Studying the Formation of an Older Adult-Led Makerspace

Abstract

Makerspaces are being introduced in a wide variety of settings, including community settings such as schools and libraries. Older adults are one group for whom making agendas are being pursued, with envisioned outcomes such as supporting agency and well-being. However, research on making and DIY with older adults typically study individuals who are already engaged in making practices or bring individuals in to a technology environment that has already been created. In this paper, we study the older adult-driven formation of a makerspace in an independent living community. Through an ethnographically-informed approach, we studied the ways that individuals considered appropriate allocation of resources towards a makerspace, scoped activities, evaluated goals, and made trade-ofs. Our analysis is centered around describing the way that this makerspace formed as well as three ways that individuals made sense of the makerspace as the planning unfolded: the openness of a space that promises to cater to interests of the population; the promise of a makerspace to involve more residents in technology, but the need to obscure the technology to make it appealing; and a valuation of the return on investment for limited fnancial and space resources. Our discussion contributes to supporting and studying early adoption of technology by older adults, complicates visions of "making for all, " and presents considerations regarding the often under-specifed community of a makerspace.

Designing community-level integral interventions for active ageing: a systematic review from the lens of community-based participatory research

“…The third design consideration is to enable connections among stakeholders of the community. Many studies have explored different ways to connect key stakeholders of the community in their interventions (38,39,42,43) reported that even though OA were invited to co-design a makerspace, many OA reported that they did not want a makerspace in the rst place; they missed communication with managers regarding their needs (44).…”

“…We de ne community social resources as the value derived from member relationships, shared knowledge, exchanged skills, and members' potential ability to obtain resources, favours, or information from their personal connections. For example, Lazar et al (2021) observed that during the formation of the makerspace, community members with technological expertise were selected for the committee, and beyond the committee, some members supported this initiative through donations and sharing their expertise (44). Gooch et al (2021) encouraged OA to organise walks by themselves and recruit new members via their connections (42).…”

“…As illustrated by the studies above, three levels of co-design emerged in our review. When the level of co-design did not match the shared goals, resistance and scepticism from under-involved groups might occur (44).…”

“…This indicates that more scaffolding is needed at the beginning of the co-design sessions. Regarding the preferences of learning, some OA think that learning something new is exciting already, while others only learn if they could bene t loved ones or others (44).…”

“…To counteract ageist policies, OA organised themselves in a community to pressure the local government for nancial support to form new senior centres for technology learning. To understand local politics, some researchers have also investigated how decision-makers are perceived by community members (43,44).…”