Making Your Makerspace: A Tale of Tension

Makerspaces hold a lot of potential for participation in innovation, democratization of technology, and as a resource for community building – but not all who make, are represented in makerspaces: many makers do not feel at home in these spaces. This paper investigates the wants and needs of people who are engaged with making. It describes the result of four co-creation events, in which participants constructed their ideal version of a makerspace. By analysing the thoughts and ideas that participants shared during the building process, and the resulting physical representations of makerspaces, we uncovered two distinct tensions in what makers require from their ideal makerspace: the tension between having fun in a space and a space that is functional; and the tension between having the opportunity to collaborate with other people, versus undisturbed focus on projects. We contextualize these findings in literature related to makerspaces and offer suggestions for dealing with these tensions through design.


INTRODUCTION
There is growing interest in the Design Research community regarding hacking, crafting, DIY practices and the environments where these activities take place, including in the TEI community.Increasingly, people without any formal training in design, craft, or engineering, are getting involved in (technological) making practices [19], often resulting in artefacts that combine the tangible and the digital.Bringing varying skill levels, using an assortment of tools (including anything from 3D-printers and CNC machines to woodworking tools and power tools), and driven by a multitude of motivations, people make tangible, technological, artefacts [40,56,69,83].
One such environment where making takes place is the makerspace.Makerspaces, also known as hackerspaces, hacklabs, or fablabs, are community-operated spaces where people gather to work on DIY projects, learn new skills, and share resources and knowledge [58].The concept of makerspaces can be traced back to the early days of personal computing in the 1970s and 1980s, when small groups of hobbyists and tinkerers began to gather in informal spaces to work on their own projects and share ideas [78].As the maker movement grew in the 2000s, the number of makerspaces also began to increase.These early makerspaces were frequently located in community centers, schools, or libraries [59], and often focused on providing access to tools and resources for DIY projects such as electronics, woodworking, and textiles.As the maker movement continued to evolve, makerspaces began to incorporate more advanced tools and technologies such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and CNC mills.
The maker movement has gained mainstream acceptance and recognition, and as a result, the number of makerspaces has continued to grow.Makerspaces have become a vital resource for the maker community, providing a place to work on projects, share ideas, and learn new skills.In recent years, makerspaces have been celebrated as many different things: sites of technological innovation [53], catalyzers for citizen participation in democracy [2], spaces for feminist design [30], resources for community building [73], places for self-directed life-long learning [81], breeding grounds for early STEM interests in children and teenagers [66], and not least, pivotal for many interaction design research projects that involve digital-physical material.
Makerspaces are important sites of innovation, where people can experiment and work with tangible materials, new technologies, and professional machinery.Yet the maker movement, and makerspaces in general, have also been criticized.No matter its lofty goal of bringing together arts, science, crafts, and engineering for everyone who takes an interest [21], there is a discrepancy in the maker movement between its stated openness, and the actual technocentric practices that pervade it [80].The technocentric focus of the maker movement results in makerspaces that are unsuitable for potential users that are interested in the artistic and craft-based types of making, or focused on niche, one-of-a-kind, handmade goods [56].The focus on economic motivations of makerspace users can negatively impact exploratory innovation [83], which is important for beginning makers [41].
Acknowledging that the design of makerspaces, and the needs and desires of individuals who engage in making, often do not align, we investigate the what makers themselves envision as the ideal makerspace.We did this by inviting makers to do what they do best: physically building it.The intent was that by having participants engage in a tangible making activity, their comments and ideas about making and makerspaces would be directly grounded in the context of making.By means of a co-creation activity, we asked twenty-one visitors of a makerspace and a maker festival to construct their ideal makerspace, using materials such as LEGO, clay, and cardboard.These materials provided a range of qualities (e.g., hard/soft, colourful/dull, big/small), while also allowing for quick construction (e.g., clicking together LEGO, moulding clay, cutting and pasting paper), and requiring no technical skills (unlike rapid prototyping tools such as 3D printers or laser cutters).As such, these materials are tools for thinking that support the representation and organisation of ideas [35].During the construction of the ideal makerspace, we engaged the participants in conversation about makerspaces, and their own experiences and practices in regard to making.
The research goal of the co-creation activities and subsequent analysis was to investigate how people with an affinity to making would shape their space to ideally suit their making practices.Additionally, we aimed to understand what makers currently struggle with in the makerspaces that they visit or, as a result, do not visit right now.Through the research activities described in this paper, we aim to address design opportunities in makerspaces that will support a more diverse audience to get their foot in the makerspace door.By analysing the tangible outcomes of the activities and the verbal explanations, justifications, and general commentary participants expressed during the building process, we uncovered design opportunities for the development of makerspaces.We discuss these design opportunities with Person-Environment Fit theory [15] in mind, which highlights the fit between individuals (makers) and the environment (makerspaces).We evaluate how design opportunities can resolve tensions in the physical environment, using Elsbach and Pratt [24]'s categorization: sacrifice, compartmentalization, and integration.We believe this to be a useful framing for the design of complex physical spaces, which has not yet been explored in the TEI community.
The participants' input and the resulting design opportunities brought to light two striking tensions in the needs of makerspace users: firstly, a tension related to different uses of the space (ranging from hobbies, fun, and leisurely making to functional, utilitarian purposes); and secondly, a tension related to the type of social scaffolds required in the space (an open, sharing, communal atmosphere, versus individualism and pragmatism).We discuss these tensions and explore their implications for the design of makerspaces and within the broader context of the maker movement.

