capstoneportfoliomlsdsb.weebly.comcapstoneportfoliomlsdsb.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/5/0/26509128/s… ·...

Running Head: LEVELS OF FEMALE PARTICIPATION 1

LEVELS OF FEMALE PARTICIPATION IN LIBRARY MAKERSPACE ACTIVITIES

BY

DEBORAH S. BLUESTEIN

A Special Project Proposal Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Library Science

Southern Connecticut State UniversityNew Haven, Connecticut

December 2014

LEVELS OF FEMALE PARTICIPATION 2

LEVELS OF FEMALE PARTICIPATION IN LIBRARY MAKERSPACE ACTIVITIES

BY

DEBORAH S. BLUESTEIN

This special project proposal was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor,

Dr. Hak Joon Kim, Department of Information and Library Science, and it has been approved by

the members of the candidate’s special project committee. It was submitted to the School of

Graduate Studies and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master in Library Science.

__________________Hak Joon Kim, Ph.D.

Special Project Advisor

__________________Mary E. Brown, Ph.D.

Second Reader

__________________Hak Joon Kim, Ph.D.Department Chairperson


Levels of Female Participation in Library Makerspace Activities

Introduction and Overview

Public libraries have recently begun allocating significant resources to makerspaces

(Bertot et al., 2014), and as they embrace this evolving venture, they bring to the makerspace

their core value of providing equitable access (American Library Association (ALA), 2004).

This study addresses the status of female participation in those programs. “Do it yourself" (DIY)

makerspaces help people engage in individual or organized group activities in order to create,

invent, and learn using digital and non-digital tools for design, programming, fabrication,

crafting, and artistic creation with or without a dedicated space. Many libraries have focused a

major portion of their makerspace programming on STEM, which consists of science,

technology, engineering, and math (Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA), 2013).

Some have included crafts programming that may involve activities such as metalworking and

woodworking, while others have reached into the arts, changing STEM to STEAM with

activities such as audio/video and photography (ALA, 2013).

Through these programs, libraries have joined in the growing maker movement and in the

emphasis on STEM found in the nation’s educational Common Core, which was spurred by a

continuing national concern about ways to effectively educate and engage communities in STEM

activities (Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), n.d.). However, historically the

STEM professions, trade crafts, and some areas of the arts have experienced low levels of female

representation in the United States, and it is possible that similar inequalities will be mirrored in

the library makerspace (National Science Board 2014, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).

Although there has been considerable documentation and discussion regarding the under-

representation of women in these fields (United States Government Accountability Office


(GAO) 2014; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013), few studies were found in the literature that

focused on female participation in related maker programs. But as makerspaces become a more

prevalent gathering place, their influence extends beyond their creative agenda and impacts the

public’s overall perception of library relevance to daily life and community values. And a

primary traditional value the library offers its community is the assurance of inclusion in all

activities, as noted in the ALA "Strategic Planning for Diversity” (2007).

This proposal begins with overviews of the study's purpose and survey objectives, the

context of the evolving library makerspace, and the context of female involvement in STEM,

trade crafts, and the arts. These will be followed by a reflection on the significance and

relevance of this study; a discussion on some of the available literature about female preferences

and makerspace workers, equipment, and programming; an outline of the research methods to be

employed in the study; and finally, appendices with exhibits of documents related to the project.

Overview of the Study and Survey

Because very few studies were found to provide details on maker participation within the

library field, this project will survey public libraries to explore, document, and analyze data for

insight into makerspace levels of female engagement, and will seek to address the following

issues.

a. Is library management able to indicate their organization has a general perception

regarding the amount of female participation in their makerspaces, and are they keeping

data on enrollment levels?

b. What shares of library makerspace activity involve STEM programming, the arts, crafts,

or other programming?


c. What are female participation levels in those programs, both as users and supervisory role

models?

d. What equipment is used in programs; what portions are technologically complex and/or

hazardous; and what is each program’s share of equipment expenditures?

e. Is female enrollment more successful if programs specifically target females, if they

target mixed gender, or if activities are not gender targeted?

f. Does female and total participation increase and decrease with the proportion of STEM

organized activities to total makerspace organized activities?

To obtain information that helps to investigate these questions, the survey will gather data

related to:

1. Management perceptions and documenting of activity participation by gender.

2. Levels of female and total participation in makerspace programs.

3. Levels of female supervisory workers.

4. The shares of makerspace equipment expenditures for various programs.

5. Types of equipment used in makerspace programs.

6. The perceived success of female-targeted activities.

If the survey succeeds in garnering sufficient responses, the project may yield insightful

data on female involvement in the programs and perceptions of program effectiveness at drawing

females to the makerspace.

Overview of Context - The Evolving Makerspace in Public Libraries

Several interrelated aspects of the library makerspace provided background for this study:

the concept’s history; the traditional goals, activities, roles, professional challenges, and values

of women in libraries; elements of resource allocation; and the profession’s commitment to


education. The evolving makerspace effort comes at an opportune time. Recent data from the

Institute of Museum and Library Services (Swan et al., 2014, p. 16) indicated public demand for

some traditional services, such as reference, continued to decline in the last decade due to the

wide variety of other technology and internet options available to patrons (p. 27).

Makerspace concepts are not new for public libraries. The Gowanda Free Library in

New York State began as the Ladies Social Society in 1873, a group that focused on quilting and

sewing; and the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh established a network of crafts and basketry for

children in 1905 (ALA, 2013). Nearly a century later that maker tradition was still evident in the

1979 creation of a craft room for children at the Merrimack Public Library in New Hampshire

(ALA, 2013). But it was not until 2011 that the Fayetteville Free Library in New York opened

the first modern library makerspace, which resembled computer and fabrication labs (Fab Labs)

that had evolved from the ideas of computer clubs and professors at MIT in the 1980's (ALA,

2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013, pp. 23-24). Thus, the makerspace has been an evolutionary

construct rooted in a long history of library community service.

American public libraries also have a rich history of female involvement in all aspects of

their activities from their earliest beginnings. The Gowanda ladies were typical of a national

movement following the Civil War to further self-improvement and self-education for women,

and similar social organizations successfully developed community libraries across the country

in the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries, with women becoming some of their first

librarians (Rubin, 2010, p. 61; Watson, 1994, pp. 235-236). Since then, women have

numerically dominated the public library profession; but along with that success has come

controversy over the far lower representation of women in library leadership positions (Rubin,

2013, pp. 107-109). Ironically, the debate over professional equality has erupted within the same


profession that noted its obligations to gender fairness in its core values and the tenet that

libraries should provide equal access to all (ALA, 2004).

Therefore, it should not be a surprise if sensitivities emerged regarding levels of female

inclusion in library makerspaces, particularly when calls for concern have already begun in the

online forums of the larger makerspace community. One example came from The Hackery, a

not-for-profit art and technology makerspace in Philadelphia, PA. In her pointedly titled article,

“Where Are the Women in Makerspaces?”, director Georgia Guthrie acknowledged that women

have become frustrated by the makerspace gender gap (September, 2014). Based on those

concerns, her group performed some background research regarding the possible causes of low

participation. Subsequently, a workshop was organized to air the perceptions and anecdotal

experiences of attendees and discuss methods that could be employed to encourage and retain

female maker participants. The concern expressed by this sector of the makerspace movement

was clearly attuned to a national debate about female inclusion in STEM and trade crafts

(National Women’s Law Center, 2013, p. 17), and signaled the migration of those issues into the

makerspace.

