §4.1 quotes P12 to support the 'accidental entrepreneur' trajectory and §4.2 quotes P06 on invoicing, with the following text referring to 'the makers we spoke with.' Because the paper's definition of maker entrepreneurs excludes service providers, the findings should either use the 20 physical-goods makers as the primary evidence or explicitly analyze the service subsample separately; otherwise the claim that these challenges are unique to maker entrepreneurs is weakened.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, Table 1] The abstract's product examples 'i.e., lamps, stickers' omit other physical goods in Table 1; consider using 'e.g.' and broader examples, since the sample also includes potters, glassmakers, and gem cutters.
  2. [§5.2] The sentence 'leading many to simply to use them' appears to be a typo; given the surrounding discussion, this should likely read 'leading many to simply not use them.'
  3. [§4.3.4] The phrase 'cobble their own processed' should be 'cobble their own processes.'
  4. [§5.3] The citation 'Annette [6]' should be 'Annett [6]' to match the reference list.
  5. [§2.2.1, References] The in-text citation 'Sultana et al. [89]' does not match the reference author names 'Mohammad Tipu Sultan and Farzana Sharmin'; please check and align the citation.
  6. [§4.3.3] The sentence 'only four were currently using platforms such as Etsy or Amazon Handmade, while 15 used a self-managed solution' accounts for 19 participants; clarify the denominator or the remaining participant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: findings are grounded in independent interview data, with self-citations only as contextual examples.

full rationale

This is an empirical qualitative interview study, not a derivation. The central findings (makers-first identity, logistical gaps, just-in-time learning, non-monetary values) are induced from semi-structured interview data via thematic analysis (Section 3.4); there are no equations, fitted parameters, or benchmarked predictions that could reduce to inputs. The only self-citations by co-authors are Kotturi et al. prior work on creative-entrepreneur platforms ([52], [54]); these appear in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.1 as examples of community-based learning or scaffolding to inspire design suggestions, and they do not supply the interview evidence for the findings. The paper's own limitation statement (Section 5.4) explicitly acknowledges the snowball-recruited, US-only, highly educated sample and the fact that most participants did not use online marketplaces; these are external-validity constraints on generalization, not circularity. No step was found in which a claimed 'prediction' or 'finding' is equivalent by construction to an input, a fitted value, or a self-citation. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a qualitative interview study, so it has no fitted parameters or invented entities. Its conclusions rest on methodological assumptions about sampling, self-report validity, and coding reliability, which are standard for thematic analysis but limit generalizability.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Thematic coding by a subset of the research team yields valid themes; consensus resolves disagreements.
    Section 3.4 describes affinity mapping and consensus coding without inter-rater reliability, relying on the team's shared interpretation.
  • domain assumption Participants recruited via snowball sampling from researchers' networks represent a sufficiently diverse range of US maker entrepreneurs.
    Section 3.2 describes recruitment through personal networks; Section 5.4 acknowledges the sample is highly educated and US-only, which limits representativeness.
  • domain assumption Self-reports during Zoom interviews accurately capture participants' business practices and motivations.
    Section 3.3 relies on interviews rather than observational or financial data to support the findings.
  • ad hoc to paper Excluding makers of non-creative goods and services after initial analysis does not bias the central findings.
    Section 3.2 states that makers of non-creative goods and solely service-based entrepreneurs were excluded 'after an initial round of interviews and analysis,' which is a post-hoc sample selection that could affect the themes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding the Challenges of Maker Entrepreneurship." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUGSACMI

@misc{pith2026250113765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding the Challenges of Maker Entrepreneurship},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUGSACMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13765}
}
read the original abstract

