Information Services Today

Chapter 18, “Creation Culture and Makerspaces,” highlights creative and engaging library spaces that are not only incorporating novel services and technologies but, perhaps more significantly, also developing communities of like-minded people who come to experiment, work, and collaborate within the library. Reviewing the brief history of makerspaces, Dr. Kristin Fontichiaro, coordinator of University of Michigan’s mobile makerspace project, dives into “maker programming,” which brings together technologies of the past with innovative cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence and the internet of things. She notes that makerspaces embody a culture that is community oriented and focused on supporting and teaching one another. She highlights the importance of developing and maintaining this culture to ensure makerspace success.

Fontichiaro discusses the skills and planning required to create makerspaces, such as a craft corner in the library. Information professionals need to be attuned to community needs and wants and to have the patience to create a sustainable space that supports creative and collaborative practice. Fontichiaro emphasizes the importance of always keeping an eye on what is coming next for makerspace activities. She offers guidance in planning for long-term success, including asking key questions for defining program goals and expectations. She also suggests documenting the plan and how to effectively disseminate it.

Fontichiaro shares successful makerspace experiences, demonstrating the possibilities available with open source and sharing or partnering. Her rich examples give information professionals excellent ideas on how to get started, what resources are available, and how to make makerspaces into a long-term option and not a quick fad.

Many generations grew up learning about Leonardo da Vinci, who could sketch, create scientifically correct diagrams, build inventions, paint frescoes, and more. For generations, da Vinci has been called a Renaissance man: someone who could blend art and science in potent and powerful ways. Today, he might be called a maker. Maker is an inclusive term for anyone who sews, solders, welds, creates, tinkers, prototypes, designs, cooks, codes, gardens, or otherwise transforms one set of materials into another (see also chapter 18: “What’s in Your Patrons’ Dream Makerspaces?” in the online supplement). One need only wander into the nonfiction section of a public library to see titles that reflect these traditional and new interests. From carving pumpkins to coding web pages, the creative possibilities have sat on library shelves for decades. What is different in today’s information environment? Instead of checking out books and working alone at home, patrons increasingly find a community of like-minded neighbors working in the library itself.

“Creation culture,” the democratization of digital tools and a community-based hunger for personal and creative connections in an era of unprecedented hurry and change, has given birth to new opportunities to reenergize and restimulate the creative impulses in patrons and citizens. Carving out temporary or permanent spaces, many information organizations continue experimenting with novel services to attract new patrons or a wider range of services for existing patrons. After completing this chapter, the reader should have an understanding of the big ideas behind the creation culture and how makerspaces can fulfill long-term strategic planning that supersedes fads or novel technology.

“All of us are makers,” says Maker Media founder and CEO Dale Dougherty.¹ To use one’s hands to create an object that is personally satisfying and helpful—is an inherently human instinct. At a time when an unprecedented number of people are doing sedentary screen-based work, there is a kind of latent hunger to use our hands to create and customize our world.

Beginning around 2011, many information organizations leveraged past authority as resource providers and extended into providing experiences in-house, shifting from “check out our DIY materials and leave” to “check in and linger.” Forming spaces that may be named makerspaces, digital labs, or production studios, along with activities for creators known as “makers,” many information organizations are experimenting with how to invite in new patrons while expanding services for existing patrons.

In the early years of the maker movement, many pointed to the dramatic price drops in digital fabrication tools like 3-D printers as a sign of new manufacturing and prototyping opportunities that could be deployed in libraries. A 3-D printer was the most common tool one saw in early library or information center makerspaces, like Fayetteville Free Library’s Fab Lab, the University of Michigan Library’s 3-D Lab, the makerspace at the University of Nevada–Reno, and the Westport (Connecticut) Public Library’s maker-in-residence program.

But high-tech tools were just the beginning. Soon, those expensive tools—whether a library owned them or was provoked to think about doing so—were brokering conversations between staff and patrons. The question shifted from “We know what patrons want” to “What other kinds of hands-on, open-ended learning do patrons want?” This expanded the range of creative avenues. For example, Chicago Public Library’s Maker Lab might teach 3-D modeling one day and flower arranging the next. Free Library of Philadelphia’s Maker Jawn initiative focused on creating with low-cost materials, investing instead in strong mentors to build a sense of community and supported exploration. School librarian Leslie Preddy’s Perry Meridian (Indiana) Middle School, like Maker Jawn, used low-cost materials in her school library, publishing the field’s first school library–focused guide.² The first tools to wear out at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Secret Lab were not their 3-D printers, but their overworked sewing machines. In her library at New Milford High School, Laura Fleming added resources for curriculum-connected projects like molecular gastronomy.³ The University of Michigan School of Information’s after-school program for youth, Michigan Makers, started with Arduinos⁴ and coding but later grew to include prototyping, sewing, circuits, and even a gift-wrapping tutorial.

