Measure Twice, Cut Once: A Baseline Survey of Library Makerspaces

Measure Twice, Cut Once: A Baseline Survey of Library Makerspaces

Robert Wilson

Assistant Professor, Systems Librarian

Middle Tennessee State University

robert.wilson@mtsu.edu

James Mitchell

Systems Librarian

University of North Alabama

jmitchell20@una.edu

Abstract

In the fall of 2019, the researchers conducted a survey of libraries in an attempt to establish a baseline

for measuring the trends and future developments of library makerspaces. This survey attempted to measure

demographics, staffing and hours, funding, technology offerings, and assessment for these relatively new li-

brary spaces. While observations were shared on the current data, future iterations of the survey will permit

stakeholders to identify the shift and trends in the library makerspace environment.

Keywords: makerspaces, libraries, assessment, collaborative technologies

Measure Twice, Cut Once: A Baseline Survey of Library Makerspaces

For the library community, both for those who work in them and those who use them, there is an intui-

tive sense that library makerspaces—dedicated spaces within the physical library space or maintained by li-

brary personnel where library community members come together to participate in in the creation of physical

and digital artifacts—have grown, developed, and established themselves as an integral part of library services

over the past decade. However, while there have been several within the profession who have undertaken ef-

forts to collect and interpret data on makerspaces in public, academic, and other libraries, there has been no

sustained effort to routinely collect, analyze, and disseminate basic data on these spaces in libraries.

The results set forth in this article are a first attempt to establish a baseline for tracking the growth, de-

velopment, and maintenance of library makerspaces and to address this lacuna in gauging the state of mak-

erspaces from the present into the future. While other aspects of makerspaces could have been covered in this

survey, this study largely focuses on the number of makerspaces within libraries, the types of libraries with

makerspaces, operating hours, staffing, tools, and other aspects of makerspace management. More advanced

questions (e.g., assessing learning outcomes and methods of instruction) have not been considered as a part of

this study. The goal has been to document the existence and practices of library makerspaces to identify their

current operations and the means librarians use to maintain these operations.

Literature Review

This study is not the first general survey of library makerspaces. Perhaps the first significant

attempt to offer an overview of the state of library makerspaces was conducted through a survey in 2013 by

John Burke. Burke shared the results of this survey in a subsequent book, M akerspaces: A practical guide for

librarians, published in 2014 (Burke, 2014) and in the proceedings of the 2015 Association of College and Re-

search Libraries (ACRL) conference (Burke, 2015). With 143 respondents from eight different countries, 109

of whom either represented libraries currently providing a makerspace or planning to establish one in the near

future, the survey measured aspects ranging from funding sources to tool offerings. In this survey, a majority

of respondents represented public libraries (51%), and almost half of the respondents (46%) had established

their makerspaces within a year of responding to the survey. Makerspace offerings primarily consisted, accord-

ing to respondents, of computer workstations with editing software, 3D printers, scanners, and crafting sup-

plies. Burke’s survey demonstrated the relative novelty of makerspaces within libraries as well as the signifi-

cance of technologies such as 3D printing, robotics, and digital media to these creative spaces.

Burke’s book was subsequently revised by Ellyssa Kroski and published as a second edition in 2018. In

conjunction with this second edition, Kroski conducted an almost-identical survey in 2017 (2018). Represent-

ing six different countries, 273 respondents contributed to Kroski’s revised survey. Kroski’s survey demon-

strated that public libraries continue to represent the majority of libraries with makerspaces, even though repre-

sentation of school libraries increased 13% between the two surveys. The percentage of academic libraries de-

creased by just under 5%—from 38% to just over 33%—even though the number of survey participants repre-

senting academic libraries almost doubled. Just as Burke’s original survey demonstrated, Kroski’s survey re-

vealed that makerspaces were still relatively new to many libraries. While the percentage of new—less than

two years old—makerspaces had dropped almost 5%, over 18% of participants in Kroski’s survey stated that

they had not yet opened their makerspaces. Taken together, these two categories of respondents made up over

70% of respondents. Additionally, there were significant continuities between Kroski’s 2017 survey and

Burke’s previous survey. For example, Kroski’s survey, like Burke’s, showed that 3D printing, computer

workstations with editing software, and crafting supplies remain some of the most popular resource offerings

spaces. Finally, library staff continue to be the primary instructors and leaders within these spaces. Taken to-

gether, these two surveys represent the most comprehensive attempt to measure and share data on the state of

library makerspaces to date.