The maker movement embodies a resurgence in DIY creation, merging physical craftsmanship and arts with digital technology support. However, mere technological skills and creativity are insufficient for economically and psychologically sustainable practice. By illuminating and smoothing the path from ``maker" to ``maker entrepreneur," we can help broaden the viability of making as a livelihood. Our research centers on makers who design, produce, and sell physical goods. In this work, we explore the transition to entrepreneurship for these makers and how technology can facilitate this transition online and offline. We present results from interviews with 20 USA-based maker entrepreneurs {(i.e., lamps, stickers)}, six creative service entrepreneurs {(i.e., photographers, fabrication)}, and seven support personnel (i.e., art curator, incubator director). Our findings reveal that many maker entrepreneurs 1) are makers first and entrepreneurs second; 2) struggle with business logistics and learn business skills as they go; and 3) are motivated by non-monetary values. We discuss training and technology-based design implications and opportunities for addressing challenges in developing economically sustainable businesses around making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13765 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Variety of maker products: Top left: P27’s hair accessory; Top middle: P18’s 3D printed stickers; Top right: P26’s cardboard cuffs; Bottom left: P25’s Gemstone; Bottom middle: P28’s wire sculptures; Bottom right: P19’s Featherwing; Rightmost: P29’s guitar tennis rackets 4.1 What is involved in the transition from maker to maker entrepreneur? (RQ1) Many maker entrepreneurs we interviewed were “accidental entrepreneur… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amelia Acker and Dhiraj Murthy. 2018. Venmo: Understanding Mobile Payments as Social Media. InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society (SMSociety ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, Copenhagen, Denmark, 5–12. doi:10.1145/3217804.3217892

    work page arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Tania Afroze, Md Kashrul Alam, Eliza Akther, and Nahid Sultana Jui. 2014. Women entrepreneurs in Bangladesh-Challenges and determining factors.Journal of Business and Technology (Dhaka)9, 2 (2014), 27–41

    2014

  3. [3]

    Howard E. Aldrich. 2014. The democratization of entrepreneurship? Hackers, makerspaces, and crowdfunding.Academy of Management Proceedings 2014, 1 (2014), 10622

    2014

  4. [4]

    Howard E Aldrich and Amy Kenworthy. 1999. The accidental entrepreneur: Campbellian antinomies and organizational foundings.Variations in organization science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell(1999), 19–33

    1999

  5. [5]

    2012.Makers: The New Industrial Revolution

    Chris Anderson. 2012.Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. Crown

    2012

  6. [6]

    Michelle Annett. 2020. Understanding the Homepreneurship Opportunities Afforded by Social Networking and Personal Fabrication Technologies. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2, Article 99 (oct 2020), 48 pages. doi:10.1145/3415170

    work page doi:10.1145/3415170 2020

  7. [7]

    Seyram Avle, Julie Hui, Silvia Lindtner, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2019. Additional labors of the entrepreneurial self.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–24

    2019

  8. [8]

    Seyram Avle, Silvia Lindtner, and Kaiton Williams. 2017. How Methods Make Designers. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 472–483. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025864

    arXiv 2017

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Art–Commerce Relation

    Mark Banks. 2010. Autonomy Guaranteed? Cultural Work and the “Art–Commerce Relation”.Journal for Cultural Research14, 3 (July 2010), 251–269. doi:10.1080/14797581003791487

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    Victoria Bellotti, Alexander Ambard, Daniel Turner, Christina Gossmann, Kamila Demkova, and John M. Carroll. 2015. A Muddle of Models of Motivation for Using Peer-to-Peer Economy Systems. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Se...

    2015

  3. [11]

    Henrik Berglund, Marouane Bousfiha, and Yashar Mansoori. 2020. Opportunities as Artifacts and Entrepreneurship as Design.Academy of Management Review(Feb. 2020). doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0285 Publisher: Academy of Management

    2020

  4. [12]

    Pawan V Bhansing, Erik Hitters, and Yosha Wijngaarden. 2018. Passion inspires: Motivations of creative entrepreneurs in creative business centres in the Netherlands.The Journal of Entrepreneurship27, 1 (2018), 1–24

    2018

  5. [13]

    Browder, Howard E

    Russell E. Browder, Howard E. Aldrich, and Steven W. Bradley. 2019. The emergence of the maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research.Journal of Business Venturing34, 3 (May 2019), 459–476. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.005

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Colleen Casey. 2014. Critical connections: The importance of community-based organizations and social capital to credit access for low-wealth entrepreneurs.Urban Affairs Review50, 3 (2014), 366–390

    2014

  7. [15]

    Patrick A Crain and Brian P Bailey. 2017. Share Once or Share Often: Exploring How Designers Approach Iteration in a Large Online Community. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, Sheridan Communications, Singapore, 80–92

    2017

  8. [16]

    Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. InProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. 1277–1286

    2012

  9. [17]

    Robert DeFillippi, Gernot Grabher, and Candace Jones. 2007. Introduction to paradoxes of creativity: managerial and organizational challenges in the cultural economy.Journal of Organizational Behavior28, 5 (July 2007), 511–521. doi:10.1002/job.466

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    William Deresiewicz. 2015. The Death of the Artist—and the Birth of the Creative Entrepreneur.The Atlantic315, 1 (2015), 92

