Research Assistant
Fall 2021 - Summer 2025
As a Research Assistant for Dr. Maggie Melo, I investigated:
"Why do underrepresented students turn away at the threshold of makerspaces?"
This NSF funded study seeks to explore how the spatial design of makerspaces influences the experience of historically underrepresented students. I have conducted think-aloud observations and interviews, qualitatively analyzed 34 of these studies, presented findings at 6 conferences and co-authored 2 papers. Furthermore, I facilitated 4 “Equity in the Making”-related workshops with 55+ communities in Durham and prospective underrepresented college students.
Threshold of the typical makerspace in VR (left) and redesigned makerspace in VR (right).
Background
The inspiration for the Maker Movement that established makerspaces in libraries and universities across the country was due to envisioning inclusive paths to innovation and learning. However, historically marginalized populations are underrepresented in these spaces. Thus, the Equity in the Making (EiTM) lab designed a four-part study to identify exclusive factors, and design and evaluate inclusive changes to makerspaces.
Dr. Melo testing the VR makerspace using Vive Focus3 in the Equity in the Making Lab.
Part 1: The ‘Typical’ Makerspace
EiTM collaborated with Horizon Productions to implement design findings of a ‘typical’ makerspaces prior to my joining the lab. The result of this collaboration was a VR makerspace that participants could explore using either a VR headset or their laptop.
Screenshots of the typical makerspace. Use the QR code to interact with the space on your device.
study design
This phase of the research was composed of sixteen 45-minute studies. Each study included a think-aloud observation, short survey, and semi-structured interview.
Think-Aloud Observation. Participants were asked to explore the virtual makerspace while sharing their impressions out loud. Dr. Melo and I took turns leading the studies. The lead researcher in the study prompted participants to think-aloud and asked clarifying questions at moments of hesitation.
Post-Observation Survey. After the think-aloud observation, participants took a survey that gathered quantitative data on their experience that later served as a baseline of how the participants would describe the typical makerspace.
Prior to starting this research, I was curious about how the familiarity participants had with VR might impact the participant’s experience in the study. Although VR headsets are growing in popularity in the gaming community, it is most likely that individuals have not used VR before. Drawing from the technology acceptance model, I was given permission to add questions to the survey to see how the experience of exploring the VR makerspace on headset as compared to laptop (which is more familiar to college students) would impact our findings. I presented my findings on this topic at the University of British Columbia Inclusive Makerspace Conference in 2023.
Post-Observation Interview. While the participant was taking the survey, the researchers used their observations to decide the direction of the semi-structured interview. The interview protocol included about 10 questions, but with the limited time the lead researcher would emphasize 3 questions depending on the participant’s feedback during the observation.
data analysis
The study was mixed-methods, requiring both qualitative and quantitative data analysis. I had a stronger role in analyzing the qualitative data. To do so, Dr. Melo and I used MaxQDA, a qualitative coding software, to individually code the first 3 transcripts, line-by-line, from both the observation and the interview. During this process we tracked our thoughts and initial finding in research memos. After coming up with a list of themes, we discussed what themes to continue to code going forward. We individually coded each transcript with the defined themes, and came together to discuss if our analysis matched and pointed out key findings. During these discussions, we would also consider what other themes should be included.
To visualize the saturation of themes across transcripts, I created a table that tracked the number of transcripts a theme was mentioned in. This helped us see what themes were most prevalent, and how much more prevalent they were in comparison to other themes.
findings
Graph tracking the saturation of findings across participants.
The top three findings from this study were:
An opening space isn’t necessarily a welcoming space. Upon entering the space, many participants noticed how ‘open’ the space felt. Although my original thought was that an ‘open’ space would feel more comfortable because there is more room to spread out and explore, the openness in this case felt cold and made the participant feel like they would be watched, and potentially judged and made to feel like a trespasser.
Impact of people. There were no people in the space, but there were items that showed people used the space, such as backpacks, water bottles, and partially completed projects. There was also a staff wall with pictures of staff members that demographically represented makerspace users. Participants mentioned the staff members and saying that the pictures of them only added to the feeling they didn’t belong. Additionally, the participants shared that the space communicated who they would imagine using it - namely, cis-white men or engineering students that didn’t align with the identities of the participants.
Familiar feels welcoming. The most comfortable part of the space seemed to be around the sewing machines and the 3D printers. Participants mentioned seeing Tik Tok videos of 3D printers, and recalled seeing their grandmothers using sewing machines when they were growing up. The only time a participant mentioned being comfortable around the power tools section of the makerspace was that it reminded them of going to Home Depot with their dad. However, the more unfamiliar areas such as the soldering area and the laser cutter felt dangerous to some participants because of the potential of bodily harm and unfamiliarity with how the tools worked.
Other findings informed the design of the second makerspace, and was used to share what participants wanted to see included in the redesigned makerspace. The table below shows what design features participants mentioned. Each of these assets were included in the redesigned makerspace.