RELATED WORK
In the following section, we will discuss related work to the so-called 'promise of making' [4,54,57]: democratizing innovation, participating in design, building a (professional) network, and finding a place in a community that can support personal and professional endeavors [43,53,64].We further reflect on how the maker movement and makerspaces currently fall short of that promise, and efforts that have been made previously to make makerspaces work for a broader userbase.
Built on values of openness, community, and sharing, the maker movement has rapidly developed over the past fifteen years.Professional technologies and industrial production methods have become available to the general public in the form of, e.g., 3D printers, laser cutters, knitting and stitching machines, and CNC routers.As maker groups began to emerge, physical spaces, such as fablabs, hackspaces, and makerspaces, were built and populated.Several online platforms for sharing DIY instructions (e.g., Instructables1 ), programming tutorials (e.g., Hackr.io 2 ), or open hardware (e.g., HackaDay3 ) were also launched.Due to the potential of (technological) making for open science and citizen science, the principles of the maker movement have found their way onto political agendas [27], into primary and secondary education curricula [28,57,81], and now coexist with museums and libraries [73,84].Makerspaces are hailed as "the contemporary site of technological innovation" [52, p. 1], showing potential to democratize innovation and production, and are seen as platforms for collaborative engagement in design [23].Furthermore, makerspaces can be the basis for both knowledge networks [7] and professional networks [73].
As the recognition of makerspaces as hubs for innovation continues to grow, attempts have been made to outline key success factors in their design.For instance, it has been emphasized that makerspaces should have a central and prominent location [18].This is not just important for the visibility of the makerspace, but also to ensure the safety of makers [31].Both Keune et al., [46] and Lam et al., [51] highlight the importance of flexibility in a space.An adaptable environment can promote collaboration and co-construction [46], which is important for nurturing creativity and innovation [51].Moreover, an open layout can facilitate 'cognitive apprenticeship' as users observe others at work [43].
The maker movement is argued to be inviting to all, because it does not rely on prior experience with design, engineering or craft, and is fundamentally interest-driven [4].Nevertheless, the maker movement, and the resulting spaces, have been criticized as privileged [55], elitist [60], Westernized [54] and solutionist [16].People with cognitive or physical disabilities have different requirements from makerspaces that are often not met [6], increasing the barrier for them to participate in making.A lack of diverse role models in makerspaces makes it hard for underrepresented groups to feel 'at home' in makerspaces [20], and due to the strong focus on technological making (i.e., hacking, rapid prototyping, programming and electronics), many people who make do not consider themselves the type of 'makers' that would be welcome in a makerspace [13], and would therefore not be incentivized to visit a makerspace [26].Furthermore, visitors that have experienced unwelcome behaviours in a makerspace often leave without comment or complaint, and "[...] once an environment has been made uncomfortable once, there's no likely reason to return."[75, p. 1088].Finally, for lower-income potential user groups, membership in makerspaces are prohibitively expensive [64].As a result, many makers and crafters do not benefit from the promise of making, such as participation in innovation and citizen science, sharing of technological knowledge and skills, and entry into professional networks.
Efforts have been made to make makerspaces more inviting by, e.g., instating codes of conduct and anti-discriminatory policies [62], using cheaper materials and machines to reduce membership cost [72], focusing on more affordable technologies [39], and allowing members to volunteer their time in return for reduced membership fees [25], and some makerspaces offer on-site childcare [41].
Further, research activities describe further opportunities to make makerspaces more accessible for a broader audience.Kurti et al. [49] highlight the significance of playfulness to learning, and therefore the importance of inviting playfulness in makerspaces.While some makers enjoy working in a space that they experience as 'organized chaos', as it supports their creativity [1], many makers feel unwell in makerspaces that they perceive as chaotic, disorganized, and unhygienic [1,3].In fact, keeping makerspaces clean and organized, and keeping tools in their dedicated spaces, renders makerspaces more usable for those with disabilities [70].Keeping a makerspace clean and organized requires effort.This type of care work, which is often hidden and overlooked, needs to be embedded in the maker culture of the particular makerspace to be successfully maintained [74].Generally, tidying up and keeping a space organized is of higher priority for regular users, than for users who visited more sporadically [44].Toombs [75] posit that many issues in makerspaces and hackerspaces could be addressed through (more extensive) social policies, identity policies, and community enforcement.