    2015

  11. [19]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Desiree McLain, Minnie Lester, Delores Orr, and Kentaro Toyama. 2018. Entrepreneurship and the socio-technical chasm in a lean economy. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2018

  12. [20]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt, Alex Jiahong Lu, Aarti Israni, Ruchita Lodha, Savana Brewer, Tiera S Robinson, Angela Brown Wilson, and Earnest Wheeler

  13. [21]

    Dale Dougherty. 2012. The Maker Movement.Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization7, 3 (July 2012), 11–14. doi:10.1162/INOV_a_00135 Manuscript submitted to ACM Understanding the Challenges of Maker Entrepreneurship 25

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Marc Doussard, Greg Schrock, Laura Wolf-Powers, Max Eisenburger, and Stephen Marotta. 2018. Manufacturing without the firm: Challenges for the maker movement in three U.S. cities.Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space50, 3 (May 2018), 651–670. doi:10.1177/0308518X17749709

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2017.(Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work

    Brooke Erin Duffy. 2017.(Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. Yale University Press

    2017

  16. [24]

    Brooke Erin Duffy. 2018. Entrepreneurial Wishes and Career Dreams. In(Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love. Yale University Press, 1–11

    2018

  17. [25]

    Brooke Erin Duffy and Urszula Pruchniewska. 2017. Gender and self-enterprise in the social media age: A digital double bind.Information, communication & society20, 6 (2017), 843–859

    2017

  18. [26]

    Doris Ruth Eikhof and Axel Haunschild. 2007. For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production.Journal of Organizational Behavior28, 5 (July 2007), 523–538. doi:10.1002/job.462

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    cultural entrepreneurship

    Linda Essig. 2017. Same or different? The “cultural entrepreneurship” and “arts entrepreneurship” constructs in European and US higher education. Cultural Trends26, 2 (2017), 125–137

    2017

  20. [28]

    Etsy. 2020. The Sell on Etsy App for iPhone and iPad. http://help.etsy.com/hc/en-us/articles/115015711428-The-Sell-on-Etsy-App-for-iPhone- and-iPad

    2020

  21. [29]

    Etsy Inc. 2019. Etys 2019 Transparency Report. https://extfiles.etsy.com/advocacy/Etsy%5F2019%5FTransparency%5FReport.pdf

    2019

  22. [30]

    Etsy.com. 2017. Etys 2017 Impact Report. https://extfiles.etsy.com/Impact/2017EtsyImpactUpdate.pdf. Accessed: 2020-01-23

    2017

  23. [31]

    Etsy.com. 2021. Etys 2021 Impact Report. https://storage.googleapis.com/etsy-extfiles-prod/Press/reports/2021_Etsy_Transparency_Report.pdf? ref=news. Accessed: 2023-01-09

    2021

  24. [32]

    Eureka Foong, Steven P Dow, Brian P Bailey, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2017. Online feedback exchange: A framework for understanding the socio-psychological factors. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Sheridan Communications, Denv...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Matthew Garvin, Ron Eglash, Kwame Porter Robinson, Lionel Robert, Mark Guzdial, and Audrey Bennett. 2023. Counter-hegemonic AI: The Role of Artisanal Identity in the Design of Automation for a Liberated Economy. InAI and the Future of Creative Work. Routledge, 71–88

    2023

  26. [34]

    Elizabeth M Gerber and Julie Hui. 2013. Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)20, 6 (2013), 1–32

    2013

  27. [35]

    Vlad Petre Glăveanu and Lene Tanggaard. 2014. Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity.New Ideas in Psychology34, 1 (2014), 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.02.002 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos, Marianne W Lewis, and Amy E Ingram. 2010. Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation.Human Relations63, 6 (June 2010), 781–805. doi:10.1177/0018726709342929

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    Gunnar Harboe and Elaine M Huang. 2015. Real-world affinity diagramming practices: Bridging the paper-digital gap. InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 95–104

    2015

  30. [38]

    Sonali Hedditch and Dhaval Vyas. 2023. Crossing the Threshold: Pathways into Makerspaces for Women at the Intersectional Margins.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW1, Article 123 (apr 2023), 40 pages. doi:10.1145/3579599

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Sophie Hennekam and Dawn Bennett. 2016. Involuntary career transition and identity within the artist population.Personnel Review45, 6 (Sept. 2016), 1114–1131. doi:10.1108/PR-01-2015-0020