Ensuring equal participation in all areas of the makerspace becomes even more critical as

libraries allocate scarce funds to programming: The ways that a library’s focus and investments

are divided among various activities may create an imbalance in gender benefit derived from

expenditures, similar to what has occurred between men’s and women’s sports on high school

and university campuses (Sabo & Veliz, 2012; National Coalition for Women and Girls in

Education (NCWGE), 2012). Although there are low cost, low tech approaches to makerspaces,

particularly for young children, meeting the goal of creating a more comprehensive makerspace

can be expensive. A guide published by the Maker Education Initiative listed basic makerspace


equipment for a startup at between $10,000 and $25,000 (Rink, 2014), with power tools and

STEM-related advanced prototyping tools posing the highest costs. For libraries struggling to

justify their budgets to taxpayers, these expenses could present a major barrier to adequately

funding the range of program components needed to ensure equal participation. Despite their

cost, many of these tools have been at the forefront of the library makerspace evolution.

The ALA has actively promoted STEM programming in makerspaces, including creation

of a task force that published a guide for libraries to create action plans, form local partnerships,

and market library programs to the community (YALSA, 2013). This effort has been aligned

with the ALA’s commitment to support education through initiatives such as the Common Core

State Standards Action Toolkit for Public Librarians (Lewis et al., 2014, p. 6), which has

provided guidance on the use of makerspaces to advance Common Core learning. As public

libraries deepen their commitment to STEM and to trade crafts programming, they also increase

their exposure to concerns and criticisms about these environments and the lack of females

participating in associated education and professions.

Overview of Context – Females in STEM, Trade Crafts, and Arts Environments

Low levels of female engagement in STEM are well documented. In surveys of non-

healthcare STEM education, females comprised only 32% of the total (GAO, 2014, p. 59); and

their inclusion in corresponding employment was even lower, at 24% (Beede et al., 2011, p. 3).

That professional disproportion could be seen in the ranks at a granular level. The

National Science Board (2014) reported that women working in science and engineering had

occupations largely centered in different categories than men, so that while women constituted a

58% majority in social sciences and had fairly equal representation at 48% in life sciences, they

held a small 25% portion of computer and math positions, and only 13% of engineering


positions. Beede et al. noted that the low representation of women in these core categories of the

STEM professions might in part be due to the lack of role models already employed in these

fields (2011, p. 8). Thus, this scenario could be viewed as self-perpetuating.

For STEM overall, the growing national concern has been accompanied by some

confusion regarding a reputed decline of STEM education and with it, a prospect of worker

shortages. GAO findings indicated that, with the exception of information technology (IT), the

number of STEM degrees awarded was increasing, while available jobs varied by STEM field

and fluctuated with general economic conditions, so that the number of jobs in the engineering

and information technology fields actually fell during the recession, but rebounded during

economic recovery (2014, pp. 15-18). A further example of such variations was a sharp decrease

in IT graduates in the aftermath of the 2002 Dot-Com crash (p. 14), followed by the recovery of

IT job openings beginning in 2010 (p. 18). During this period of economic uncertainty the GAO

found that while a majority of postsecondary STEM education programs responding to their

survey focused on increasing the numbers of minority, disadvantaged, or under-represented

groups in the STEM workforce, they least frequently reported serving women (p. 26).

Meanwhile, concerns over meeting a need for more STEM workers prompted the

National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and the CCSSO to embrace

STEM in their Common Core State Standards in order to improve the ability of the nation’s

schools to adequately prepare students for entering STEM fields (NGA, 2007; CCSSO, n.d., p.

20). And as established advocates for self-improvement and education, the ALA and its member

libraries have responded with their STEM programing.

Regarding employment in some of the trade crafts found in library makerspaces, 2012

statistics indicated that very few females worked in those fields (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,


2014, pp. 33-44). For example, no statistically significant levels of women were found in

detailed occupations for operators of metal lathe and turning machines, milling and planing

machines, and all forms of woodworking (pp. 40-43). Women comprised only 1.6% of

carpenters, 4.8% of welding, soldering and brazing operators, and 19.5% of all other metal

workers and plastics workers combined (pp. 40-43).

But for areas in the arts, statistics generally contrasted sharply with technology and trade

crafts. In 2012, females comprised 55.3% of designers, 40.8% of producers and directors, 52.2%

of photographers, and 21.4% of camera operators and editors (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

2014, pg. 36). However, only 8.4% of broadcast and sound engineering technicians were female

(pg. 36).

Given these demographics, the difficulty for libraries lies in whether or not their

makerspaces will mirror the scarcity of female representation that is characteristic of the larger

environment.

Significance and Relevance

By creating a resource of basic statistics that identify important attributes of makerspaces,

this study seeks a clearer understanding of the current status of female engagement. Some

explanatory value embedded in the data may also be found that will offer insight into some of the

factors that drive female interests. If so, the information might present an opportunity to enact

more productive maker activities for females in existing programs and support new development

that promotes, plans, and budgets for optimal female inclusion. This could positively impact a

community for two underlying reasons. One is that libraries have an integral and significant role

in delivering services into the daily lives of female patrons (Zickuhr, Rainie, & Purcell, 2013).

And further, there is a substantial need in the lives of many females for services that effectively


help them overcome economic and cultural adversities in the community (Mykyta & Renwick,

2013).

Documenting the community role of libraries is a study conducted for the Pew Research

Center, which found that 92% of surveyed women considered the library to be important to the

community, and 80% considered it to be important to themselves and their families (Zickuhr et

al., 2013, pg. 20). In addition, 59% of the study’s surveyed females over age 16 had interacted

with a library in the last 12 months (pg. 15), and 73% stated that their library’s job and career

resources were very important (pg. 42). For all study respondents, 85% stated the library

“should” or “probably should” offer more interactive learning experiences in library

programming (pg. 48). Such findings indicated that library programs provided a significant

platform for interactive programs, such as makerspaces, to reach females in their communities.

The importance of optimizing female engagement lies partially in the broad beneficial

impact of maker activities. For example, maker programs may help to develop or enhance a

professional life by encouraging new skills and making connections to others in the community

(Martinez & Stager, 2013, p. 200). In addition, they may become a stepping stone to economic

independence, by raising the types and proficiencies of job skills to higher levels, and by

developing ways to turn ideas into marketable products (Benton, Mullins, Shelley, & Dempsey,

2013, pp. 6-13). Involvement and connections found through makerspaces may also help to

promote greater female representation in the larger community and its decision-making, as

studies show that increasing the proportion of females in various activities prompts them to

increase their willingness and ability to speak up and take on more authority (Karpowitz,

Mendelberg, & Shaker, 2012). Further, the knowledge gained in makerspaces may ease gender

stereotypes assumed both by females and about females, and thus foster gender equality (Modi,


Schoenberg, & Salmond, 2012, p. 19), giving them a safe place to learn (and even sometimes fail

and try again), and to overcome misconceptions about the capacity for female abilities and

interests to encompass a broad range of activities (pp. 29-30).

As evidenced by the following research, these makerspace benefits are deeply needed by

many females in the library community, and maintaining awareness and optimizing female

inclusion helps to ensure they gain an equal share of those benefits (particularly in the higher

paying STEM areas). The extent of their need was revealed in various studies showing that

females have persistently remained a troubled demographic in many aspects of American life:

Poverty and the economy: In 2011, approximately 56% of those in poverty were women,

and more than 50% of families in poverty were headed by women (Mykyta & Renwick,

2013). The disparities were attributed to national realities of labor participation and

congregation in “pink collar” jobs; full versus part time employment; single family

households; and remuneration practices that did not treat women equally (Mykyta &

Renwick, 2013; Boushey, 2009, p. 39).