APPROACH: MAKING YOUR MAKERSPACE
In the following section, we describe the 'Making Your Makerspace' (MYMS) activities: the co-creation approach that we employed, and the events at which these co-creation activities took place.

Co-Creation
We chose a making activity as the basis of our study, in which participants designed and built their ideal makerspace, using physical materials provided by the researchers.These types of activities are often labelled 'co-creation' or 'co-design' [65].In the remainder of this paper, we will use the term co-creation, as this activity goes beyond merely involving participants in creating the solution to a design problem, but also incorporating their input for the formulation of a design problem and the definition of the design space [79].Co-creation and the maker movement are similar in spirit, through the emphasis on hands-on approaches, and the appreciation of community and collaboration.The maker movement, and the use of co-creation in research and design activities, both invite a more engaged and active relationship with the things we use.As such, we see co-creation activities as an excellent format to investigate the maker movement together with makers.

The MYMS Activities
The MYMS co-creation activities were conducted during four different events in two different locations -see Table 1.In total, over the four instances, 21 people took part in the MYMS activities.Out of these participants, eleven identified as women, and ten identified as men.By performing co-creation activities at four different events, we aimed to connect with people with an affinity to making, but with different backgrounds.For instance, we expected to see participants with different backgrounds at the 15 th anniversary party of a makerspace than at an event geared towards women in makerspaces.For an overview of the participants, their diverse backgrounds, and ages, we refer to Table 2.
At each event, we set up an area where participants could build their ideal makerspace using LEGO, clay, cardboard, and other creativity support materials.During the process, an unstructured interview was conducted to gather insights into the design considerations of participants.
The first activity took part at temporary maker and art festival Schmiede 4 in Hallein, Austria.At the first event, primarily people with a scientific or artistic background, with extensive experience as makers, participated.Overall, we collected data from eight participants.Four participants self-identified as women, four participants self-identified as men.Three participants worked at a university, three participants described themselves as artists, and two described themselves as professional makers.Six participants participated in the activity by building a makerspace.Two participants did not build a makerspace, but participated by talking about their experiences and their ideal makerspace.As the first activity was only planned as an exploratory activity during the festival, we did not audio record the interviews and did not collect more extensive demographic data.However, detailed notes were taken during this activity.As the data from the activity turned out to be rich and insightful, we then decided to perform the activity at three more events, this time using a more structured approach The other three activities were performed in Happylab5 , a makerspace in Vienna, during three different events.The makerspace is open to paying members on a subscription basis.Interviews were audio recorded, and the making process was photographed by means of a time-lapse setup, unless participants did not consent.Participants filled out a demographic questionnaire at the end.
The second activity (i.e., the first at this location) was performed at the opening event of the 'Female Maker Month', a month dedicated towards women in making.Five people participated, who all self-identified as women.The age ranged from 21 to 51 (mean age = 34.2,SD = 12.9).Among the participants, there were a scientific project manager, a software developer, and two fashion designers.One participant did not disclose her occupation.Three participants were members of a makerspace, two were not.Four participants self-identified as makers, one did not.All participants gave consent to audio and time-lapse recording, and all participants participated in the activity by building a makerspace.
The third activity (i.e., the second at this location) was performed during the annual Lange Nacht der Forschung (Long Night of Research), an event that aims to introduce science and scientific insights to the public.Five people participated in the MYMS activity at this event.Two participants self-identified as women, three selfidentified as men.The age range of participants was 13 to 36 (mean age = 26.8,SD = 8.40).Four out of five participants were not members of a makerspace.Two participants self-identified as makers, three did not.Among the participants were a process technician, two students, a project manager, and a computer scientist.All participants gave consent to recording the time-lapse of the process, but one participant did not want to participate in the building activity and shared the ideal makerspace verbally.
The fourth activity (i.e., the third at this location) was performed at the 15 th anniversary party of Happylab Vienna.At this activity, three people participated in the MYMS activity.All participants self-identified as men, two were a member of a makerspace, and selfdescribed as makers, and one participant was neither a member of a makerspace nor self-described as a maker.The age of participants ranged from 35 to 49 (mean age = 43.33,SD = 7.37).Participants had diverse backgrounds, such as an economist, a software developer and maker, and a professional maker specializing in building robots.During one interview, a participant declined audio and timelapse recording, so detailed notes were taken instead.