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    2017.Entrepreneurship

    Robert D Hisrich, Michael P Peters, and Dean A Shepherd. 2017.Entrepreneurship. McGraw-Hill Education

    2017

  33. [41]

    Charles Howard, Andrea Gerosa, Maria Carrasco Mejuto, and Gregor Giannella. 2014. The Maker Movement: a new avenue for competition in the EU.European View13, 2 (2014), 333–340

    2014

  34. [42]

    Julie Hui, Nefer Ra Barber, Wendy Casey, Suzanne Cleage, Danny C Dolley, Frances Worthy, Kentaro Toyama, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2020. Community collectives: Low-tech social support for digitally-engaged entrepreneurship. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human fact...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Julie Hui, Kentaro Toyama, Joyojeet Pal, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2018. Making a living my way: Necessity-driven entrepreneurship in resource- constrained communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–24

    2018

  36. [44]

    Julie S Hui, Matthew W Easterday, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2019. Distributed apprenticeship in online communities.Human–Computer Interaction 34, 4 (2019), 328–378

    2019

  37. [46]

    Aarti Israni, Julie Hui, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2023. Opportunities for Social Media to Support Aspiring Entrepreneurs with Financial Constraints. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  38. [47]

    2017.Culture and Commerce: The Value of Entrepreneurship in Creative Industries

    Mukti Khaire. 2017.Culture and Commerce: The Value of Entrepreneurship in Creative Industries. Stanford University Press

    2017

  39. [48]

    Mukti Khaire. 2021. Entrepreneurship by design: The construction of meanings and markets for cultural craft goods. InCulture, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Routledge, 13–32

    2021

  40. [49]

    Joy Kim, Maneesh Agrawala, and Michael S Bernstein. 2017. Mosaic: designing online creative communities for sharing works-in-progress. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Sheridan Communications, Portland,...

    2017

  41. [50]

    2017.How Independent Artists Participate in the Peer Economy for Handmade Goods

    Erin Flynn Klawitter. 2017.How Independent Artists Participate in the Peer Economy for Handmade Goods. Ph. D. Dissertation. Northwestern University. Manuscript submitted to ACM 26 Natalie Friedman et al

    2017

  42. [51]

    Bernstein

    Nicolas Kokkalis, Chengdiao Fan, Thomas Breier, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. Founder Center: Enabling Access to Collective Social Capital. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Portland, Oregon, USA)(CSCW ’17). ...

    2017

  43. [52]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Allie Blaising, Sarah E Fox, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2021. The Unique Challenges for Creative Small Businesses Seeking Feedback on Social Media.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–27

    2021

  44. [53]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Herman T Johnson, Michael Skirpan, Sarah E Fox, Jeffrey P Bigham, and Amy Pavel. 2022. Tech Help Desk: Support for Local Entrepreneurs Addressing the Long Tail of Computing Challenges. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2022

  45. [54]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Jenny Yu, Pranav Khadpe, Erin Gatz, Harvey Zheng, Sarah E Fox, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2024. Peerdea: Co-Designing a Peer Support Platform with Creative Entrepreneurs.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionCSCW1 (2024), 1–27

    2024

  46. [55]

    ME” AMONG THE “WE

    Glen Kreiner, Elaine Hollensbe, and Mathew Sheep. 2006. WHERE IS THE “ME” AMONG THE “WE”? IDENTITY WORK AND THE SEARCH FOR OPTIMAL BALANCE.Academy of Management Journal49, 5 (2006), 1031–1057. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798186

    2006

  47. [56]

    Sneha R Krishna Kumaran, Yue Yin, and Brian P Bailey. 2021. Plan early, revise more: effects of goal setting and perceived role of the feedback provider on feedback seeking behavior.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–22

    2021

  48. [57]

    Kristine Kuhn, Tera Galloway, and Maureen Collins-Williams. 2016. Near, far, and online: Small business owners’ advice-seeking from peers. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development23, 1 (2016), 189–206

    2016

  49. [58]

    Kristine M Kuhn and Amir Maleki. 2017. Micro-entrepreneurs, dependent contractors, and instaserfs: Understanding online labor platform workforces.Academy of Management Perspectives31, 3 (2017), 183–200

    2017

  50. [59]

    2013.Zero to Maker: Learn (just enough) to make (just about) anything(first edition

    David Lang. 2013.Zero to Maker: Learn (just enough) to make (just about) anything(first edition. ed.). Maker Media, Sebastopol, California

    2013

  51. [61]