Education and training: Gender imbalances between different areas of education, such as

the number of females in the health sciences versus other STEM fields, were found in

both the statistics about teachers and about students, which in combination led to

inequalities in employment (Sonnert & Fox, 2012, p. 77; GAO, 2014, p. 53).

Life-long learning effectiveness: Women were more likely to return to education and

employment in adulthood after periods of absence, primarily due to caring for family, and

thus were often required catch up on their skills, yet still ended up lagging behind their

male counterparts (Zickuhr, Rainie, & Purcell, 2013, p. 12).


Power and decision making: In government and corporate management, inequality in

employment remained overwhelming lopsided in the United States, and markedly fell

short of other industrialized nations in female leadership from politics to company

boardrooms, thus denying women equal influence in both law and business (Lawless &

Fox, 2012; Grant Thornton International, 2014).

Media: Stereotypes, advertising, and the influential imbalance in depicting females, their

interests, and their activities remained a continuing area of concern for women, and were

exacerbated by the inequality of female inclusion in media management and decision

making (Klos, 2013).

Female children: Young children were found to encounter stereotypical influences in

their environment, so that even three year olds associated occupations and activities with

gender, and believed that females in traditionally male occupations would be a violation

of the social norm (Owen Blakemore, 2003). Overcoming traditional cultural views about

occupations such as math and science depended on young female levels of self-esteem

(36.4%), self-efficacy (26.5%), and perceived social support (17.8%) from peers, family,

counselors, and teachers (Roue, 2007, p. 28).

These studies provided evidence that women had an economic and social need to receive

support in overcoming these constraints, and that libraries were in a position to provide some of

that support. And from these two significant factors evolves the relevance of this project to the

library community. Namely, that efforts to characterize notable makerspace activities and trends

could help libraries develop improved policies that focus on knowledge and training important to

females. An evidence base of gender-focused makerspace data could allow library management

to test their perceptions, explore the nature and causes of any indicated gender inequality, and


help them to foster greater equal female benefit from maker activities. Such information could

also raise the collective consciousness of libraries and provide motivation for discussion or,

where necessary, change that improves accessible and affordable venues for bringing more

females into professional competencies and roles.

Review of the Literature

Published materials referencing library makerspaces were generally found to be similar to

those discussed above, in that they primarily concentrated on the importance of encouraging

STEM education and methods used in establishing makerspace activities, including anecdotal

stories about libraries that have successfully pursued maker programs. Therefore, searching the

available literature did not uncover studies discussing many of the primary information goals of

this research.

For the overall status of makerspace activities, however, the Information and Policy

Access Center (IPAC) did release some recent survey figures (Bertot et al., 2014). Respondents

reported that there were STEM-related makerspaces with education and learning programs in

16.8% of libraries (pp. 8 and 47). Further, approximately 21% hosted various “creation” events

for patrons (p. 10). Although these statistics provided a limited overview of a few aspects of

library activities, the results did not offer the type of detail sought by this study, nor did they

include data regarding management perceptions and library documentation of female

participation levels, or data covering those portions of library expenditures and makerspace

activities devoted to STEM programming versus programming in other maker concentrations

such as crafts, the arts, and their associated, generally low-tech activities.


However, literature was found that focused on non-library statistics and might offer a few

insights and comparisons for this project’s upcoming survey outcomes, particularly in the area of

STEM programming.

Female Activity Preferences

By observing some of the educational selections being made by female and male middle

school and high school students at Technology Student Association (TSA) conferences, a study

of participants determined that in competitive activities, the observed males preferred "utilizing"

activities (building/making) such as dragster design and structural engineering (Mitts & Haynie

III, 2010). This was in comparison to females, who preferred “non-utilizing" technology design

and communications activities with some social significance, such as medical and film

technologies. The data indicated that science project activities, such as building a pump that

required woodworking, were of little interest to females, but using computers to design products

such as CD covers were of high interest (p. 21). Researchers concluded that male-preferred

activities repelled females from technology education programs, and the authors proposed that

activities focusing on socially significant topics and communication would be needed to balance

gender participation in those programs (p. 23). Further, the study’s observations regarding

woodworking also provided some general insight into female attitudes about equipment use,

although, as will be seen, a more direct investigation of these concerns was found in the

literature.

While the TSA conference research employed observation to analyze student activities, a

subsequent 2012 study used a survey to identify the interests of middle school and high school

students enrolled in technology and engineering courses in STEM (Weber, 2012). The outcomes

included data on engagement in STEM-related activities and student self-perceptions about their


own capacity for STEM (p. 26). The researcher found that males expressed more interest in

technology and engineering, including technical and mechanical activities that were vocationally

engaging, such as repair work (pp. 28-29). Females reported that these types of activities were

unappealing (p. 24-25), which supported the earlier findings of Mitts and Haynie. Females also

reported lower capacity levels when self-assessing their own STEM abilities, as compared to the

self-assessments reported by males (p. 26). To counter the views reported in these results,

Weber proposed that teachers introduce different types of STEM activities that would interest

and engage females and provide opportunities to learn the skills they believed they were missing

(p. 30).

Although both of these studies were able to identify preference characteristics in the

STEM environment, their populations were restricted to middle school and high school students,

and thus excluded the views and experiences in surrounding communities of younger children

and adults. Further limitations were imposed by the studies’ settings, because the female

attendees at the TSA technology conferences and female enrollees in the technology and

engineering classrooms had already demonstrated an interest in technology that narrowed the

spectrum of the studies’ populations. Finally, though the studies did not address crafts or the

arts, they did offer a glimpse into general female views on equipment use. However, it would be

difficult to generalize those equipment concerns into inferences about their impact on non-STEM

programs.

A somewhat broader population was found in a national study released by the Girl Scouts

that sampled 852 females, ages 14-17 (Modi et al., 2012, p. 31). Approximately half of the

population had been exposed to some form of STEM activities. The survey included both

females with STEM interest and those who had no STEM interest. In survey responses (p. 9),


STEM (interested) females indicated they liked to know how things work (87%) and do hands-

on science projects (83%); whereas non-STEM females were less interested in how things

worked (65%) or in projects (56%). For questions that involved making and building, however,

interest dropped significantly for all females. STEM females had only a 67% interest in building

or putting things together, and non-STEM females only a 47% interest (p. 9).

Although this data indicated an overall higher STEM interest than the conference and

Weber research, the relative decrease in building/making interests in the Modi results echoed the

findings of the other two studies. The Modi sample also covered a comparable, limited age

range. As they relate to the interests of this proposed study, the conference and Weber research

efforts were undertaken in technology environments more similar to those encountered by

females in library makerspaces. In contrast, the Modi study provided perspectives of females

from the general population. By gathering data from makerspace libraries through this project, it

is anticipated that survey outcomes will reflect participation by a population of wider age range,

interested in both STEM and non-STEM activities.

Library Worker Involvement in the Makerspace

There was very little literature found on the composition of library workers in the

makerspace and few addressed the ratios of women to men. The IPAC research did indicate that

75.9% of STEM programming was led by library staff, 19.6% by volunteers, and 35.1% by other

resources such as partner organizations (Bertot et al., 2012, p. 48). However, the IPAC data

failed to indicate worker gender or to address non-STEM areas of crafts and the arts. Overall,

the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2012, an average 86.8% of librarians were female

(2014, p. 35) and 84% of library assistants were female (p. 39); but these statistics were not

identified with specific library departments or activities.


