The discourse around makerspaces is often one of great potential - anyone can make anything.
Included in this vision of making for all are older adults. Researchers are
creating making technologies customized for older adults,
and one study created a makerspace for older adults in a longer term care facility.
In this project we ask how do older adults themselves make sense of these movements?
How would they drive the making initiatives that involve them?
Our study took place at Nestern, A continuing care community in the US with almost
two hundred residents in independent living. The business center, which housed computers
and a printer transformed into the makerspace over the course of the project.
Ora, a resident, was the initiator and driver of this project
Ora formed the makerspace planning committee and invited residents to serve on it. This
included individuals with technical as well as art and crafts expertise.
Tara, a staff member, played a central role on the committee.
The committee met monthly and was involved in decision-making around all of the key
aspects of the makerspace, from what equipment to purchase to the name.
We interacted with 17 residents and one staff member over the course of this study
Of these participants, seven were members of the makerspace committee
We were invited to observe early in the process: a room had been identified and the committee had
been formed, but major decisions, such as which machines to buy or what to call
the makerspace, had not yet been made. Our involvement over approximately eight
months included observing committee meetings, interviewing residents,
and conducting one focus group. Our analysis presents ways that
residents made sense of and formed opinions about the makerspace during its formation.
The first theme from our analysis concerns the openness of a makerspace. Makerspace
discourse is broad- anyone can make anything! And committee members tried to maintain this
openness as they interacted with residents to shape the direction of the makerspace so that
it could be tailored around community interests But, there was a distinct sense of uncertainty
among many residents that may have resulted from this intention to keep it broad.
When asked what kinds of activities they would want to do in a makerspace, one resident said I
can't think of a thing. When we asked another about what classes they might want to take
they said "That's why I'm not that keen on it, because I don't know enough to imagine something".
Residents we spoke to envisioned benefits for themselves from the makerspace,
but were really interested in its potential in combatting what they percieved anti-technology
sentiment that they saw at Nestern, such as how residents rolled their eyes if
someone pulled out a cellphone at dinner. But, many believed that technology needed to
be hidden, or non-technical activities needed to be included, to overcome this resistance.
Ora said that they were featuring a manual buttonmaker when they tried to raise interest
in the makerspace because it doesn't require a computer, because when residents saw the Cricket,
a programmable cutting machine, what they said is, Oh, you have to use the computer.
Despite the enthusiasm and efforts of Ora, Tara, and the committee, skeptical reactions arose
across Nestern, including on the committee itself. A major component of this reaction could be
attributed to how residents lived in a space where they did not have control
over much resource allocation, even as they saw their rents rising each year.
The perception of technology as expensive contributed to this resistance,
as individuals evaluated the cost of makerspace against other costs such as a new roof or bus
This work has practice-oriented implications for designing technologies for older adults.
For example, researchers can recognize that there
are different entry points or "on ramps" to a makerspace.
In our study these included button makers, sewing machines, and basic technology courses.
Our analysis also gives us some useful insights to help probe the concept of community.
We found when residents conceptualized the community, this included the imagined,
disinterested others - technophobic and uninterested older adults, in their perception.
At times, personally appealing ideas were seen as an inappropriate resource use due to predicted
disinterest from imagined others (and vice versa). This is key to unravel when interpreting data.
Some of these findings complicate a utopian vision of the makerspace movement.
Such as foregrounding the need to consider resource allocation in a community