    Chuike Lee, Stephen Viller, and Dhaval Vyas. 2023. Refugee Entrepreneurial Trajectories.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–26

    2023

  52. [62]

    Silvia Lindtner. 2015. Hacking with Chinese characteristics: The promises of the maker movement against China’s manufacturing culture.Science, Technology, & Human Values40, 5 (2015), 854–879

    2015

  53. [63]

    Silvia Lindtner, Anna Greenspan, and David Li. 2015. Designed in Shenzhen: Shanzhai manufacturing and maker entrepreneurs. InProceedings of the fifth decennial Aarhus conference on critical alternatives. 85–96

    2015

  54. [64]

    Silvia Lindtner, Garnet D Hertz, and Paul Dourish. 2014. Emerging sites of HCI innovation: hackerspaces, hardware startups & incubators. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 439–448

    2014

  55. [65]

    Hod Lipson and Melba Kurman. 2010. Factory@ home: The emerging economy of personal fabrication.A report commissioned by the US Office of Science and Technology Policy(2010)

    2010

  56. [66]

    Designerly Framing

    Sara Ljungblad. 2023. Applying “Designerly Framing” to Understand Assisted Feeding as Social Aesthetic Bodily Experiences.ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction12, 2 (2023), 1–23

    2023

  57. [67]

    Susan Luckman. 2013. The Aura of the Analogue in a Digital Age: Women’s Crafts, Creative Markets and Home-Based Labour After Etsy.Cultural Studies Review19, 1 (Feb. 2013), 249–70–249–70. doi:10.5130/csr.v19i1.2585 Number: 1

    2013 doi

  58. [68]

    Christos Makridis and Jonathan Kuuskoski. 2023. Narrowing the Gap: Implications of Arts Business Training on Artist Labor Market Outcomes. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts12 (2023)

    2023

  59. [69]

    Gideon D Markman and Robert A Baron. 2003. Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human resource management review13, 2 (2003), 281–301

    2003

  60. [70]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  61. [71]

    Angela McRobbie. 2002. CLUBS TO COMPANIES: NOTES ON THE DECLINE OF POLITICAL CULTURE IN SPEEDED UP CREATIVE WORLDS. Cultural Studies16, 4 (July 2002), 516–531. doi:10.1080/09502380210139098

    2002 doi

  62. [72]

    S Meera and A Vinodan. 2022. Innovative approach and marketing skill: a case study of artisan entrepreneurs of India.Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies(2022)

    2022

  63. [73]

    Kamil Michlewski. 2008. Uncovering Design Attitude: Inside the Culture of Designers.Organization Studies29, 3 (March 2008), 373–392. doi:10.1177/0170840607088019

    2008 doi

  64. [74]

    Kerry Miller. 2007. Etsy: A site for artisans takes off.Business Week June12 (2007)

    2007

  65. [75]

    Mahin Naderifar, Hamideh Goli, and Fereshteh Ghaljaie. 2017. Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research.Strides in development of medical education14, 3 (2017)

    2017

  66. [76]

    Johanna Okerlund, David Wilson, and Celine Latulipe. 2021. A Feminist Utopian Perspective on the Practice and Promise of Making. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    2021

  67. [77]

    Kelly Olshan. 2017. After Art School: Professional Development Training in Nonprofit Organizations.The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society47, 4 (Aug. 2017), 230–244. doi:10.1080/10632921.2017.1340210

    2017

  68. [78]

    2020.Entrepreneurship by OpenStax(first edition ed.)

    OpenStax. 2020.Entrepreneurship by OpenStax(first edition ed.). XanEdu Publishing Inc, Houston, Texas. Manuscript submitted to ACM Understanding the Challenges of Maker Entrepreneurship 27

    2020

  69. [79]

    Keramat Poorsoltan. 2012. Artists as entrepreneurs.International Journal of Entrepreneurship16 (2012), 83. Publisher: The DreamCatchers Group, LLC

    2012

  70. [80]

    Ioana Crina Pop-Cohuţ. 2019. Online Platforms and the Simulation of Creative Entrepreneurship—The Role of Creativity and the Perception about Work and Self-Employment.LIMEN 2019(2019), 113

    2019

  71. [81]

    Tobias Pret and Aviel Cogan. 2019. Artisan entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and research agenda.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research25, 4 (2019), 592–614

    2019

  72. [82]

    Ashwin Rao. 2023. Transcribing Educational Videos Using Whisper: A preliminary study on using AI for transcribing educational videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03200(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  73. [83]

    Daniela K Rosner, Silvia Lindtner, Ingrid Erickson, Laura Forlano, Steven J Jackson, and Beth Kolko. 2014. Making cultures: building things & building communities. InProceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & so...

