Proposal for a Research into a Maker Space

For this project, we will be examining the Chicago Public Library's Maker Lab and how action research can benefit this project going forward. The Maker Lab is a free maker space on the third floor of the Harold Washington Library Center in downtown Chicago. It is open to the public. The Maker Lab runs a myriad of workshops for children, teens, and adults and has approximately fifteen hours of open shop for personal projects each week. As you can imagine, COVID-19 has had a substantial impact on how the Maker Lab, as well as most other library services, functions, so for the purpose of this study, we are going to be creating a research question outside of the bounds of the pandemic that could be implemented after it has subsided and library services become fully available once again. 

The Chicago Public Library's Maker Lab was established in 2013 and is an ongoing project. It was designed to "serve as a testing ground for new ideas with high impact potential that may then be replicated - in part, in whole, or in spirit - in the systems's 80 branches." (p. 3, Chicago Public Library, 2015) The idea behind having a maker lab was to encourage creative, hands-on activities among the city's residents. Maker spaces are a form of education that promotes a particular kind of learning that can't be found in books and fosters a sense of teamwork and community. It also diversifies the kinds of patrons who enter the library. The goal behind this particular program was to see if maker spaces in general or other kinds of collaborative, hands-on learning experiences are something that the Chicago Public Library could implement in its branch libraries across the city. Specifically, the program was built around four essential learning outcomes, which are to "build digital, information, and cultural literacy, advance critical thinking and problem solving, advance creativity and innovation, and [to] foster communication and collaboration." (p. 10, Chicago Public Library, 2015)

The intended audience for the Maker Lab is those new to being a maker. Though the Maker Lab has open labs and other things that cater more towards users with experience in the maker movement, it was designed to introduce new people to the idea of being a maker. Seventy percent of participants reported that their primary reason to come to the Maker Lab was "out of curiosity or to try something new." (p. 12, Chicago Public Library, 2015) The space is open to everyone over the age of fourteen and offers various workshops and experiences that likely cater to different ages. The Lab is situated in Harold Washington Library Center, the most extensive library in the Chicago Public Library system. It is also centrally located, which may increase awareness of and participation in the program and help bring in new patrons who otherwise wouldn't have gone into the library. Aside from the users of the space, there are various stakeholders in the Maker Lab program. Stakeholders include, for example, everyone associated with the Chicago Library system who would benefit from the program's popularity. It also impacts teachers and businesses, as their students and workers can learn new skills and try new things. The Chicago Public Library Foundation primarily funds the program. This non-profit supports the Chicago Public Library, primarily by fostering relationships with large-scale donors and corporate sponsors. (Chicago Public Library Foundation, 2021)

The four learning outcomes of the library's Maker Lab revolve around digital literacy, critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. The program's goal is to engage the Chicago public with these ideas and promote them in the user's everyday lives. The program is designed to help patrons think more creatively and show them a positive, collaborative experience that revolves around STEM education. The Lab acts as an accessible entry point for the Chicago community into the maker world. The library states that "With a robust and diverse maker ecosystem in Chicago, the Lab has created a natural and complementary role as the introductory and entry point for makers; patrons have a low-barrier way to try new tools and techniques and are referred to other maker spaces for further, more in-depth exploration." (p. 21, Chicago Public Library, 2015)

Since this program has been in operation since 2013 and is hosted by one of the country's largest library systems, there is already a robust body of research into the program's efficacy. Much of it centers on demographic information and opinions of the program itself and how the program impacts users' views of the library. There is a fair amount of evidence showing who is using the program and that they overall think it is a beneficial experience. From the broader perspective of the library system, there seems to be convincing evidence that the program is broadly a success. Therefore, I think the most exciting and fruitful course of study related to the program is not on its implications but on its success in reaching its defined learning goals. Most of the prior studies conducted by the library conclude that the program is a success. Still, they fail to delineate WHY the program is successful and what aspects can be fine-tuned for even better results or a greater level of participation. I think the most beneficial course of research would be to go back to those core learning goals of digital literacy, critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration and find out how individual programs work to reach these goals. From there, the library and the Maker Lab will be able to fine-tune the experience as well as have more information going forward, not just on which workshops have the highest attendance and which machines are most used, but on which workshops are achieving those higher program goals of digital literacy, critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. It will also be an interesting experiment to compare how popular programs are with how good they are at achieving the ascribed program goals. Do they tend to go hand-in-hand, or are they opposed to one another? Since its inception, the Maker Lab has been working with this set of learning outcomes without any outward evidence that they have been reworked or reconsidered. This study would be an excellent time to revisit those learning goals with a more critical eye and examine if they are still what best serves the community's needs.