Today, library “maker programming” is as likely to focus around STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) as it is to embrace technologies of the past, like letterpress printing, spinning wheels, knitting, and sewing. These forms of making differentiate library-based spaces from community makerspaces, wood shops, and welding studios.⁵

Makerspaces are not just stuff or places. In thriving makerspaces, there is a culture as well, one that prioritizes community, mutual support, and a noncompetitive atmosphere. Massimo Banzi, world renowned for his work codeveloping the Arduino microcontroller—a low-cost, open-source microcontroller or “brain” that acts as home base for sensors, lights, and other future inventions—says,

This collaborative spirit is key to makerspace culture. Just as the information organization’s resources help patrons bring together multiple perspectives, face-to-face making lets them merge their knowledge and experiences with others. This does not mean lockstep work in which everyone does the same thing at the same time; rather, as in the Renaissance guilds and studios, some may be novices and others, masters. The goal is for patrons to feel they are working at their “center of gravity”⁷—pursuing their interests and curiosities in a safe environment. A safe environment to explore new tools and methods, envision new creations, and persevere when early prototypes and attempts do not succeed is key in aligning the information organization with the goals of creation culture.

Melvil Dewey said, “The new library is active, an aggressive, educating force in the community.”⁸ School libraries have always fulfilled this role, as have academic libraries (see also chapter 6: “Literacy and Media Centers: School Libraries” and chapter 7: “Learning and Research Institutions: Academic Libraries”). Public libraries, too, build on long traditions as learning institutions via storytimes, book clubs, informational lectures, film showings, concerts, knitting circles, quilt guilds, digital literacy initiatives, and more (see also chapter 8: “Community Anchors for Lifelong Learning: Public Libraries”). Makerspaces do not replace these activities; they build on them and provide an overarching narrative that all making—from robots to running stitches—has value in satisfying the personal need to create and, perhaps, jump-starting new economic opportunities.

Whether developing a new makerspace or envisioning future growth for an existing maker program, it can be easy to look to influential blog posts or conference presentations and assume that assembling a new coterie of equipment will convert the information organization into a thriving, collaborative space. Experienced maker facilitators know that it takes planning, attunement to community needs and wants, and patience to create a sustainable space that supports creative, collaborative practice—even after the novelty of a new 3-D printer or tool has faded. This section will offer some guidance in planning for long-term success.

When information professionals purchase books, multimedia, or online resources, they rely on their collection development policy (see also chapter 24: “Managing Collections”) to guide their selections. When planning to buy maker tools, similar guidelines help to unify expectations and desired outcomes. Key questions to ask include:

• What is the purpose for having a makerspace in the organization? What are the desired outcomes? How will the organization know it has been successful?

• What other creative activities are going on in the community, and how does the information organization’s program complement existing projects?

• Is the mission to provide a series of entertaining hands-on activities, an educational sequence of skills development, an enhancement or enrichment of school curricula, or something else?

• Is the information organization the only creative outlet in town, or does it serve, as Mark Anderson⁹ says, as an “on-ramp,” a place to explore a variety of activities before moving on to formal education or a professional makerspace?

The answers to these questions help define the goals and expectations of the makerspace and need to be documented in a charter or other planning document.¹⁰ Not only is this a useful reference for sharing plans with supervisors and board members, but it also provides essential talking points for employees, marketing staff, and potential donors. Clarity up front can avoid a scenario in which some patrons expect CNC routers and laser cutters when your goal is, perhaps, STEM kits for youth.