Data Analysis
For each activity, we generated a summary and overview of the notes, accompanied by photos illustrating the outcomes of the building activities.To make sense of the collected data, two researchers applied an open coding approach to the data [71, p. 303], preserving the original data within the codes through an in-vivo process.Each researcher coded the entire data set, resulting in a total of 446 codes, both semantic and latent [8] in nature.Among these codes, 200 were sourced from the data collected at the first event, while another 226 codes were collected at the second, third, and fourth events, which also involved interview recordings and the collection of demographic data.
Following the steps to build an affinity diagram, as described by Holtzblatt, et al. [42], we developed themes from the coded data in a step-by-step manner.First, we created axial codes to organize the data and highlight key points.Then we created codes on a substantive level that integrate the themes into a coherent narrative, showing the relationships between the axial codes on which these substantive level codes were founded [17, p. 63].Finally, the themes were developed based on the highest level of coding (theoretical codes), which show the possible relations between the substantive codes, and are the basis for the themes that are developed from the data [45, p. 199].
Throughout this process, we regularly referred back to the photographs of the tangible representations of the ideal makerspaces, to develop our shared understanding of the participants' intentions.To ensure that the themes we developed were grounded in quality data, we initially included the codes from the second, third, and fourth event, during which demographic data were collected and the co-creation activities were audio and time-lapse recorded.After establishing the themes, we rolled in the data from the first event into the existing themes, following Holtzblatt et al. [42, p. 178], quickly sorting the new data on the level of axial codes, and then grouping them in the existing substantive codes, and, where necessary, creating new substantive codes.The new substantive codes were grouped under the highest level, but no new theoretical codes or themes were created.
Most of the participants spoke German while taking part in the MYMS activity.We therefore do not directly quote the participants, but rather paraphrase translations of the original data.

RESULTS
In this section, we articulate opportunities for the design and organization of new and existing makerspaces and formulate tensions found in the data.
Our analysis resulted in four main themes: openness, restriction, fun, and functionality.These four themes establish design opportunities, which will be presented in the next sections.Two strong contrasts in the four themes (openness versus restriction; and fun versus functionality) will be presented in the subsequent section.

Design Opportunities of Inclusive Makerspaces
Considering that the maker movement is grounded in DIY, one might assume that makerspaces -as an expression of the maker movement -are built exactly according to the needs and wants of the makers who use them.However, this is not always the case.The needs of participating makers are often not (fully) fulfilled by makerspaces they belong to or have visited in the past.Designing spaces to fit the needs of people who are not (yet) part of a space can be challenging.Accordingly, people with an affinity to making, who are not currently makerspace users, experience that the design of makerspaces does not fit their work practice and needs.
When reflecting the design of makerspaces we use lenses of theories related to (working) environments and (work)spaces.Person-Environment Fit theory [15,22] conceptualizes the experience between a person and the environment as fit or misfit.Thereby a need-supply fit describes the fit between the needs of a person and the supplies of an environment [12].This fit is key for experiencing satisfaction with work environments [36,82].Having different users in a space can create conflict between the needs of the different users.Elsbach and Pratt [24] offer three ways of resolving these conflicts: 1) by sacrificing one person's needs over the needs of another, 2) by integrating through alignment of tensions, and 3) by compartmentalizing, either temporally or spatially, and managing the tensions separately.Within the next sections, we discuss the themes that emerged based on the data and offer related design opportunities to resolve tensions in the use of makerspaces.