To examine our research problem, we will do a brief literature review of how some other libraries have grappled with similar issues. We will look at how these recent studies have created usable information about the efficacy of their maker spaces in the context of their own libraries to extract some ideas about methodology. We will also attempt to identify appropriate research methods that other libraries have used and rework them to fit best the needs of the Chicago Public Library Maker Lab. For the literature review, we will be covering three articles, each dealing with a public library's maker space and how users interact with it.

Teasdale attempted to define "seven evaluative criterial that represented participant's and library definition of success for one public library makerspace." (p. 1, 2020) I begin this discussion with Teasdale's article because one of the core findings of their research was:

 "In an evaluation, drawing criteria exclusively from library objectives and/or applying criteria uniformly could underestimate the benefits of the makerspace. Drawing criteria from both library and participant perspectives and using individualized criteria that cary across the population could yield an assessment that reflects the breadth of purposes and benefits associated with the makerspace." (p. 1, 2020)

I believe that it is vital throughout this study to recognize the importance of various participants in the evaluation. Maker spaces can have various benefits for various people, and by attempting to qualify the success of the space through the lens of a librarian, many populations and their needs will likely be omitted. When analyzing the efficacy of the Maker Lab's four core learning outcomes, it is necessary to attempt to evaluate a wide variety of users and experiences. It is crucial to recenter the user's experience outside of the space to accomplish this goal better. Teasdale centered the individual experience away from the library by trying to "examine definitions of success for one makerspace in the context of makers' lives." (p. 1, 2020) One of the aspects of the study was individual interviews. These seemed to be particularly beneficial. After using the maker spaces, the researcher scheduled time for brief discussions about what they had done in the space. First, she asked a variety of questions about what they had made and what they are planning on doing with the object afterward. Then, she gave them a stack of almost thirty cards. On each card was a possible reason that a maker would want to participate in a maker space. Some examples of the cards include "being creative," "figuring out how things work," "reducing waste," "keeping up a tradition," "making money," and "socializing." (p. 5, Teasdale, 2020) Alongside these cards were also blank cards that the interviewees could use to write out their own answers. I think this was a constructive way of identifying why users are motivated to use a maker space. First of all, the interview happened after they interacted with the space, so the answers represent the lived experience instead of their preconceptions. More importantly, it allowed the users to define what the experience meant to them without knowing the prescribed goals and outcomes. Conducting interviews in the fashion would be a significant first step to analyzing the learning goals of the Chicago Public Library's Maker Labs because it would give the makers direct input based on their own experiences. The library may make adjustments to their learning outcomes or how workshops and other events are constructed to better represent the needs and wants of the community.

In another case study, Lakind, Willett, and Halverson analyzed the impact of the democratic nature of maker spaces on users. They were interested in how public access changes the nature of something typically reserved for a particular subset of the population- generally wealthy individuals with a background in STEM or related fields. They were particularly concerned about the economic aspects of the maker movement and whether this also applied to maker space in a public library. For their study, they observed maker programs over the course of three years and had frequent interviews with both staff and participants. One of the exciting aspects of their methodology was the frequency and repetition. Instead of conducting one-off exit interviews, like Teasdale, they connected with the same interviewees on multiple occasions. As users became more ingrained in the maker movement and experienced other spaces outside of the library, they returned with answers related to how the library compares to the maker movement as a whole. One aspect of the public library's program that was frequently cited was the "free access to resources, including access to people who share their expertise, cultural knowledge, and so on, and access to materials (e.g., books, art supplies, software, recording equipment)." (p. 5, Lakind et al., 2019) This level of in-depth knowledge and insight was possible because the interviews happened over an extended period. This idea of continued conversation could benefit research conducted at the Chicago Public Library's Maker Lab. Participants' answers evolve as their experience in the program progresses. As their perspective changes, they gain new insights and realizations that can benefit the long-term study of a program's efficacy. This method is beneficial since the Maker Lab is trying to encourage users to return. Gaining insight into what seasoned patrons experience might help the library to cater their workshops and resources, as well as redesign their learning outcomes, in such a way as to promote returning visitors. 