A quick look through the Chicago Public Library Maker Lab’s Flickr stream,¹¹ for example, can catapult one’s dreams to a new zenith. Keep in mind, however, that this is one of the profession’s most established makerspaces. It is tempting to think big—but just as important to start small. For example, the Michigan Makers service-learning project partners graduate-student mentors with K–8 makers in underserved communities; graduate students work with the same student maker cohort all year long. Developing a supportive community is a top priority. One strategy is to offer just three to five options per week (makers need choices!) that are low-cost, relatively low-tech activities such as origami, cardboard challenge, toy take-apart sessions, Snap Circuits kits,¹² LittleBits,¹³ Squishy Circuits,¹⁴ friendship bracelets, refashioning or fashion hacking, or junk box creations. These activities cluster makers around tables, maximizing eye contact and potential conversation. Conversations with mentors often reveal future topics of interest that the participants would like to explore—providing direct insight into the selection of future directions.

Many information professionals are familiar with the concept of Creative Commons licensing (see also chapter 31: “Copyright and Creative Commons”), which allows writers, photographers, and multimedia creators to retain copyright, but signal in advance that their work may be reused, remixed, or adapted under particular circumstances. Early makers adopted similar practices under the open-source label. Blueprints, design plans, and computer code can all be labeled as open source, meaning that they can be used, reused, added to, and adapted without gaining permission or paying royalties.

For example, one of the maker movement’s most ubiquitous tools, the Arduino microcontroller mentioned earlier, is open source. Although they are available for purchase for about $35, one can construct an Arduino from scratch using freely available plans online or adapt the provided plan in new ways, as long as the new plans are released similarly. Not only is the hardware open source, but Arduino’s code is as well. If a maker wants to make a plant sensor that tweets when it needs water, existing construction plans and open-source programming code just might be available online, shared by another maker. By sharing code and construction plans, future tinkerers can accelerate their growth because they build on the existing work of others—legally. As Arduino’s coinventor Banzi writes,

While there are now many commercial maker and STEM products that eschew the open-source option, the commitment to shared knowledge should remain resonant in information spaces, where shared information has always been a core value.

There is an aphorism that says, “The rising tide lifts all boats.” Makers feel the same, realizing that it is by helping fellow makers and maker-interested organizations grow that the entire ecosystem for making improves. As information professionals consider beginning or expanding the maker work in their organizations, seeking out maker partners can produce valuable results. For example, who in the community designs video games, comics, or yarn-bombing campaigns and would be willing to mentor others? These makers may be interested in partnering to expand outreach, promotion, learning, and community engagement.

Community makerspaces provide potential colleagues for maker efforts in information organizations, not competition. Partnering to seek funding and swap expertise and resources is a smart move forward. Often, information organizations have space and makers have skills; by trading, both institutions grow. Similarly, information organizations have access to grants that for-profit makerspaces do not. There are opportunities and advantages in seeing community makerspaces as colleagues, not as competition. Being connected to community colleagues helps maximize our potential instead of duplicating offerings.

Traditional programming in information organizations has relied on scheduling one activity at a time: Minecraft on Monday and weaving on Wednesday. Part of the excitement and innovation that makerspaces can create comes from putting people of diverse backgrounds and skill sets together at the same time and in the same place. Even though the maker movement is now about five years old in libraries and information centers, this aspect remains an area for growth. Community makerspaces are never simply single-activity workshops; thriving makerspaces encompass different people working on different things simultaneously. Partnering two or more activities at once can create new cross-disciplinary creations. For example, kids who like to sew stuffed animals plus programmers who love to control sensors with an Arduino discover that, by merging their skills, they could end up with a cuddly object that automatically illuminates when it gets dark or a stuffed animal that senses the temperature of a sick child. It is the twenty-first-century version of those 1980s Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup commercials where a peanut butter lover’s jar bumped into a chocolate fan’s bar, yielding a tasty new creation: “Two great tastes that taste great together!” One strategy for making this work might be to host events where a wide variety of equipment and mentors are available for experimentation, or people can bring and work on their own projects in a communal setting. Whether these events are called “open lab,” “studio time,” or even a cheekily titled “maker happy hour,” these events can help patrons enjoy personal creative time surrounded by others. They can turn solo making into a community event.