In reference to supervisors and instructors in STEM-related activities, such distinctions

could be particularly important. For example, although it was reported that 47% of chemistry

teachers were female, it was also found that only 30% of physics teachers were females

(National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), 2014). And a survey by the National Science

Foundation indicated that in post-secondary education, females comprised only 5% of full

professors in engineering, 8.6% in mathematics, 8.3% in the physical sciences, and 17.4% in

computer sciences (Burrelli, 2008).

No recent similar statistics for instructors by gender were located for the arts or for trade

crafts, such as those employed in school industrial arts or vocational programs. And the

extremely low female worker percentages from the greater STEM environment in the face of

extremely high female worker percentages from the traditional library environment, suggested

that it would be difficult to generalize total female library worker data into expected levels of

female worker inclusion in the STEM portions of the makerspace.

Obtaining data about female makerspace workers, as this current study proposes, would

not only yield information on their involvement, but also on the availability of female role

models and mentors. Some research conducted outside the library field has suggested their

possible impact. For example, in a group of three related studies of undergraduates in the STEM

sciences at a major university, one study found that although women might outperform their

male counterparts, they often left STEM programs due to a lack of expert role models (Stout,

Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011). However, when the visibility of female role models

was increased to a critical mass and women had personal contact with the role models in a way

that created feelings of connectedness, researchers in the other two studies found there was a

profound positive effect on their effort, career goals, and self-perception of their STEM abilities


(Stout et al., 2010). Because the studies were not library or makerspace related and did not

address crafts or the arts, it would be difficult to project whether makerspace female role models

would have the same effect; but the analysis could offer insight into this project’s survey results.

Another smaller non-STEM study at the Mansfield University of Pennsylvania did

examine the effect on patrons of having university program librarians (who happened to be

female) that were involved in non-traditional activities within their specialty (Kasperek, Johnson,

Fotta, & Craig, 2006). One survey subject was a university theater librarian who assisted with

the school’s theater productions, which might be similar to some arts programming in a

makerspace. From the corresponding sample, researchers concluded that this librarian’s

encounters with patrons had a positive effect (p. 120). For students who had interacted with the

theater librarian in productions, 70% reported they were very comfortable asking for help in the

library (versus 30% of the other theater students); 64% strongly felt that librarians were not too

busy to help them (versus 25%); and 55% were very satisfied in their experience using the

library, versus 19% of the other theater students (p. 120). Thus, the theater portion of the study

demonstrated that patrons derived a positive benefit from an opportunity to interact with a

librarian in creative theater projects.

The survey proposed for this project would collect general data about the prevalence of

similar opportunities for female patrons to interact with female library workers across a wider

spectrum of maker programs.

Makerspace Equipment

Figures released by IPAC also encompassed information on a few specific types of

makerspace devices provided by responding libraries (Bertot et al., 2014). Their STEM-related

offerings included: 3D printers (1.5%); smart technology objects such as Littlebits and Arduino


(15%); and development technologies such as maker/creator spaces and sandbox machines

(2.9%). Audio/visual editing commons, the only primarily non-STEM equipment listed, were

available in 3.8% of libraries (p. 24). Because this was the full extent of reported equipment,

however, it did not provide the in-depth data sought by this study for a fuller view of both STEM

makerspace equipment and the devices found in the other concentrations of crafts and the arts.

Although not based on library programs, there was also research that offered insight into

female reactions to certain types of making and related equipment, including that which was

technologically complex and/or hazardous. In an in-depth study to identify reasons why high

school females were reluctant to enroll in technology education courses, a majority of female

respondents indicated their belief that technology education labs such as metalworking,

woodworking, and small engines, were dangerous and dirty (Waite III, 2003, pp. 262). They

also thought labs for classes such as photography and architectural design were less threatening,

even though few of the females indicated they had seen the inside of any technology labs (pp.

190, 200, and 262). Through this research, Waite was able to identify some of the apprehensions

of females toward devices used in the experimentation and building processes. But unlike the

data sought for this project, the Waite study did not seek to specify the devices females

encountered in various labs, and the research did not indicate the types of equipment located at

the high school in the survey. Further, the survey population was narrowly confined to a limited

age group. However, compared to the technology oriented attendees at the TSA conferences

mentioned earlier, the Waite research did include students of all academic interests at the

surveyed high school, and thus represented a wider, more diverse population. The survey

proposed for this project seeks to gather data about equipment types more broadly, in order to

reflect what is encountered by a more inclusive population of female members in the community.


Female-Targeted Programing and Effects on Female Participation

Based on the types of gender variations in STEM interests and activities found during the

TSA conferences and evidenced in studies, such as those by Weber and by Modi et al., this

project would survey libraries for information on the success of female-targeted makerspace

activities. It should be noted that when addressing perceived advantages gained from single-

gender learning, scientific research published by professional groups, such as the Association for

Psychological Science have indicated, "None of the data regarding brain structure or function

suggest that girls and boys learn differently or that either sex would benefit from single-sex

schools…” (Halpern et al., 2007, p. 30). However, research focused on brain structure and

function does not necessarily contradict the data regarding interest and activity selection found in

other types of studies, and this project seeks to help libraries to learn if there are successful

gender-targeting programs that draw more females to the makerspace.

Some literature did discuss attributes of programs that were successful in promoting the

engagement and retention of females in STEM. For example, a 1997 study of 12,000 high

school students conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan concluded there was a

need for high schools to greatly increase laboratory work that included rigorous experimentation,

particularly for girls (Burkam, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997, pp. 323-324). At the time of publication,

the researchers stated they could not offer an explanation for why this policy was particularly

crucial for girls, only that the survey data emphasized its importance (p. 323). Such

experimentation is at the heart of the library makerspace evolution.

As studies have continued to reveal female preferences, some researchers have tracked

programs that incorporate these preferences into their activities. One such monitoring project

has been Harvard University’s Out-of-School Time Programs (OST) database, which has


collected ongoing evaluations and research studies focused on STEM programs for girls

(Harvard Family Research Project, 2011). An example was a Florida program, SECME RISE

(Raising Interest in Science & Engineering), which set up team-based engineering design

challenges for middle school girls and promoted their interaction with female engineers (p. 2).

Surveys of the participants, teachers, and parents found general satisfaction with the program:

86% of the participants indicated they planned to pursue STEM careers, and 52% indicated their

original career plans had changed due to the program (p. 7, evaluation profile attachment).

Another broader group of programs that targeted female participation in technology and

trade craft activities, such as electronics and welding, was developed and managed by IWITTS

(Institute for Women in Trades, Technology and Science, n.d.; Milgram, 2010). An example

was their CalWomenTech Project, which in a series of studies was found to have successfully

increased the number of female students in the introductory tech courses of five colleges as much

as 21.8% to 46.3% by specifically recruiting females through strategies such as counselling,

marketing promotions (web and press strategies, videos, flyers, posters, and banners), program

design, and outreach to local high schools (IWITTS, n.d.; IWITTS, 2014). Furthermore, by

specifically training instructors to modify their teaching techniques to accommodate female

learning preferences and interests (such as more contextual examples, collaboration, and

extended labs), some programs achieved a 100% retention rate (IWITTS, 2014).

Although the students and activities in the above surveys did not involve library

makerspaces, the programs advocated or executed had many characteristics in common with the

maker environment. By surveying for the existence of female-targeted programming in library

makerspaces, and collecting the responding libraries’ perceptions of their effectiveness at


drawing females to the makerspace, it is anticipated that the knowledge gained will assist

libraries in comparing and assessing their own maker programs.

