SPEC Kit 348: Rapid Fabrication /Makerspace Services · 13
less common motivator (cited by approximately a third
of respondents), almost all libraries expect substantial
service use from undergraduates, with four-fifths and
half of libraries expecting substantial use from gradu-
ate students and faculty respectively (Q2, Q3, Q26).
The responding libraries are funding makerspaces
using existing resources. Almost four-fifths fund their
makerspaces from their general budget, and 85% use
only existing staff to support these services. Fewer
than a third of libraries currently charge any kind of
fee for the service (Q14, Q30, Q33, Q35).
Offering makerspace services typically requires
allocating staff time, purchasing hardware and soft-
ware, and preparing space. Staffing was most com-
monly (modally) named as the largest single expense,
although substantial clusters of respondents named
equipment or materials (respectively) as the largest
expense (Q32, Q36).
The median library makerspace service involves
three staff members, contributing portions of their
time (Q32). Staff are drawn from across the library.
Those roles contributing at least 20% FTE to library
makerspaces and services include: lab assistant, stu-
dent technician, lab manager, design architect, digital
fabrication specialist, digital media mentor, developer,
graduate research assistant, multimedia specialist,
arts librarian, science librarian, and even head of cir-
culation (Q33). (The significant staff requirements
may explain why most libraries offer limited hours
for makerspace services—see Q29.)
Planning also requires a significant investment
of staff time. Of those libraries that fielded a service,
most reported spending several months or more de-
veloping the service, while some libraries reported
spending up to a year (Q4, Q6).
Although most respondents did not identify the
construction, renovation, or preparation of space as a
dominant expense, there were large variations in the
reported space required. While the average amount of
space used is approximately 310 square feet, the upper
range reported was 9000 square feet (Q11).
Evaluation
Libraries’ formal evaluations of their engagement
with makerspaces were quite positive. Forty percent
of the libraries (15 of 38) have conducted some formal
assessment, most by collecting usage data, observing
of users, and user satisfaction surveys (Q40, Q41). As a
result of these assessments, approximately half of the
libraries identified the need for altered or expanded
services, and none identified the need to eliminate or
reduce services (Q43).
Frequently reported challenges clustered around
the dual themes of resources and maintenance.
Funding and staff time are a recurring challenge,
especially because the hardware requires training,
adjustment, and maintenance (Q50, Q52). These
challenges are manageable—no horror stories were
reported, and many respondents encouraged ex-
perimentation, patron outreach, and keeping an en-
trepreneurial perspective. This was articulated well
in a number of respondent comments, which note that
hardware is not a “turnkey” solution and requires a
“DIY [do-it-yourself] ethos” (Q54).
Overall, respondent comments about the role of
the makerspace in their libraries are overwhelming-
ly positive (Q53). They said that makerspaces are “a
catalyst for innovation,” “a component of scholarly
communication,” “hubs for participatory and collab-
orative learning,” the “next steps for active learning
and presentation of scholarship,”and that they “fos-
ter creativity.” One respondent crisply articulated a
general theme touched on in many of the comments:
“A central department-free place on campus for
this technology is key, since the applications are so
broad… Having a library service solves this problem
and opens up the technology to the entire commu-
nity.” There was, however, a note of caution sounded,
as well—a number of respondents emphasized that
the core competitive advantage of the library is not
in providing hardware or simple physical space but
in creating an environment that combines service,
space, and expertise to foster individual and collab-
orative “investigation, interrogation, and learn[ing]
through doing.”
A Rapidly Changing and Challenging Area
As the survey results reveal, many research libraries
are engaging with making and makerspaces. This area
remains both exciting and challenging. These tech-
nologies are rapidly evolving, which presents a chal-
lenge to the libraries that need to buy and maintain
Previous Page Next Page