Objective and Methods

During the months of September and October 2019, data from this study were collected through an

online survey using Qualtrics. Anyone with the URL to the online survey could participate. Requests for par-

ticipation were distributed through the general Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) mail-

ing list, the code4lib mailing list, and through an email distributed to institutions associated with the Network

of Alabama Academic Libraries (NAAL).

The authors created the survey to gather basic information on the libraries that had currently estab-

lished makerspaces (e.g., library type, size, etc.) as well as information on the organization and maintenance of

library makerspaces internationally. The survey consisted of 28 total questions, 17 of which were multiple

choice. The remaining 11 questions required brief responses. The survey followed this composition to keep the

survey brief for participants and to encourage participants to complete the survey. (See Appendix for survey

question details.)

The data collected from respondents in Qualtrics were exported to a comma-separated value file and

normalized using Microsoft Excel and OpenRefine (https://openrefine.org/). All graphs, maps, and visualiza-

tions were created in Tableau Public (https://public.tableau.com/en-us/s/).

The authors identified several opportunities for improving future survey questions for a higher quality

and quantity of answers. For example, many questions were not required, so the percentages and visualizations

may not reflect the full population of those that completed the survey. Additionally, because many fields were

open text response fields, normalizing the case and converting responses to the standard spelling, standard cat-

egory, or abbreviation was necessary. For the assessment questions of the survey, the responses were put into

general categories. Responses for assessment sometimes described the system or technology for collection ra-

1 In consultation with the chair of the Institutional Review Board where the online survey was developed and shared, the survey was determined to be exempt from the IRB approval process, since all survey questions were related to institutional practice and not to personal attitude or preference.

category. This was done at the authors’ discretion and may be interpreted differently by others. The authors

encourage the reader to view the raw survey data if more in-depth detail is desired.

Results

Demographics

Overall, there were 138 respondents who answered at least some portion of the survey and a

total of 81 respondents who completed the survey. Incomplete responses were not considered as a part of the

results. The majority of respondents who completed the survey (75) were from the United States, but other

countries included Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Turkey. Within the United States, respond-

ents from 32 states completed the survey.

When completing the survey, respondents identified themselves as representing these types of libraries:

76.5% academic, 19.6% public, 3.7% other. Of the 81 respondents completing the survey, 61 responded to

having a makerspace, while 20 responded that they did not. Of those representatives who responded that their

institution did not have a makerspace, 70% of the institutions were academic libraries, 20% were public, and

10% other. Of those representatives who responded in the affirmative when asked if their institution had a

makerspace, 79% of the represented institutions were academic, 20% were public, and 1% were other. With

the overall low response (3 total) by non-public or academic libraries, other responses were deemed too statis-

tically insignificant to include in the remainder of results.

Among the representatives of public libraries with makerspaces who responded, 41.67% indicated their

libraries had a large-sized collection, 41.67% a medium-sized collection, and 16.67% a small collection (see

Figure 1).

For academic libraries, the survey authors used the full-time equivalent value (FTE) to determine li-

brary size rather than collection size. Of the respondents who represented academic libraries with makerspac-

es, 41.46% had an FTE of 5,000 or fewer, 24.39% an FTE of 5,001 to 15,000, 17.07% an FTE of 15,001 to

25,000, and 14.63% an FTE of 25,001 or more (see Figure 2).

2 The results of this data, after anonymization, have been posted as a CSV to a public GitHub repository. Researchers and any other interested parties are welcome to examine and analyze the data. For more information, please see the public repository site at https:// github.com/rtwilson/makerspacesurvey.

Response by Public Library Size

Figure 2

Response by Academic FTE

Respondents identified their affiliated institutions as 75.61% public college/university and 24.39% pri-

vate institutions (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

Response by Academic Library Type

(22.92%), baccalaureate/associate’s (18.75%), or associate’s (2.08%) colleges or universities (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Academic Library Respondents by Carnegie Classification

Of the 60 respondents representing libraries who identified what year their makerspace was estab-

lished, 2014 and 2015 were the most popular years with 12 respondents selecting each year. Only 13 public

libraries responded with 2014, 2015, and 2016 being the most active establishment years. However, not

enough public libraries responded to identify any statistical trends. Of the 47 academic libraries who respond-

ed, the responses indicate initial growth starting in 2013 with 3, peaking in 2015 with 10, and the overall aver-

age from 2013 to 2019 of 6.5 makerspaces being established per year.