Reflecting on the Literature

Most research in the reviewed literature involved activities outside the library

makerspace. But many aspects of those studies may offer some opportunities for insight into

survey results from the proposed project. Preferences for design, communication, and social

value that drive female interest and engagement, and the rejection of fabricating and building

activities are all qualities that females may bring with them into the makerspace. The literature

suggests that these attitudes may be due to poor self-assessment of their own abilities; a lack of

female instructors and role models in the community around them; a fear of unfamiliar, complex,

or dangerous equipment; uncertainty that a publicized maker program is meant to include them;

or due to other reasons not addressed in this review. However, sufficient information about

underlying characteristics of the evolving library makerspaces may help librarians to circumvent

some of these obstacles by learning whether management perceives and documents enrollments

to improve outcomes; finding which programs generally lack female participants and which

effectively draw females to the makerspace; knowing if female patrons see other females

proficient at guiding them through programs and equipment handling; comparing program

equipment with female participation levels; and realizing how financial resources are generally

being allocated to promote programs that meet the female needs discussed earlier. This project

seeks to provide some of that basic information.

Research Methods

The online survey tool used to collect data will allow a variety of question formats, offer

low cost distribution, and permit easy and timely access to the questionnaire by respondents from


a broad range of geographic locations. Since respondents are anonymous, voluntary, and will

not be directly approached to participate, the survey contains an opening statement that relates

information normally found in a cover letter (see Appendix B). In answering the first question, a

respondent will indicate their consent for their data to be included in the described research

study. The survey’s opening statement also provides the definition of “makerspace” employed in

this study. Then the second question asks if the respondent’s library has makerspace activity. If

the answer is “no”, the respondent is directed to stop the survey and submit it without proceeding

to other questions.

The rest of the survey consists of a mixture of yes/no, multiple check-offs, and four

questions that request estimates of numbers of programs, users, workers, and equipment value

(see Appendix B to view the survey). Answering each question is voluntary and questions do

not ask for personal opinions from respondents. Questions do ask for professional assessments

regarding aspects of the makerspace environment, such as an estimate of the percentage of

female participants in particular program areas, or whether management has a perception of

female participation levels. The remaining questions request other factual or statistical

information and include a few open ended questions that provide opportunities to add items to

the program equipment lists.

The survey should take approximately 25-30 minutes to complete. Respondents who

manage more than one library are being asked to complete a survey for each library. For

respondents with disabilities, the website for the online survey tool indicates it is Section 508-

compliant, with the exception of questions in a matrix format, which may present a challenge to

respondents who are bipolar (Qualtrics, Inc., 2014). Data collected will be downloaded daily to

the researcher’s computer, kept in a password protected file for three years, and then destroyed.


Numerical, check-off, and yes/no questions will be analyzed quantitatively using

descriptive statistics to summarize the data (Wildemuth, 2009, pp 338-347). Open ended

questions will be analyzed through conventional qualitative content analysis (Zhang &

Wildemuth, 2009, pp. 308-319) to determine the appropriate coding for additional equipment

responses. Data analysis for the final report will be assisted by quantitative tools available at the

online survey site. Also, because respondents are participating by choice rather than through

random selection, it should be noted that responses may not be truly representative of the entire

population of makerspace libraries, which will limit generalization of the findings to a larger

library population (Sprugin & Wildemuth, p. 300). However, if the number of responses is

substantial, then inferences may be drawn or provide opportunities for future studies.

A paper version of the questionnaire was pretested and revisions were made for basic

content (equipment lists), question clarity, and open-ended questions. The survey will be

uploaded into an online format (e.g., Qualtrics) and retested again during early December.

The survey will be active from January 5 through February 16, 2015. Several library

associations have agreed to announce that the survey will be available. Among them is the

Public Library Association (PLA), which will place an information notice and the associated link

to the survey in their December 2014 newsletter, and will allow an announcement to be placed in

their listserv, PubLib. In addition, very brief follow up reminders and the link will be reposted to

PubLib on January 19 and February 2, 2015. The Association for Rural and Small Libraries

(ARSL) also agreed to place an announcement and link in their listserv at the end of December.

Methodology

Data will be collected based on functional programs in the makerspace concept, which

for analysis purposes have been grouped into three broader areas of concentration that


encompass related programs and their maker activities: (1) general technology and STEM

programming; (2) the arts and fine arts; and (3) crafts and miscellaneous. Programs and areas of

concentration were selected for study based on those most commonly mentioned in several

makerspace texts (Hatch, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2013). Table 1 indicates how the programs

have been aligned.

Table 1. Areas of Concentration and Related Programs

Concentration Programs

Technology and STEM Programming / coding / web design / prototype design / drafting Fabrication technology & modeling Electronics & robotics

Arts and Fine Arts Film / video / animation Audio / recording Photography Theatre production / puppetry Fine arts painting / sculpture / print making

Crafts and Miscellaneous Pottery Woodworking Metalworking Plants / gardening Food / Cooking / baking Sewing / needlework / quilting / knitting / textiles Other small handcrafts / jewelry

In the overview of the survey (pg. 3, a-f) an outline listed the information being sought by

this study. Table 2 shows which questions are related to each item.


Table 2. Information Sought by Study (as Outlined in Survey Overview)

Issue Description Questions

a-1. Management perception of female participation 4a-2. Tracking female participation 5

b. Concentration areas and programs: Share of makerspace 6, 8, 12c-1. Users: Percent female 8, 9c-2. Supervisors: Percent female 10, 11d. Equipiment technological complexity / hazard 13-27e. Success of targeted participation 6, 7f. Impact of STEM share of organized activities on total female makerspace

participation 6, 8, 9

Due to the nature of the data being sought, analysis will be primarily descriptive.

Questions about management perceptions of female participation and tracking (Issues a-1 and a-

2) will be summarized as a basic comparison vertical bar chart, which shows libraries that

indicate perception and track gender enrollments, versus those that indicate perception and do

not track. Because all respondents will be allowed to estimate values they report in other

questions, there will not be an opportunity to compare the quality of the answers from tracking

libraries versus those who do not track.

For questions regarding each program’s share of makerspace (Issue b) by numbers of

activities, users, and equipment investment, descriptive statistics will be used to summarize

results. Program shares by number of users and equipment investment will be taken directly

from the responses, and program shares of organized activities will come from the accumulated

results in the totals column of Question 6. These outcomes will consist of complex batches of

numbers that can be much more simply displayed in a pie chart, as shown in the following test

example of Figure 1. (To demonstrate possible options for reporting on data reported from the

survey, the statistics displayed in the following examples of Figures 1-6 are fictional and

arbitrarily random, and do not in any way reflect expected data ranges or realistic outcomes.)


Figure 1. (Test example) For three makerspace areas of concentration, the percentage share of

total activities (n=246).

Results can be also displayed as a numeric mean for each program, or as cumulative

numeric data from all respondents for each program as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. (Test example) For total number of reported organized activities (n=246), the number of

activities in each type of program.


User and supervisory information (Issue c-1 and c-2) may each be reported using the

actual reported percentages of female participation, as demonstrated by Figure 3 test user data.

Figure 3. (Test example) For five types of arts and fine arts programming, the number of

respondents (n=48) selecting a specified percentage that most closely represented the portion of

program users who were female.