Table tracking saturation of design assets that they would like to see in an inclusive makerspace.
These design changes were shared during conference presentations with others interesting in redesigning a more inclusive makerspace both in libraries and universities. To support these attendees, I created 5 Open Educational Resources (OERs) that shared research methods and questions that other makerspaces researchers could use with the virtual makerspace EiTM had created.
Part 2: The ‘Redesigned’ Makerspace
I was part of the conversations with Horizon Productions to help design the next makerspace. I assisted in critiquing the redesigned makerspace and ensuring that the new design components aligned with Part 1 findings.
Screenshots of the redesigned makerspace. Use the QR code to interact with the space on your device.
study design
The study design of Part 2 was similar to Part 1 in terms of structure. We had a talk-aloud observation, survey, and semi structured interview to debrief the observation. However, the participants looked at both the typical makerspace and the redesigned makerspace during the observation. Half of the participants started with the typical makerspace then moved on to the redesigned makerspace, and the other half started with the redesigned makerspace. This way, we were able to compare first time makerspace users’ impressions in both spaces and see how their experiences compared with limited order bias.
data analysis
The process of qualitatively analyzing the data was similar, except for an increased emphasis on the redesigned makerspace to evaluate the design changes. To compare the makerspaces, we asked questions related to learning new things and belonging. The visual below shows that overall, the redesigned makerspace was a space that participants felt were more inclusive to new and underrepresented users.
Chart tracking number of participants comparing the typical makerspace to the redesigned makerspace.
findings
Qualitative findings evaluated and confirmed the new design decisions in the redesigned makerspace. Overall, 95% of participants preferred the redesigned makerspace. Top findings we generated from this study were:
Small details, big impact. Specific components that participants used to express their feelings about the makerspace were often about small details, such as having a Grogu statue or seeing stickers that non-verbally grant permission to use items. Three categories of small details were culturally inclusive items such as a pride sticker, familiar items such as a Pokemon ball, and signage that welcomed people in.
Courage to do the unfamiliar. Being in a space that felt more inclusive helped participants feel more comfortable doing something new. It is hard for students to be open to making mistakes, especially if the space feels exclusive or like they are in the spotlight. However, inclusively designed makerspaces with the design components we added contributed to participants having more courage to make mistakes and try new things.
The findings from Part 2 directly influence the evaluative stage of Part 3, which is were we will identify the impact our findings have on the design of makerspaces on-campus. Part 3 is ongoing, with a pilot of our methodology complete.
Part 3: Implementing Findings
Part 3 will include photovoice, where participants will use an instant camera to take pictures of components of the makerspace that communicate inclusion or exclusion. Participants will organize their pictures as a story to share and discuss with us.
To pilot the use of photovoice in the storytelling of makerspaces, EiTM piloted the method in a workshop titled “Crafting Impactful Spaces.”
pilot photovoice workshop
EiTM participated in new staff training at a BeAM (Be A Maker) makerspace at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Our goal was to interactively share findings from our work and to encourage staff members to consider how to make students feel comfortable in the makerspace.
Images from the photovoice workshop conducted at BeAM in Murray Hall and UNC-CH. Students taking pictures (top left). Example of a photovoice story communicating exclusion (bottom left). Students looking at other's stories during the gallery walk (right).
In this workshop, new student staff members created stories of inclusion in small groups. After creating stories of inclusion, they created stories of exclusion. After the photovoice activity, they had a gallery walk of each other’s stories. The workshop concluded with a whole group discussion facilitated by Dr. Melo, who connected the discussions back to the study findings. My role was to support students during photovoice and observe their processes. It was interesting to see how photovoice in groups generated conversations between individuals, and how they bounced ideas off of each other and shared their own thoughts and experiences. Redesigning this process for the study will look different, because study participants will not be working together and our goal is for generative conversations to happen between the participant and the researchers around the story they created. Using this workshop to pilot the process of creating photovoice stories in makerspaces showed us that the objectives of photovoice was clear for participants and that they were able to create thoughtful stories of inclusion using the provided tools.
study design
The design of this phase of research is ongoing and will be informed by inclusive design components of makerspaces, as well as the pilot workshop. This study will be conducted in Fall 2024.
final reflection
As a Research Assistant, I have learned how to design mixed-method studies that build off of each other. This experience has been unique in that there are three major parts of the overarching study that I am contributing to. I have led several studies, analyzed many transcripts, and presented findings to different audiences. Being able to connect the research we are doing to concrete actions that others are interested in has been one of the best parts of this research. Additionally, I have found that I can be creative in each stage of the study in terms of study design, how I analyze and visualize findings, and what deliverables I can produce. Each stage requires its own level of UX consideration – in how participants will be using the research tools, and what the best ways of presenting findings are considering our desired impact. I look forward to implementing the next phase of this study and seeing what kind of an impact it makes both on campus and in makerspace research at large.