January 1st, 2016
This Knowledge Base article was written collaboratively with contributions from Rachel Bonnette and Christina Restrepo Nazar. This article was migrated from a previous version of the Knowledge Base. The date stamp does not reflect the original publication date.
Overview
What does equity in making mean and for whom it is equitable?
The maker movement has garnered serious attention from education researchers and policy makers in the United States, and with it, questions of equity in and through making (Buchholz, Shively, Peppler & Wohlwend, 2014; Calabrese Barton, Tan & Greenberg, 2016; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hetland, Winner, Veenema, & Sheridan, 2013). In a broader sense, issues of access, opportunity, and inclusion have been discussed and debated, such as: who has access to makerspaces, what constitutes “making,” who counts as a “maker,” and most importantly, “who legitimately belongs in [a] makerspace” (Calabrese Barton et al. 2016). It is not sufficient to think about access when striving for equity in and through making. We also need to focus our attention on issues of learning in makerspaces, and how the outcomes of participation in makerspaces support identity development and resource movement through spaces and across time (Calabrese Barton et al., 2016). “Bringing the maker movement into the education conversation has the potential to transform how we understand ‘what counts’ as learning, as a learner, and as a learning environment. An expanded sense of what counts may legitimate a broader range of identities, practices, and environments—a bold step toward equity in education” (Halvorsen & Sheridan, 2014). Aside from what counts as learning, ultimately, we, as the makerspace research and learning community, need to also ask ourselves: what is the goal of focusing our attention on providing more equitable opportunities for engaging in making, and who and what ultimately benefits from making in equitably focused makerspaces and in what ways?
Findings from Research and Evaluation
Equity in making and equity through making are not synonymous. On the one hand, equity in making may simply mean that all people, no matter what socioeconomic circumstances they are in, have similar access and opportunities to enter makerspaces to “make. ” This is assuming the space is free and available to them and that they are provided the resources in makerspaces, such as 3D printers, laser cutters, easy-to-use design software, and desktop machine tools necessary for making. On the other hand, equity in making can also mean that diverse cultural traditions and definitions of making are given equal weight in the conversation, by not essentializing or exoticizing people’s ways of knowing, doing and being in the making/makerspace. This can be by either individual or collective, and be reflective of their respective communities (family/home/school) or the communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) they have created out of participation in the makerspace. Additional definitions of equity in making may also include engaging in making for communities and with community problems in mind, such as creating design solutions for the well-being in communities which is the work done by Calabrese Barton et al. (2016) in their equity oriented makerspace.
Ultimately, attention to equitable makerspaces may even mean having similar coverage in research and exposure as White, dominated tinkering spaces (as in what happens in these spaces and for what ends). In terms of access in participation in makerspaces, especially for minoritized students, research always seem to go towards the goal of makerspaces as a means to an end in supporting STEM learning, and career pathways into STEM education. In all senses,, equity in making suggests policy changes and resource allocations to improve access as equity, but not necessarily outcome as equity. “Making the shift” from access to outcome requires asking different questions.
A discussion of both equity in making and equity through making, or access and outcome-based equity, are needed to direct our efforts to improve equity and making. When beginning to discuss equity in the practice of making, we often describe it as involvement and access; it makes sense that, in the inception of understanding making and its benefits, the focus is on improving inclusion and engagement for minoritized communities and those who are left out of the conversation. Oftentimes, these conversations revolve around increasing STEM participation through making and emphasizes the products developed within these makerspaces. The more we understand about how to increase participation and engagement, however, the more appropriate it becomes to shift the conversation towards understanding equity in the outcomes for participants, in both the sense of what making is doing for individual participants and the larger community, and what it could be doing for them (see Dowd 2007).
Our understanding and consideration of the outcomes of making should not be confined to makerspaces. Making can impact individuals and communities, and influence change in how making is defined and viewed across cultures. Where participants develop maker identities, for example, a youth without traditional access to a STEM career may find themselves on the pathway to an engineering job (Calabrese Barton et al., 2016). Focusing on outcomes beyond the boundaries of the makerspace in addition to access and inclusion shifts the way we address equity in making.
Outcome based equity relies on the notion that we can strive towards equity outside of makerspaces through making. This requires us to know more about and understand knowing more the about the outcomes of making as a result of participating in the makerspace., It and requires us to ask questions like: what are the participants learning and for what purposes; by whose goals for making do we measure success (is it about participation, creation of a product or prototypical outcome); how do we know if we’re doing “enough” for the participants (what constitutes a supportive environment and what is supporting students in the makerspace enough?); when should we focus on outcomes like STEM career pathways, and when should we not (are makerspaces the new currency for participation in STEM)? If we are not sure of all the outcomes and benefits of making, especially for minoritized communities and those with limited socioeconomic resources, then why are we focused on providing greater access to what extent should we encourage greater access to makerspaces in schools and communities that traditionally do not have access to these spaces in the first place?
Directions for Future Research
Future directions:
-
As researchers, we need a consensus for defining “making” itself and if we want to improve equity in making, we need to also understand the outcomes we hope diverse communities can also have from their participation in makerspaces
-
We need to ask: how is opening doors to equitable makerspaces supporting the individual and their learning beyond the makerspace? (not just the process of making, or democratizing tools for making, and/or making for a purpose, but also that the skills learned in the making process are supportive of other goals, interests, and opportunities)
-
Understand more about the outcomes beyond what is created and solved within the confines of themakerspace for both individual and community and ultimately what impacts these outcomes
-
Being careful of not focusing the attention of makerspaces, especially equity oriented ones as a tool to increase participation, access and pathways to STEM. Makerspaces should not always equal pathways into STEM.
-
Supporting the use of and work in makerspaces as a big T tool for doing community work and what is used in the makerspaces to create these solutions as little t tools. Makerspaces as a whole should be a tool for something greater than what happens in the space itself.
-
Who has the expertise in makerspaces, what counts as expertise, and where do we draw the line?
-
The authors would also like to make a point about interpreting what outcomes may or not be equitable. For example, being careful with how makerspaces may be a tool for creating in a neo-liberalistic society, a society founded on a political economic practice that is based on individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within institutions that supports strong private property rights, free markets and free trade and the state is to create and provide a framework for these practices, and the defense of integrity of its money. We don’t want making practices to become appropriated, nor do we want youth from nondominant communities assimilated into the social, cultural and human capital produced in makerspaces that are for profit, to the exclusion of their needs, goals, and own cultural practices. For example, some makerspaces may only support entrepreneurs in their work of using tools to create things for profit or commercial value. Youth makerspaces should exist as a tool for youth to meet their own needs and goals and those of their communities, rather than serving to further the agendas of others, whether through the learning process of developing a product or the connecting to their own community through the experience.
Other InformalScience.org articles that should be written in relation to this article:
-
Outcomes of Making
-
Access Equity; Equity in Making
-
Outcome Equity; Equity through Making
References
Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: Gendered access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278-297.
Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., Greenberg, D. (2016). Equity oriented makerspaces. Teachers College Record.
Dowd, A. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the access” saga” toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-419.
Halverson, E. & Sheridan, K.M. (2014). The maker movement in Education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio Thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
Related Articles