Data will also be collected on the types of equipment used in makerspace activities (Issue

d), which for analysis purposes have each been assigned and coded with one of the four

attributes of complexity and/or hazard that are shown in Table 3. The attributes were not further

stratified, but the “complex” designation was given to devices that required more than basic


knowledge and familiarity with science or computer use. The “hazard” designation was assigned

based on the Yale University Classification System for Student Access Shops (Yale University,

2011, Appendix II), a matrix that ranked the hazard levels of the university student shop

equipment on a scale of one to five, one being “low power hand / small bench tools”, and two

through five including “medium power tools and specialized enclosed NC-computer tools;

powerful portable and small benchtop tools; light industrial tools; and large industrial tools,

manual and NC‐controlled” (Yale University, 2011, Appendix II). For this study, devices were

given the “hazard” designation if they were similar to Yale equipment scaled at hazard levels

two through five (see Appendix A, Table A1).

Table 3. Equipment Technology and Hazard Designation Codes

Description Code

Neither technologically complex nor hazardous 1Technologically complex, not hazardous 2Hazardous, not technologically complex 3Technologically complex and hazardous 4

Although a coding scheme assigned by a lone researcher is vulnerable to interpretation

and bias (Sprugin & Wildemuth, p. 301), review of the coding assignments by an independent

third party will be included as part of the content analysis process to optimize reliability.

At this time it is unclear whether coded equipment data can be used in a chi-square test

for independence (see below) to determine whether technological complexity/hazard is related to

female participation in some programs. However, use of tables and using descriptive statistics to

chart mode values may be able to provide visual evidence from which inferences can be drawn.

To compare gender targeted and untargeted activity promotion (Issue e), a horizontal bar

chart may be created as in test Figure 4 to visually display collective program promotions.


Figure 4. (Test example) For total number of reported organized activities (n=246), the number in each

program of total activities promoted for both males and females (n=66), of total promoted for males (n=

29), of total promoted for females (n=42), and of total promoted with no reference to gender (n=87).


Once actual results have been received and tabulated, various calculations for the mean or

median of activities in specific program may also be desirable. The other aspect of targeted

promotion (Issue e), namely program success at meeting female participation goals, can also be

displayed, as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. (Test example) Female participation goal status reported for technology and STEM

programs (n=48).

Although Figure 5 readily shows the overall responses to the question on goals, it does

not clearly demonstrate the outcomes of goals from individual programs. This can be effectively

resolved by using the pie chart format demonstrated in Figure 6 for significant findings.


Figure 6. (Test example) For four types of goal status, the percentage of programs (n=48) reporting on

female participation goals in activities of programming / coding / web design / prototype design / drafting.

The last issue raised in this study (Issue f) asks whether a predominance of STEM

programs in a makerspace impacts the participation of females in maker activities. To see if

there is a relationship between the portion of STEM activities (Question 6) in all activities of the

makerspace, and the number females participating in the overall makerspace (derived from

Questions 8 and 9) requires that analysis search for a relationship denoted by the data. As

mentioned earlier, the data being collected is expected to be largely based on estimates of this

activity, which limits the reliability of any assumptions. Further, if the sample size becomes too

large, a chi-square test for independence may produce a statistically significant result that is not

supported by meaningful relationships (Wildemuth, 2009, p. 350). Therefore, if the data set ends

up being moderately small, a chi-square test will be performed to look for whether STEM

predominance is related to female makerspace participation. Otherwise, basic bar graphs will be

used to visually display low, medium, and high STEM proportions and female participation in

each of those categories, so that the reader can draw their own inferences from the display.


The formula for chi square is:

Where:

is the value for chi square.

is the sum.

O is the observed frequency (total number of females in all programs of all reporting makerspaces, which is the sum of: total users for each program in Question times (X) the corresponding percentages of women for each program)

E is the expected frequency (total numbers of females in reporting makerspaces divided by (/ ) the total number of reporting makerspaces)

If the chi-square test is used, the results will need to be clarified as being based on the

quality of data mentioned above.

Finally, there are two other considerations for additional analysis. First, program data

can be rolled up into their broader areas of concentration, and additional inferences then drawn

for technology/STEM, crafts, and the arts, which may provide an important overview for many if

the Issues (a through g) that have been raised. Also, many questions in the survey have a check-

off for “no such programs or don’t know”. If these types of responses appear to be significant,

they may also be reviewed in the analysis.


References

American Library Association (ALA). (2004). Core values of librarianship. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/statementspols/corevalues

American Library Association (ALA). (2007). Strategic planning for diversity. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/diversity/workplace/diversityplanning

American Library Association (ALA). (2013). Manufacturing makerspaces: A history of making.

American Libraries. Retrieved from

http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/article/manufacturing-makerspaces

Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011, August).

Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation (executive summary). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from

http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/womeninstemagaptoinnovat

ion8311.pdf

Benton, C., Mullins, L., Shelley, K., & Dempsey, T. (2013). Makerspaces: Supporting an

entrepreneurial system. Co-learning plan series. EDA University Center for Regional

Economic Innovation (REI). Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Retrieved from

http://www.reicenter.org/upload/documents/colearning/benton2013_report.pdf

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Lee, J., Dubbels, K., McDermott, A. J., & Real, B. (2014). 2013

digital inclusion survey: Survey findings and results. College Park, MD: Information and

Policy Access Center (IPAC), University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved from

http://digitalinclusion.umd.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/2013DigitalInclusionNationalR

eport.pdf


Boushey, H. (2009). The new breadwinners. In H. Boushey, & A. O'Leary (Eds.), The Shriver

report: A woman's nation changes everything (pp. 31-67). Washington, DC: Center for

American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/icw/files/a_womans_nation.pdf

Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high

school. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 297-331. Retrieved from JSTOR

Burrelli, J. (June, 2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Arlington, VA:

National Science Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308/#tab5/.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (n.d.). Common core state standards

communications toolkit. Retrieved September 2014, from

http://programs.ccsso.org/link/CCSSO_Standards_Toolkit.pdf

Grant Thornton International. (2014). Women in business: from classroom to boardroom.

Washington, DC: Grant Thornton International. Retrieved from

http://www.internationalbusinessreport.com/files/IBR2014_WiB_report_FINAL.pdf

Guthrie, G. (2014, September 8). Where are the women in makerspaces? Insights into the lack of

female makerspace members and what can be done about it. Makezine. Retrieved from

http://makezine.com/magazine/make-40/where-are-the-women/

Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A.

(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science

in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 8(1), 1-51.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2011). Out-of-school time programs for girls. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/out-of-

school-time/ost-database-bibliography


Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto? Rules for innovation in the new world of

crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Institute for Women in Trades, Technology & Science (IWITTS). (2014). CalWomenTech

Project Recruitment Results & Strategies. Retrieved from Institute for Women in Trades,

Technology & Science:

http://www.iwitts.org/projects/calwomentech-project/recruitment-

strategies#rectuitmentresults

Institute for Women in Trades, Technology & Science (IWITTS). (n.d.). CalWomen tech project

outcomes report. Retrieved from

http://www.iwitts.org/images/media/nsfcalwomentechsummary.pdf

Karpowitz, C. F., Mendelberg, T., & Shaker, L. (2012). Gender inequality in deliberative

participation. American Political Science Review, 106, 533-547.

doi:10.1017/S0003055412000329

Kasperek, S., Johnson, A., Fotta, K., & Craig, F. (2006). Do a little dance: The impact on

students when librarians get involved in extracurricular activities. The Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 118-126.