Number of Library Makerspaces by Year Established

Staffing and Operations

Weekly hours of operation for academic libraries with makerspaces are 48.94% for 50 or more hours,

12.77% for 41-50 hours, 17.02% for 31-40 hours, and 20% for 30 or fewer hours (see Figure 6).

Number of Academic Libraries by Hours Open

Hours open categorized by FTE show that the majority of academic libraries serving 25,001 and more

and 5,000 or fewer were open 50 or more hours weekly, while the medium to medium-large schools were

more distributed across brackets.

Public library hours were much more evenly distributed across the range of options with 27% open 10

or fewer hours a week, 21-30 hours a week, or 50 or more hours a week. Similarly, hours open broken down

by size of the library were spread evenly across brackets (see Figure 7).

Figure 7

Number of Public Libraries By Hours Open

and 5,000 or fewer were open 50 or more hours weekly, while the medium to medium-large schools were

more distributed across brackets.

Public library hours were much more evenly distributed across the range of options with 27% open 10

or fewer hours a week, 21-30 hours a week, or 50 or more hours a week. Similarly, hours open broken down

by size of the library were spread evenly across brackets (see Figure 7).

Figure 7

Number of Public Libraries By Hours Open

Several (23%) of the academic libraries surveyed indicated access to space is restricted to certain pa-

trons. Of those that have restrictions in place, 70% indicated only students, faculty, and staff have access. One

response indicated approved alumni are able to access, and one response indicated space is only accessible to

students.

Several (25%) of the public libraries indicated access to space is restricted to certain patrons. Of those

that indicated they restrict, one indicated space was only open to adults, one only available to teens, and one

indicated different areas are open to different ages of patrons.

Participants were asked if they offered instruction on the use of equipment in makerspaces. Ninety-five

percent of academics that responded indicated their library does offer instruction, while 92% of public libraries

ed campus liaison, 27.66% said they do not, and 6.38% said they did not know. Of those that responded to

having a liaison, 74.19% identified their staffing classification as full-time librarian/faculty, 16.13% as staff,

6.45% as administrator, and 3.23% as part-time librarian/faculty (see Figure 8).

Figure 8

Liaison Status

When queried regarding staffing, academic libraries reported that 62% had full-time dedicated staff,

55% had student workers, 27% had part-time dedicated staff, 10% had student volunteers, 8% had graduate

assistants, 8% had community volunteers, 6% had no one, and 12% noted other as the kind of staffing structure

used in their makerspaces (see Figure 9).

Figure 9

Staffing in Academic Libraries

The survey also found 75% of academic libraries (state and private academics) and 70% of public li-

braries do not charge fees. Participants were asked several questions about funding sources. When academic

library participants were asked about funding sources, 27.5% reported they were funded in full or partially by a

university technology fee, while 21.95% were funded in full or partially by a library fee (see Figures 10 and 11

respectively).

Figure 10

Academic Library Makerspace Funded by Technology Fee

Figure 11

Academic Library Makerspace Funded by Library Fee

Outside of the overall library budget and charging users directly for cost of use, other sources of fund-

ing identified came from grants, awards, and student government funding. Another respondent described a sys-

tem in which proposals are submitted for use of funds and students vote on each proposal.

Respondents were asked about technology available in the space. In descending percentages, 81% of

all libraries responded that they had audio/video software, 78% had audio/video equipment, 64% had 3D print-

ers, 58% had virtual reality (VR) technologies, 57% microcontrollers, 57% art/crafting supplies including

LEGO, 52% Raspberry Pi, 49% electronic hardware, 48% green screen, 42% vinyl cutter, 36% other, 29% la-

ser cutter, and 19% augmented reality (AR) technologies (see Figure 12).

Figure 12

Technology Breakdown in Makerspaces

Popular responses for ‘other’ included sewing machines, computer numerical control (CNC) routers,

embroidery machines, and hand and power tools (see Figure 13).

Normalized Responses to 'Other’ Category in Technology Offered in Makerspace

Assessment

Historically, there is a general lack of information on how makerspaces are being assessed, both in

their use and their impact on the communities they serve. The survey requested open-ended responses to docu-

ment the full scope of a library’s makerspace assessment activities.