Territoriality.
Territoriality is a concept that was discussed by many participants in different forms.It ranges from concrete needs, such as how the space can be used practically while shared with others at the same time (P1, P3, P4, P7, P9, P10, P16), how much space is available for collaboration (P4, P8, P10, P13, P19), how many machines are available (P21), how equipment or materials can be stored (P7, P10, P13), to more abstract preferences such as implicit rules about how a space should be used, or how much order or untidiness or even chaos is needed/can be tolerated in a makerspace (P1, P2, P3, P9, P10, P19, P20).
Territoriality is related to a sense of place and a need for selfexpression [63], both relevant factors for creativity and making activities.In the responses of the makers, who participated in this research, we see a tendency toward anticipatory defence of territory [11], such as making sure that the storage is lockable to prevent others from using certain materials or machinery.This may give the impression that people with this preference are less willing to cooperate [34].In addition, this may make others feel unsafe in their territory [10], thus compromising their ability to work efficiently and effectively.Toombs [75] argues that there is a need to balance between trusting new members and protecting current members.
Design opportunity: An opportunity in the design and organization of makerspaces to allow users to feel secure in the space, without having to resort to territorial means, such as hiding materials or marking tools with their name.As many participants highlighted the importance of knowing what is available in the space to make proper use of it (P3, P7, P9, P16, P18, P19), it is a challenge to integrate the needs of all participants in the design of a makerspace, in a way that users feel secure in their territories, without hiding away any parts of the makerspace.

Organization.
The way a makerspace is organized and how that influences working in a makerspace was an aspect that was mentioned by most participants in one way or another.This includes considerations on how usage of space or machinery is paid (e.g.pay per minute, flat rate) (P1, P8), at what times the space is open (P14, P19, P21), how people can access the space, and considerations about who takes care of introducing new members to machines (P1) or who cleans up the space (P3).
There were differing needs of professionals and amateurs.For instance, they have contradicting opinions when it comes to fees, or how much support is needed.For instance, P1 stated that 'participation can and should cost money so that [the makerspace] is only used by people who need it'.Furthermore, there were different needs in how much chaos or disarray can be tolerated by different users.For example, P10 and P19 stated that if the space is too chaotic, they cannot work effectively, but P3 described a makerspace she attended previously as 'sterile', because everything was too clean and organized, and P20 supposed that a makerspace cannot exist without a bit of chaos.Research shows, however, that organisation and neatness increases feelings of welcomeness, friendliness, and visitor comfort [24].This precarious balance is a design challenge in the construction of makerspaces.How can a space invite creativity, improvisation, and cognitive ability (for which a bit of disarray is needed [47]), without becoming too overwhelming for those who need structure and organization to be effective?
Design opportunity: We see design opportunities here in the realm of spatial compartmentalization: providing (flexible) spaces for different modes of working.For example, a makerspaces could have a dedicated 'chaos room' where messiness, experimentation, noisiness, and improvisation are encouraged; where left-over materials are stored; and where makerspace owners could store experimental machines and materials.The "bit of chaos" that is necessary for many users to get their creativity flowing is then spatially contained.