Klos, D. M. (2013). The status of women in the U. S. media 2013. New York, NY: Women's

Media Center. Retrieved from http://wmc.3cdn.net/bf2cc6c71f8adb9a07_z2m6iojfy.pdf

Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2012). Men rule: The continued under-representation of women in

U.S. politics. Washington, DC: Women & Politics Institute. Retrieved from

https://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report-web.pdf

Lewis, K. R., DelGuidice, M., Ingraham-Dwyer, J. A., Knoth, M. V., Lynch, C. M., & Parrott,

K. (2014, March). Common Core state standards action toolkit for public librarians.


Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslissues/toolkits/

CCSSActionToolkit_2014.pdf

Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern

Knowledge Press.

Milgram, D. (n.d.). The CalWomenTech Project: Using surveys to inform retention strategies of

female technology students. 2010 NAMEPA/WEPAN 4th Joint Conference Setting Sail

for the Future: Leveraging Diversity for a Stronger Crew. Austin, TX: Women in

Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN). Retrieved from

http://dpubs.libraries.psu.edu/DPubS?

service=Repository&version=1.0&verb=Disseminate&handle=psu.wepan/

1302008445&view=body&content-type=pdf_1#

Mitts, C. R., & Haynie, III, W. J. (2010, September). Preferences of male and female students for

TSA competitive events. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 19-26.

Modi, K., Schoenberg, J., & Salmond, K. (2012). Generation STEM: What girls say about

science, technology, engineering, and math. New York, NY: Girl Scout Research

Institute. Retrieved from

http://www.girlscouts.org/research/pdf/generation_stem_full_report.pdf

Mykyta, L., & Renwick, T. J. (2013). Changes in poverty measurement: An examination of the

research SPM and its effects by gender. (SEHSD WP #2013‐05). Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/publications/ChangesinPovertyMeasurement.pdf


National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE). (2012). Title IX at 40:

Working to ensure gender equity in education. Washington, DC: National Coalition for

Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE). Retrieved from

http://www.ncwge.org/PDF/TitleIXat40.pdf

National Science Board. (2014, February). Science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington,

VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-1/c1h.htm

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2014). America’s science teachers. Retrieved

from About NSTA: http://www.nsta.org/about/clpa/faq.aspx

National Women's Law Center. (2013). 50 years & counting: The unfinished business of

achieving fair pay. Washington, DC: National Women's Law Center. Retrieved from

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/50-years-counting-unfinished-business-achieving-fair-pay

NGA Center for Best Practices. (2007). Promoting STEM education: A communications toolkit.

Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from

http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0804STEMTOOLKIT.PDF

Owen Blakemore, J. E. (2003, May). Children’s beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys

shouldn’t look like girls, and girls shouldn’t act like boys. Sex Roles, 48(9-10), 411-419.

Pew Research Center. (2013). On pay gap, millennial women near parity – for now: Despite

gains, many see roadblocks ahead. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved

from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/12/gender-and-work_final.pdf

Qualtrics, LLC. (2014). Check survey accessibility. Retrieved from Qualtrics:

http://www.qualtrics.com/university/researchsuite/advanced-building/advanced-options-

drop-down/check-survey-accessibility/


Rink, N. (2014, September 12). Mentor makerspace project: Levels of tool costs for

makerspaces. San Francisco, CA : Maker Education Initiative/Tides Center. Retrieved

from http://makered.org/mentor-makerspace-project-levels-of-tool-costs-for-

makerspaces/

Roue, L. C. (2007). Young women’s perceptions of technology and engineering: Factors

influencing their participation in math, science and technology? University of Wisconsin

- Stout. Logan, UT: National Center For Engineering And Technology Education.

Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1003&context=ncete_cstudies

Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of library and information science. New York, NY: Neal-

Schuman.

Sabo, D., & Veliz, P. (2012, October). The decade of decline: Gender equity in high school

sports. Ann Arbor, MI: The Sport, Health, and Activity Research and Policy (SHARP)

Center. Retrieved from http://irwg.research.umich.edu/pdf/OCR.pdf

Sonnert, G., & Fox, M. F. (2012, January 1). Women, men, and academic performance in

science and engineering: The gender difference in undergraduate grade point averages.

Journal of Higher Education, 83, 73 - 101. doi:10.1353/jhe.2012.0004

Sprugin, K. M., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Content analysis. In B. M. Wildemuth,

Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science

(pp. 297-307). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using

ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering,


and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255-

270. doi:10.1037/a0021385

SurveyMonkey.com. (2014). We’re proud to provide Section 508-compliant surveys. Retrieved

from SurveyMonkey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/508-website-accessibility/

Swan, D. W., Grimes, J., Owens, T., Miller, K., Arroyo, J., Craig, T., . . . Scotto, J. (2014).

Public libraries in the United States survey: Fiscal year 2011. Washington, DC: Institute

of Museum and Library Services. Retrieved from

http://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/PLS2011.pdf

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Women in the labor force: A databook (report 1049).

Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2013.pdf

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2014, May). Science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics education: Assessing the relationship between education

and the workforce. (GAO-14-374). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663079.pdf

Waite III, W. G. (2003, May 15). Factors that prevent female students from enrolling in

technology education courses at Richfield Senior High School. University of Wisconsin,

Menomonie, WI. Retrieved from http://www.worldcat.org/title/factors-that-prevent-

female-students-from-enrolling-in-technology-education-courses-at-richfield-senior-high-

school/oclc/53278830

Watson, P. D. (1994, July). Founding mothers: The contributions of women's organizations to

public library development in the United States. Library Quarterly, 64(3), 233-269.

Retrieved from JSTOR


Weber, K. (Fall 2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity, and

participation in stem-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 18-33.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ991238.pdf

Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Descriptive statistics. In B. M. Wildemuth, Applications of social

research methods to questions in information and library science. Westport, CT:

Libraries Unlimited.

Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Frequencies, cross-tabulation, and the chi-square statistic. In B. M.

Wildemuth, Applications of social research methods to questions in information and

library science (pp. 348-360). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Yale University. (2011). Yale University student shop safety policies and practices. New Haven,

CT: Yale University. Retrieved from

http://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/studentshopsafety%20(1).pdf

Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA). (2013). Issue brief #3: Libraries help

teens build STEM skills. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/yalsa/sites/ala.org.yalsa/files/content/IssueBrief_STEM.pdf

Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) STEM Resources Task Force. (2013,

February 20). STEM programming toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A

%2F%2Fwww.ala.org%2Fyalsa%2Fsites%2Fala.org.yalsa%2Ffiles%2Fcontent

%2FSTEMtoolkit_Final_2013.docx&ei=99VdVIvUL5fasAT95oHQBA&usg=AFQjCNE

47be6q8kORrLur3aYi_m7cqPv4

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. M. Wildemuth,

Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science.


Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2013). Library services in the digital age. Washington,

D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/files/legacy-

pdf/PIP_Library%20services_Report.pdf

Appendix A

Equipment Coding


Table A1

Assigned Designation Codes for Equipment Technological Complexity and Hazard

Code Key 1 Neither technologically complex nor hazardous2 Technologically complex, not hazardous3 Hazardous, not technologically complex4 Technologically complex and hazardous

Code Equipment Code Equipment Code Equipment

Programming / coding / web design / prototype design / drafting

2 RasberryPis 2 3D design software (e.g. Sketchup, Tinkercad) 1 Computers & tablets2 Coding programs (e.g., Scratch) 2 Graphic design software 2 Microcontrollers (e.g., Arduino)2 Electronics design software 2 Web design software

Fabrication technology & modeling

2 3D Replicators/printers 4 Laser engraving/cutting systems 1 Convection ovens2 3D conversion software 1 Computers & tablets 1 Ultrasound cleaners2 3D digitizers/scanners 2 Vacuum forming systems 1 Printing tables1 Hand tools 4 CNC (computer) Vinyl plotters and cutters 2 Pressure mounting press1 Laser printers 1 Large format color printers

Electronics & robotics

1 Soldering irons 1 Computers & tablets 2 Electronics design software1 Solder suckers 2 USB data acquisition system 2 Digital multimeters1 Hand tools 2 Arduino boards 2 Oscilloscopes2 Wiring and circuit tools 2 Snap circuit kits 2 Stroboscopes1 Vises 2 Digital inspection microscopes 2 Function generators1 Test meters 2 Robotics kits (e.g., Lego robotics) 2 Pick & place machines2 Potentiometers 2 STEM learning kits 1 Robotics table1 Little Bits Kits 2 Components (e.g., resistors, switches) 2 Signal generators

Film / video / animation

1 Video cameras 2 Telecommunications software (e.g., Skype) 1 Computers2 Video recorders & editors 2 Multimedia creative & editing software 1 Green screen wall1 Camcorders 2 Video editing software 1 Photo lights2 Animation rendering software 2 Game design software 1 Tripods2 Animation blenders 2 Multimedia platforms (e.g. Adobe Flash) 1 Microphones & stands2 3D motion & gesture controllers 2 VHS to DVD converters 2 Video control suite2 Video switchers 2 Digital video conversion utilities (e.g. MPEG)

Audio / recording

2 Audio recorders & editors 1 Computers 1 Electric guitars1 Portable audio recorders 2 Digital audio software & blenders 1 Electric bass guitars2 Cassette to CD converter 2 Pitch shifter software 1 Digital stage pianos2 Digital audio format converters 1 Microphones & stands 1 Electronic drum kits2 Analog synthesizers 1 Handheld microphones 1 Electric keyboards2 Audio interfaces 1 Headphones 1 Other music instruments2 Audio monitors 1 Turntables 1 Amplifiers2 Audio mixers 2 Editing stations 2 Sound recording studios


Table A1 (continued)

Assigned Designation Codes for Equipment Technological Complexity and HazardCode Equipment Code Equipment Code Equipment

Photography

1 Digital/SLR cameras & lenses 1 Computers & photo software 1 Slide projectors1 Studio cameras 2 Illustrator software 1 Reflectors1 Steadicams for smartphones 1 Portable hard disk drives 1 Light boxes1 Lens kits for smartphones 2 Graphics tablets, displays, & stylus 1 Tabletop light igloos1 Tripod adapter for smartphones 1 Color photo printers 1 Portable lighting kits1 Tripods & angle arms 1 Wide format digital printers 2 Studio lighting equipment1 Camera mounts 1 Poster printers 1 Dry mount presses1 Backdrop stands 1 Negative/Slide scanner 3 Darkrooms & processing sinks1 Photo tents 1 Roll-paper safes with rotary cutters

Theatre production / puppetry

1 Electric staple guns 1 Hand tools 1 Microphones & stands1 Glue guns 2 Lighting equipment 1 Stage

Pottery

1 Kick wheels & bats 1 Hand tools, calipers, & grips 1 Slab rollers1 Electric wheels & bats 1 Clay recyclers 1 Workpiece shelving1 Ribbon tools 1 Clay extruders 3 Kilns3 Pug mill 1 Wedging table 3 Test kiln

Fine arts painting / sculpture / print making

1 Easels 1 Hand tools (e.g., rollers, brayer, heat gun) 1 Drying racks & trays1 Sketch boards 4 Automated book binder 1 Litho stones1 Chalk boards 1 Box fans 1 Fusion boxes1 Figure model platforms 1 Portable lighting equipment 1 Levigators1 Canvas racks 1 Flat files 1 Rosin boxes1 Open taborets 1 Copper plates & woodblocks 1 Hot plates1 Sculpting tools, chisels 1 Paper sinks 1 Letter press & boxcar grid base1 Clay extruders 3 Graining sinks 4 Waterpress platemaker1 Sculpting modelling stands 1 Nipping presses 4 Etching presses1 Computers 3 Downdraft tables 3 Acid room1 Inkjet printers 1 Drafting tables & stools 3 Fume hoods2 3D design software 1 Inking tables 1 Portable water bath

Woodworking

1 Nail guns 3 Routers & biscuit joiners 3 Compound mitre saws1 Glue guns 3 Routing tables 3 Circular saws1 Brad nailers & staplers 3 Compressed air hand tools 4 CNC router saw (e.g., ShopBot)1 Electric hand drills 1 Design computers & software 3 Scroll saws1 Belt, disc, & palm sanders 3 Lathes 3 Wood band saws3 Jig saws 3 Planers, jointers 3 Drill presses1 Hand tools 1 Hand miter saws 3 Table saws1 Stencil cutters 3 Chop saws 3 Radial arm saws1 Dremels 3 Reciprocating saws 3 Air compressors

Plants / gardening

1 Seed library 1 Grow light systems 1 Watering systems1 Grow tents 1 Electric seed warming trays 1 Planting beds1 Hand tools 2 CNC farming machine (e. g., Farmbot) 3 Rotary tillers


Table A1 (continued)

Assigned Designation Codes for Equipment Technological Complexity and HazardCode Equipment Code Equipment Code Equipment

Metalworking

1 Soldering irons 3 English wheels 3 Rotary sheet metal punches1 Design computers & software 1 Planishing hammers 3 Milling machines1 Sheet metal shears 3 Tumblers 3 Metal lathes1 Sheet metal rollers 3 Metal grinders & sanders 3 Metal band saws1 Hand tools 3 Heat strip bending systems 3 Powder coating systems3 Compressed air hand tools 3 Handheld plasma cutters 3 Sandblast cabinet3 Metalworking lathes 3 Ventilated wax working station 3 Small propane casting furnace3 Welders 3 Drill presses 3 Spray booths

Food / Cooking / baking

1 Hand utensils 1 Mixers 1 Ovens1 Bakeware 1 Stovetops 1 Microwave ovens1 Blenders 1 Dishwashers

Sewing / needlework / quilting / knitting / textiles / wearable technology

1 Sewing machines 2 Design computers & software 1 Knitting looms1 Overlock sewing machines 1 Ironing boards & irons 3 Quilting machines1 Hand tools 1 Dress forms 4 CNC (computer) quilters1 Electric fabric scissors 3 Rotary cutters & cutting mats 4 Textile looms3 Screen printers 1 Padded tabletops 1 Vertical fabric steamers1 Sergers 1 Digital embroidery machine & software 1 Dying sinks1 Cutting table 1 Knitting machines

Other small handcrafts / jewelry

1 Electric staple guns 1 Paper cutters 1 Glue guns1 Hand tools 1 Paper punches 1 Soldering kits1 Craft drills 2 3D jewelry modeling software 1 Jewelry hole punches1 Bead boards & looms 1 Computers & tablets


Appendix B

Survey Questionnaire (Qualtrics Input Format)


Appendix C

Institutional Review Board Letter

capstoneportfoliomlsdsb.weebly.comcapstoneportfoliomlsdsb.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/5/0/26509128/s… ·...

Documents

Transcript of capstoneportfoliomlsdsb.weebly.comcapstoneportfoliomlsdsb.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/5/0/26509128/s… ·...