At the 2013 FabLearn conference at Stanford University, Leah Buechley shared some startling statistics regarding the cover photos for Make magazine, the leading popular magazine for makers. By her analysis of the forty people who had been featured on covers by that time, 85 percent were male and none was a person of color. Her review of Make’s editorial staff showed a similar homogeneity: 87 percent men, none of whom were of color. Buechley also found that the content of the photos showed a narrow range of maker activities. She found that just over half featured electronics: vehicles 31 percent, robots 22 percent, rockets 8 percent, and music 5 percent.¹⁶ Sadly, little has changed in the years since her presentation. Making is still considered overwhelmingly white and middle class. In fact, Make’s 2016 media kit¹⁷ describes its Maker Faire attendees as 61 percent male, having an average household income of $119,000 and a median age of thirty-seven.

Certainly, some makers will be interested and intrigued by those topics. However, an information organization has a responsibility to serve all. The first tenet of the American Library Association Code of Ethics states, “We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access”¹⁸ (see also chapter 5: “Diversity, Equity of Access, and Social Justice” and chapter 30: “Information Ethics”).

Therefore, consider broadening the range of activities in order to welcome a broader swath of the population. Seeing something familiar reassures people that it is safe to enter the room to try something new. Once they are in the room, they may migrate to something new that would have been off-putting from the outside. A philosophy of having “something for everyone”¹⁹ promotes inclusion. Often, a tool predicted to interest one gender may interest both. For example, in Michigan Makers, sewing machines are more popular among boys than girls!

Embrace the concept of “windows and mirrors” when planning formal maker programming. Formal programming is a great introduction to making, but so is “open lab” time in which people put their new skills into practice on their own timeline and in their own way. And it is during open lab time that people become exposed to new materials or tools and broaden their sense of possibilities. Mirrors are makerspace activities that reflect existing or known patron/community interests. These draw in people with existing interests. For example, the community may have an existing group of drop spindle aficionados, woodcarvers, or weavers; early programming that welcomes and recognizes those activities brings early engagement. Window activities, on the other hand, introduce less familiar, less established, or newly launched activities. An example of a window in most communities is 3-D modeling, the process of designing objects that can be represented in multiple dimensions by a 3D printer. So are activities that add unfamiliar elements to familiar objects, such as pasting circuits into paper books or digitizing images for use on electronic embroidery machines.

Another way to welcome all makers is to balance short- and long-term projects for skills acquisition. Especially in under-resourced communities, some patrons may feel intimidated by novel or high-tech tools or uncertain about their ability to achieve success. Activities that can be completed in a single visit can help minimize frustration, work around unpredictable schedules, and eliminate the challenge of returning multiple times to create a product. Some short-term tasks—like learning to fold an origami cup or decorating unfinished pottery—can be accomplished in a single sitting. These can boost confidence and demonstrate to novices that they are capable of success in new arenas.

As success and interests grow, makers may become more willing to take on new challenges that take longer to accomplish, such as learning to code in Python, building a robot, or tackling alterations. Additionally, some people are more comfortable in formal learning settings than others. Some like to putter independently while watching others out of the corner of their eye, so having some activities that require no instruction at all, or for which videos or instructional sheets are provided, is an effective strategy for makerspaces.

Another way to promote inclusivity is by embracing peer mentorship and leadership. Rather than avoiding certain maker activities because staff are not experts, look to the community of makers and tap them for expertise. Teens with parental permission can teach Minecraft, for example. In a makerspace, experience determines expertise, not age. And the more sharing of expertise that is developed among the participants, the more sustainable the makerspace will be. Peer mentorship is key in developing a community of learners in the information organization.

Along with the collective enthusiasm for making among makers, celebrating the patron’s achievements along the way promotes the organization’s services and provides openings for newcomers to join in. Design challenges, in which participants are asked to solve a problem or put unusual materials to work, offer a short-term involvement for familiar faces and new ones. Consider a cardboard challenge, in which discarded boxes from the recycling center or appliance store provide raw materials for who can build the tallest or widest building, animal, or robot. For kids, Rachelle Doorley of Tinkerlab has an archive of challenges²⁰ for one-off events, such as creating something new from cupcake liners. Hackathon challenges focus on using computer programming to solve a problem, and there are emerging trends in developing challenges around low-cost prosthetics design and other world-changing maker practices.