Finally, Skåland, Arnseth, and Pierroux examine the maker space experience by following a school trip to the public library where they participated in a maker space. To do this, they collected data on the participants' interactions throughout their time in the space. The purpose of this study was to see how the students interacted with the space and what they learned, both through the workshop material and in their interactions with one another. The researchers sought to understand what the students would learn outside of the prescribed coursework. They claim that "Within the context of public library policy, this inventor course may be seen as a tool for empowerment, that is, that children should be given opportunities to practice skills and tools they need to participate in society." (para. 2, Skåland et al., 2020) The researchers conducted a thorough ethnographic study of the students and recorded their experience in the maker space to understand their experience further. Through Teasdale, we recognized the importance of allowing users to speak for themselves. In Lakind et al., we recognized the need for long-term study following the same group of users as their experience evolves. Skåland et al. demonstrates how seeing it from the user's perspective can be a crucial step. Exit interviews will be an essential part of the proposed study for the Chicago Public Library's Maker Lab, but it is also important to view the experience as it happens, especially to glean information on how the participants interact with one another and what soft skills they are developing while in the space. This method is especially crucial when working with children and school groups due to certain limitations with interviewing them. Understanding patrons' experience on the individual level within the context of the space itself will help the library better define the user's experience and, therefore, construct better learning outcomes. 

Using these research methodologies, the Chicago Public Library's Maker Lab can start to understand how users want to utilize the space. Therefore, our research question is: What goals and learning outcomes best represent how the community currently interacts with the maker space? There will be two primary measurements. First, we will find out what participants want to get out of the space. Second, we will determine their motivations for coming in the first place. The first will be more literal, such as they wanted to design a new keychain, while the second will better represent their intentions, such as making friends or being creative. By focusing on this question, the Maker Lab can hone in on the community's wants and needs and cater their programming to the people that use it. 

Research methodologies will include long-term studies with frequent users to determine how their wants and needs evolve, participatory research to find out how children and school groups interact with the space and each other, and individualized interviews after a maker uses the Lab to determine what their motivations and needs are and whether or not they were met. This study will likely take over a year as the researcher checks back in with recurring participants. To ensure that the data doesn't become too complicated, I recommend adhering to a finite, defined list of terms and goals to use when in interviews. This way, it will be apparent to participants and researchers alike what category their answers belong to. Also, due to the breadth of this study, as well as the mission of the library and the maker space itself, extensive demographic information should be recorded so that the library can ensure that it is actively working with and catering to all of the groups within its community. 

In conclusion, the Chicago Public Library's Maker Lab was designed to be a testing site for maker spaces in the library system before the ideas were used in the branch libraries. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the core of the project is as clear and compelling as possible. Through a robust study of how individuals and communities interact with the space and their thorough input on how they would like to use the space, the library can ensure that the practices it disseminates to the branch libraries are designed to serve the users best. 

Bibliography

Chicago Public Library. (2021). Maker Lab. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from https://www.chipublib.org/maker-lab/

Chicago Public Library. (2015, March 31). Maker Lab: Making to learn. https://www.chipublib.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/04/cpl-maker-lab-making-to-learn.pdf

Chicago Public Library Foundation. (2021). About us. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from https://cplfoundation.org/about-us/

Lakind, A., Willett, R., & Halverson, E. R. (2019). Democratizing the Maker Movement: A Case Study of One Public Library System’s Makerspace Program. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 58(4), 235–. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.4.7150

Skåland, G., Arnseth, H. C., & Pierroux, P. (2020). Doing inventing in the library. analyzing the narrative framing of making in a public library context. Education Sciences, 10(6), 158. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.3390/educsci10060158

Teasdale, R. M. (2020). Defining success for a public library makerspace: Implications of participant-defined, individualized evaluative criteria. Library & Information Science Research, 42(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101053