    2014

  74. [84]

    Jean-Michel Sahut, Luca Iandoli, and Frédéric Teulon. 2021. The age of digital entrepreneurship.Small Business Economics56 (2021), 1159–1169

    2021

  75. [85]

    Benjamin Shultz. 2015. The Work Behind the Scenes: The New Intermediaries of the Indie Crafts Business.Regional Studies49, 3 (March 2015). doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.770597

    2015

  76. [86]

    R Skaggs, A Frenette, S Gaskill, and AL Miller. 2017. Strategic National Arts Alumni Project-2017 Annual Report: Arts Alumni in their Communities. Annual Report(2017). http://snaap.indiana.edu/pdf/2017/SNAAP_Annual_Report_2017.pdf

    2017

  77. [87]

    Shelby J Solomon and Blake D Mathias. 2020. The artisans’ dilemma: Artisan entrepreneurship and the challenge of firm growth.Journal of Business Venturing35, 5 (2020), 106044

    2020

  78. [88]

    Robert Sullivan. 2000. Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research6, 3 (2000), 160–175

    2000

  79. [89]

    Mohammad Tipu Sultan and Farzana Sharmin. 2020. An exploratory investigation of facebook live marketing by women entrepreneurs in bangladesh. InSocial Computing and Social Media. Participation, User Experience, Consumer Experience, and Applications of Social Computing: 12th In...

    2020

  80. [90]

    Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.Organizational identity: A reader56 (1979), 65. Publisher: Oxford University Press Oxford, UK

    1979

  81. [91]

    T Tan and Matthew Ming. 2003. Leveraging on symbolic values and meanings in branding.Journal of brand Management10 (2003), 208–218

    2003

  82. [92]

    Crystallized

    Sarah J. Tracy and Angela Trethewey. 2006. Fracturing the Real-Self ↔Fake-Self Dichotomy: Moving Toward “Crystallized” Organizational Discourses and Identities.Communication Theory15, 2 (Jan. 2006), 168–195. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00331.x

    2006

  83. [93]

    Peter Troxler and Patricia Wolf. 2017. Digital maker-entrepreneurs in open design: What activities make up their business model?Business horizons 60, 6 (2017), 807–817

    2017

  84. [94]

    2016.Free innovation

    Eric Von Hippel. 2016.Free innovation. MIT press

    2016

  85. [95]

    Dhaval Vyas. 2020. Life Improvements: DIY in Low Socio-economic Status Communities. InCompanion Publication of the 2020 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Virtual Event, USA)(CSCW ’20 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    2020

  86. [96]

    Dhaval Vyas and John Vines. 2019. Making at the Margins: Making in an Under-resourced e-Waste Recycling Center.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 188 (nov 2019), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3359290

    2019 doi

  87. [97]

    1999.Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity

    Etienne Wenger. 1999.Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press

    1999

  88. [98]

    Daniela Werthes, René Mauer, and Malte Brettel. 2018. Cultural and creative entrepreneurs: understanding the role of entrepreneurial identity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research24, 1 (Jan. 2018), 290–314. doi:10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0215

    2018 doi

  89. [99]

    Lara Williams. 2021. Gen Z Are Hustling For Their Post-Covid Futures. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-26/side-hustles- help-gen-z-make-money-carve-out-a-post-covid-future

    2021

  90. [100]

    Laura Wolf-Powers, Marc Doussard, Greg Schrock, Charles Heying, Max Eisenburger, and Stephen Marotta. 2017. The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development.Journal of the American Planning Association83, 4 (2017), 365–376. doi:10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787 arXiv:https://doi....

    2017

  91. [101]

    Anbang Xu, Huaming Rao, Steven P Dow, and Brian P Bailey. 2015. A classroom study of using crowd feedback in the iterative design process. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1637–1648

    2015

  92. [102]

    Xinyi Zhang, Shiliang Tang, Yun Zhao, Gang Wang, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y. Zhao. 2017. Cold Hard E-Cash: Friends and Vendors in the Venmo Digital Payments System. InEleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ ICWSM17...

    2017

  93. [2022]

    InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    The Village: Infrastructuring Community-based Mentoring to Support Adults Experiencing Poverty. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.