Of those that responded, the highest percentage general category was head count at 25% followed by

room access count at 24% which included methods like sign-in logs, reservation statistics, and card-swipe

count. Surveys including feedback and comment cards represented 15% of the total results. Item usage count

represented the fourth and final general category at 12%. Other categories that had multiple responses were

class count, training count, and stories/case studies (see Figure 14).

Assessment Method Categorized and Normalized

Discussion

Demographics

One of the first striking observations from this survey is the proportion of participants from academic

library settings. Similar surveys conducted previously (See Literature Review section above) show a larger

percentage of participation from public libraries. The researchers expected a greater proportion of participants

to be from public libraries, since they had represented the majority of participants in previous surveys and pub-

lic libraries have historically been some of the first to establish makerspaces. It is unlikely that the results indi-

cate an inversion in the popularity and establishment of these spaces between academic and public libraries. It

is possible that the representation is unbalanced because the communication methods used to request participa-

tion were so limited. In future iterations of this survey, data collection will benefit from efforts to disseminate

the survey by sharing the requests for participation through a greater number of communication channels as

The researchers also found one observation worthy of note in the category of staffing and operations.

Of the almost two-thirds of respondents representing academic library makerspaces with a dedicated liaison,

75% of those liaisons were identified as full-time librarians and/or faculty rather than a full-time library ad-

ministrator or staff. This suggests many academic libraries are treating their makerspaces along much the same

lines as traditional programming and services. This could also suggest similar approaches to collection devel-

opment and outreach as between various technology-centric spaces. Having a librarian and/or faculty member

as the dedicated liaison to the makerspace could also have a positive impact on the type of research being con-

ducted on these spaces in academic libraries.

Technology

Technology is often thought of as the distinguishing feature of a makerspace when compared to other

library services. 3D printers, particular among the various tools and equipment often held in a makerspace, are

an iconic feature of makerspaces. The results of this survey, however, demonstrate that 3D printing, while it is

a popular service in makerspaces, isn’t the only or even the most popular technology in makerspaces. Video

and audio editing equipment and software, for example, are found more consistently within library makerspac-

es. Additionally, the survey demonstrates the variety of tools library makerspaces offer their communities.

While some makerspaces will have similar offerings, other library makerspaces may offer tools one may not

commonly think of when considering a makerspace. There is no particular set of tools one must have in order

to properly equip a makerspace. The researchers are interested to see what tools arise, diminish, or remain con-

sistent in future iterations of this survey.

Assessment

Makerspace managers are gathering data in a multitude of ways to determine makerspace usage. The

assessment methods identified in this survey diverge at points from approaches libraries have traditionally uti-

lized. Sign-in logs and training counts, for example, may be new metrics for some librarians who are more fa-

miliar with gate count and circulation statistics for demonstrating usage. The varied responses documented in

this survey may be a result of varying factors that include staffing, space restrictions, how well integrated

Conclusion

This survey is the first step in an attempt to regularly collect information on library makerspaces. While

the growth of makerspaces internationally within and without libraries has been widely discussed within the

library profession and even in popular culture over the past decade, there has been no sustained effort to con-

tinuously collect basic data on these spaces in order to identify trends and developments. It is difficult to track

trends in library makerspaces without a routine for measuring the basic structure and activities of these crea-

tive spaces. For example, as the presence of makerspaces continues to develop and grow in libraries, do the

methods for assessing the usage of makerspace services develop and become more sophisticated? Will vendors

or open source communities develop library technologies to manage these spaces? What do changes in the

tools used and associated with makerspaces mean for these spaces? How do libraries sustain these spaces as

they become more established? Without a basic tool to gauge these changes, people who follow the trends and

developments in library makerspaces must depend on intuition. To the researchers’ knowledge, no prior stud-

ies have attempted to gather information on the subject of makerspace assessment. As this survey indicates,

there are no standards in place yet, and this area is in need of more research. However, as makerspaces mature,

practitioners within the library profession can expect an increase in the standardization of assessment methods

as funding becomes dependent on demonstrating the value these spaces provide to their community.

References

Burke, J. J. (2014). Makerspaces: A practical guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield.

Burke, J. J. (2015, March 25-28). M aking sense: Can m akerspaces w ork in academ ic libraries? [Paper presen-

tation]. Association of College and Research Libraries, Portland, OR, United States.

Burke, J. & Kroski, E. (2018). M ak erspaces: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

Makerspaces in Libraries Survey

Hello. We are James Mitchell (University of North Alabama) and Robert Wilson (Middle Tennessee State University).