Information organizations need to establish a formal sharing time both during workshops and in showcase events. Each community is different in this regard, and the desire to share publicly can vary, so choose a sharing pathway that feels right to patrons—and is designed with their input. Some groups enjoy taking the last few minutes of a workshop to see how everyone else interpreted a new task. Completed projects can be placed out on a table or participants can sit in a circle to admire what has been made, depending on the size of the creation. Other recommendations include:

• keeping a physical photo album, bulletin board, or video monitor slideshow of inspiring works in progress or completed objects;

• taking advantage of social sharing platforms like the organization’s Facebook page, Flickr site, blog, or Instagram feed; and

• setting up a semiannual maker event, such as a MAKE Media–licensed Maker Faire²¹ or a customized MakerFest event (an event title for which no licensing agreement is required).

These efforts can garner attention from the wider community of makers and those who admire their efforts.

TEXTBOX 18.1

Think into the Future

Information professionals should consider these questions moving forward as they consider the next phase of their maker programs:

• Who remains underserved in the maker programs your organization offers?

• What is the potential for entrepreneurship around making in the community so there is an economic impact in addition to personal satisfaction?

• What keeps the maker work centered on a broad group of creators in the community?

• How can information professionals be more intentional about showing how their programs change patrons?

Information organizations have a long tradition of supporting their community’s intellectual and personal interests through rich collections available for checkout and interactive activities online and in the physical space. This chapter explored creation culture and the maker movement in information organizations as pathways to expand on those traditional activities. It considered the questions and issues that boost makerspace success (see also chapter 18: “Makerspace Virtual Tour” in the online supplement). By unifying the how-to collections of the information organization with the let’s-do energy of the community, information organizations can create maker learning communities and opportunities that delight, motivate, and inspire communities.

NOTES

1. Dale Dougherty, “We Are Makers,” January 2011, TED Talks video, 11:47 min., http://www.ted.com/talks/dale_dougherty_we_are_makers.

2. Leslie Preddy, School Library Makerspaces, Grades 6–12 (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2013).

3. Laura Fleming, “Worlds of Making @ NMHS,” Worlds of Making, 2013, http://worlds-of-learning.com/2013/11/26/worlds-of-making-nmhs-3/.

4. Arduino, “Tutorials,” 2017, https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/HomePage.

5. Dale Dougherty, Free to Make: How the Maker Movement Is Changing Our Schools, Our Jobs, and Our Minds (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2016).

6. Massimo Banzi, “Making Is Best When It’s Done Together,” Make, 2014, http://makezine.com/magazine/making-is-best-when-its-done-together/.

7. John Dewey, “The School and the Life of the Child,” School and Society: Being Three Lectures (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1900), https://books.google.com/books?id=5c5wDDTNHAIC.

8. Melvil Dewey, “Why a Library Does or Does Not Succeed,” in Library Notes: Improved Methods and Labor-Savers for Librarians, Readers and Writers (Boston, MA: Library Bureau, 1887), 47.

9. Mark Anderson, personal communication, September 23, 2013.

10. Kristin Fontichiaro, “A Charter for Your School Makerspace?” Active Learning, 2014, http://www.fontichiaro.com/activelearning/2014/09/04/a-charter-for-your-school-makerspace/.

11. Flickr, “Chicago Public Library Makerspace,” accessed, August 7, 2017, https://www.flickr.com/photos/cpl_makerspace/sets/.

12. Snapcircuits, “Home,” 2014, http://www.snapcircuits.net.

13. LittleBits Electronics, “Home,” 2014, http://littlebits.cc.

14. Squishy Circuits, “Squishy Circuits Project Page,” July 26, 2014, http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/apthomas/SquishyCircuits/.

15. Banzi, “Making Is Best When It’s Done Together.”

16. Christina Quattrochi, “MAKE’ing More Diverse Makers,” EdSurge, 2013, https://www.edsurge.com/n/2013-10-29-make-ing-more-diverse-makers.

17. Maker Media, “2016 Make: Media Kit,” http://makermedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2016-Make-Media-Kit-Final.pdf.

18. American Library Association, “Code of Ethics of the American Library Association,” 2008, http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics.

19. Kristin Fontichiaro, “Reflections on North Quad MakerFest,” Active Learning blog, December 18, 2013, http://www.fontichiaro.com/activelearning/2013/12/18/reflections-on-north-quad-makerfest/.

20. Tinkerlab, “Challenges,” 2014, http://tinkerlab.com/challenges/.

21. Maker Faire, “How to Make a Maker Faire,” 2014, http://makerfaire.com/mini.

18 Creation Culture and Makerspaces

NOTES