skip to main content
research-article

Tensions between Access and Control in Makerspaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Makerspaces have complex access control requirements and are increasingly protected through digital access control mechanisms (e.g., keycards, transponders). However, it remains unclear how space administrators craft access control policies, how existing technical infrastructures support and fall short of access needs, and how these access control policies impact end-users in a makerspace. We bridge this gap through a mixed-methods, multi-stakeholder study. Specifically, we conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with makerspace administrators across the U.S. along with a survey of 48 makerspace end-users. We found four factors influenced administrators' construction of access control policies: balancing safety versus access; logistics; prior experience; and, the politics of funding. Moreover, administrators often made situational exceptions to their policies: e.g., during demand spikes, to maintain a good relationship with their staff, and if they trusted the user(s) requesting an exception. Conversely, users expressed frustration with the static nature of access control policies, wishing for negotiability and for social nuance to be factored into access decisions. The upshot is that existing mechanisms for access control in makerspaces are often inappropriately static and socially unaware.

References

  1. [n.d.]. Otter Voice Meeting Notes. https://otter.ai Library Catalog: otter.ai.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Robert W. Reeder, Michael K. Reiter, and Kami Vaniea. 2008. A user study of policy creation in a flexible access-control system. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '08. ACM Press, Florence, Italy, 543. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357143Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Vincent Bonneau, Tiana Ramahandry, Laurent Probst, Bertrand Pedersen, and Lauriane Dakkak-Arnoux. 2017. Secure Access Control: Smart ID Management for Building Access. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/monitor/sites/default/files/DTM_Secure%20access%20control%20v1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Julie Darwin, Mr Joseph Patrick Kale, Michael S Thompson, MA Vigeant, and A Cheville. 2016. MAKER: A Maker Space Smart Badging System. In ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Vol. 10. 25600.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. E Davies, R Morris, and A Jariwala. 2017. Trust as the Foundation for a Successful Balance of Power in a Student Run Academic Makerspace. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Academic Makerspaces (ISAM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Serge Egelman, Andrew Oates, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. [n.d.]. Oops, I did it again: mitigating repeated access control errors on facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2011-05-07) (CHI '11). Association for Computing Machinery, 2295--2304. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979280Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Craig R Forest, Roxanne A. Moore, Amit S. Jariwala, Barbara Burks Fasse, Julie Linsey, Wendy Newstetter, Peter Ngo, and Christopher Quintero. 2014. The Invention Studio: A University Maker Space and Culture. Advances in Engineering Education Summer 2014 (2014), 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Joey A Gottbrath and Ian C Charnas. 2019. Makerspace Staffing Models: A Survey. In Proceedings of ISAM 2019. Yale University, 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sang-Yeal Han, Jaeheung Yoo, Hangjung Zo, and Andrew P. Ciganek. 2017. Understanding makerspace continuance: A self-determination perspective. Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34, 4 (July 2017), 184--195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.02.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ramy Imam, Leonard Ferron, and Amit S Jariwala. 2018. A Review of the Data Collection Methods Used at Higher Education Makerspaces. In Proceedings of ISAM 2018. Co-hosted Standford and UC Berkeley, 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Amit Jariwala, Tim Felbinger, Thomas L. Spencer, Veronica Spencer, and Priyesh B. Patel. 2019. Safety in a Student-Run Makerspace via Peer-to-Peer Adaptive Training. IJAMM, Vol. 1, 1 (Oct. 2019). https://doi.org/10.21428/70cb44c5.c9986b05Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kyungwon Koh and June Abbas. 2015. Competencies for Information Professionals in Learning Labs and Makerspaces. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science Online, Vol. 56, 2 (2015), 114--129. https://doi.org/10.12783/issn.2328--2967/56/2/3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Gabriel Licks, Adriano Teixeira, and Kris Luyten. 2018. Smart Makerspace: A Web Platform Implementation. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), Vol. 13, 02 (Feb. 2018), 140--156. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/7904Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Robert D Mabry, Suzanne M Valery, and Brie J Lindsey. 2018. Santa Maria's Central Coast Makerspace Collaborative: A Network of Internal and External Partners. In Proceedings of ISAM 2018. Co-hosted Standford and UC Berkeley, 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Michelle L Mazurek, J P Arsenault, Joanna Bresee, Nitin Gupta, Iulia Ion, Christina Johns, Daniel Lee, Yuan Liang, Jenny Olsen, Brandon Salmon, Richard Shay, Kami Vaniea, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Gregory R Ganger, and Michael K Reiter. [n.d.]. Access Control for Home Data Sharing: Attitudes, Needs and Practices. ([n.,d.]), 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Alexis Noel, Lauren Murphy, and Amit S Jariwala. 2016. Sustaining a diverse and inclusive culture in a student run makerspace. In Proceedings of ISAM 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Michail N Giannakos, and Letizia Jaccheri. 2017. Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, Vol. 18 (2017), 57--78. Publisher: Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Tara Radniecki and Mitch Winterman. 2020. Leveraging student expertise for niche services. Reference Services Review, Vol. ahead-of-print, ahead-of-print (Jan. 2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-11-2019-0083Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Robert W Reeder, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie F Cranor, Michael K Reiter, and Kami Vaniea. 2011. More than skin deep: measuring effects of the underlying model on access-control system usability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2065--2074.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Talia Ringer, Dan Grossman, and Franziska Roesner. [n.d.]. AUDACIOUS: User-Driven Access Control with Unmodified Operating Systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (New York, NY, USA, 2016-10-24) (CCS '16). Association for Computing Machinery, 204--216. https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978344Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Dustyn Roberts and Jenni Buckley. 2020. Case Study: Maker Space Management by Minions. Advances in Engineering Education, Vol. Spring 2020 (2020), 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Eldon Schoop, Forrest Huang, Nathan Khuu, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2018. MakerLens: What Sign-In, Reservation and Training Data Can (and Cannot) Tell You About Your Makerspace. In Paper presentation, International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces, Stanford, CA, August.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas Wildbolz, Hans P. Schnöll, and Christian Ramsauer. [n.d.]. Managing Access to Space, Tools, and Machines at the Schumpeter Laboratory for Innovation. In Proceedings of ISAM 2019. Yale University, 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Megan E Tomko, Julie Linsey, Robert Nagel, and Melissa W Alemán. 2017. Exploring meaning-making and innovation in makerspaces: An ethnographic study of student and faculty perspectives. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1--9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190580Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Scooter Willis. [n.d.]. The Maker Revolution., Vol. 51, 3 ( [n.,d.]), 62--65. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.1731074Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Tensions between Access and Control in Makerspaces

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!