We'd like to invite you to participate in this survey of library makerspaces. The goal of this survey is to establish a baseline of the current state of library makerspaces and to answer the "what" questions often associated with these creative spaces. We plan to periodically offer this survey (or an iteration of it) to observe the changing landscape of library makerspaces as it relates to their presence, sustainability, personnel, services, and technologies.

For the purpose of this survey, the phrase "library makerspace" is used to denote a dedicated space within the physical library space or maintained by library personnel where the university community comes together to participate in hands-on learning experiences.

Additionally, this survey's authors plan to make this data freely available in a stable repository for all interested parties to use as they see fit in the future.

The survey should take between 5-10 minutes to complete and should only be completed by one respondent per represented institution.

If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact James Mitchell at jmitchell20@una.edu or Robert Wilson at robert.wilson@mtsu.edu.

Please complete this survey by September 14, 2019.

By clicking to the next page, you acknowledge that you are voluntarily participating in this survey, are over the age of 19, and are aware that you may withdraw participation form this survey at any time by closing out of the survey.

No personal data will be intentionally collected or requested as a part of this survey. Any personal data unintentionally collected by free-text open questions will be stripped from data before being made publicly available.

In what country is your library located?

In what province/state/territory is your library located? (if applicable)?

Does your library currently have a makerspace?

Yes

No

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Public

Academic

Public

Please select the option that best describes your library:

Very Small (Collection Size < 30,000)

Small (Collection Size > 30,000 and < 100,000)

Medium (Collection Size > 100,001 and < 500,000)

Large (Collection Size > 500,001)

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

When did your library first establish its makerspace? (If only year is known, put year.)

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Do you offer instruction for the usage of equipment for the makerspace?

Yes

No

I don't know

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Do you charge fees to use the makerspace? Y es

Yes

No

I don't know

Can you briefly describe your fee structure?

Approximately how many hours per week is the makerspace open?

0-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

50+

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Yes

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Public

Is your makerspace restricted to a specific patron type? (children, teens, etc.)

Yes

No

I don't know

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Public

Is your makerspace restricted to a specific patron type? (children, teens, etc.) Y es

Please list patron types who have access to the makerspace.

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Is the institution you represent designated as private or public?

Public

Private

Please select the option that best describes your academic institution:

Doctoral University

Master's College or University

Baccalaureate/Associate's College

Associate's College

Please select the option that best describes your academic institution: Special Focus Institution

Please indicate which type of special focus institution you represent:

Two-Year

Four-Year

Tribal College

Other ________________________________________________

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Please provide an estimate of your institution's full-time equivalent (FTE).

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Do you have an assigned campus liaison for the makerspace? Y es

Yes

No

I don't know

Do you have an assigned campus liaison for the makerspace? Y es

Full-time Librarian/Faculty

Part-time Librarian/Faculty

Administrator

Staff

Committee

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

your library currently have a makerspace? = Yes

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Is your makerspace restricted to certain group of patrons? (e.g., students only)

Yes

No

I don't know

Is your makerspace restricted to certain group of patrons? (e.g. students only) Y es

Please specify what group(s) may use the makerspace: ____________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace?

Yes

No

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Yes

No

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Is your makerspace funded, either partially or in full, by a library fee? __________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Yes

No

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? = Academic

Is your makerspace funded, either partially or in full, by a university technology fee?

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Yes

No

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? = Academic

Is your makerspace funded by any other fees? If so, please describe the fee below.

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Yes

No

Display This Question:

Does your library currently have a makerspace? = Yes

What services/technology do you provide in your makerspace? (Check all that apply) 3D Printer

Vinyl Cutter

Laser Cutter

Green Screen

Audio/Video Software

Audio/Video Equipment

Microcontrollers

Raspberry Pi

VR Technology

AR Technology

Art/Crafting Supplies (Construction Paper, Paint, LEGO, etc.)

Electronics Hardware (Capacitors, Resistors, Soldering Equipment, etc.)

Other ________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Please list any open source software/hardware you use in your makerspace:

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

What kind of staffing structure does your makerspace have? (check all that apply)

Full-time dedicated staff

Part-time dedicated staff

Student workers

Graduate assistants

Student volunteers

Community volunteers

None

Other ________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

What methods are used to assess the usage of the makerspace? ____________________________________

11