Flexibility.
Participants addressed the need for a makerspace to be flexible and adjustable to individuals' needs.According to Keune et al. [46], three aspects need consideration for the flexibility (of artefacts) in makerspaces: pliability (possibility to change and shape objects), accessibility (transparency and availability of objects to everyone in the space), and mobility (potential to physically move objects in the space).For example, in regard to mobility, one participant (P16) proposed the idea of having a workshop room that can be flexible configuration with machines for co-working on a project.Regarding pliability, P2 proposed that a makerspace should be as flexible as possible, thus he only loosely placed parts on the LEGO baseplate, rather than 'clicking' them and mentioned that users should be able to rearrange the space to their needs (see figure 1), creating possibilities of spatial compartmentalization.
The accessibility, the visibility and transparency of available tools, was also a recurring topic mentioned by multiple participants (P2, P3, P10, P13).The selection of available tools in a makerspace should support maximal flexibility [48].P13 mentioned the importance of 'seeing an overview of the tools' and P3 stated that 'tool and material storage should be transparent, so you can see and find Figure 1: P2 wanted the makerspace to be as flexible as possible, so any materials were loosely placed, rather than attached to the LEGO baseplate.This way, any user could rearrange the space to their liking.Also, a butler was added to have a dedicated person to keep the place in order.This was a wish of the participant, who has experienced the tendency of makerspaces to get messy and chaotic at a makerspace that he co-founded things'.At the same time, too much flexibility can make it hard for novice users to get to know the space, which was also mentioned as being very important: e.g., P19 stated that it is impossible to work efficiently in a space you do not know well, and P18 mentioned that it is important for them to get to know all the tools in a space.In this direction, Stark et al., [69] described a system to support situation awareness in makerspaces, especially for novice users, by providing information on projects and tasks via a tablet and stationary beacons that guide the process.
Design opportunity: There is a need for the space to be designed in such a way that both the need for flexibility, which seems important for experienced users, and the need for structure and consistency, which is relevant for new users, can be met.We suggest establishing clear rules about which parts of the space can be changed by users (i.e., specific workshop areas) and which parts must remain consistent (i.e., areas for tool storage or definitions of which work area can be used for which tools).A clear compartmentalization of different areas is key.
4.1.4Atmosphere.Many participants (P3, P4, P9, P11, P13, P16) expressed needs for a certain type of atmosphere and environment (including, e.g., rugs, natural lights, plants, outdoor areas etc.).We want to emphasize that this need for a 'nice' or 'natural' atmosphere was mostly mentioned by participants who identify as women (P3, P4, P9, P11, P13) and only once mentioned by a participant (P16) who identified as a man.This is in line with prior research by Bean at al. [3] who stated that male-dominated makerspaces are often perceived as chaotic, disorganized, and unhygienic, which might be a hindering factor for women to join such a space.For example, P7, who identified as a woman, mentioned that 'the space needs to be beautiful, this is important when you want to be creative'.Especially outdoor areas and the importance of natural lighting are not often considered in existing makerspaces and thus an opportunity for improvement.Many makerspaces are situated in urban contexts, where outdoor space is limited.
Design opportunity: We see an opportunity here for makerspaces to integrate needs of their users by investing in urban green spaces that can not only improve the atmosphere of a makerspace, but can also contribute to positive environmental innovation, and promote sustainable developments in makerspaces.This would be in line with other activities that are often already part of makerspace programs, such as repair cafés, e-waste recycling, and the repurposing of left-over materials [61].
4.1.5Relaxation and Fun.Dedicated spaces for relaxation and fun within the makerspace were often built and discussed by participants.The spaces often contained either a recreational element (e.g.chill-out area (P13), bar (P11 and P12), coffee machine (P3), hammocks, chocolate corner (P17)) or a fun element (e.g.play area for children (P4), slide (P20), bowling alley (P4), pool (P4), boulder wall (P5)).P4 envisioned the makerspace as a playground for children and adults, which is also emphasized by Kurti et al., [49] who highlight the importance of playfulness for (educational) makerspaces.Although some participants addressed this aspect, others focused on machines and tools.They emphasized that the main goal of a makerspace is to provide machines (P21) and to inspire people to use tools (P1, P16).There seem to be two groups among makers who have different goals of use: those who simplyuse the makerspace to complete their project efficiently, and those who visit the makerspace to relax, spend time with others, get inspired, and have fun.
Design opportunity: We suggest that spaces that promote both productivity and enjoyment are possible.Although these are already present, some makerspaces tend to prioritize commercialization and professionalization, sacrificing relaxation and enjoyment for efficiency and effectiveness.This approach could deter people whose primary interest in makerspaces lies in the inspiration and community they provide.These makerspaces could benefit from better integration of both needs.
4.1.6Transparency and Exchange.This theme was considered important by several participants (P1, P3, P4, P11, P13), supporting the idea that makerspaces are a place for exchanging ideas, learning from others and getting support and help from others [32,37].The existence or creation of social scaffolds (helping one-another, collaborating, asking and answering questions) support the learning process in making activities [5].
Getting inspired, for instance by seeing the work of others, or talking to other people, is a key feature of participating in makerspaces.As an illustration, P17 proposed a platform in the space that they built, which so-called 'newbies' could use to watch other people work and get a 'lay of the land' (see figure 2).And even though, for example, P1 stated that he wants a wall that separates an amateur area from the professional area, he emphasized that the door between the areas needs to be transparent, so that exchange between the areas can happen.P15 emphasized that social interaction is increasingly important, especially after the last three years of reduced social interaction (due to the COVID-19 pandemic).Participants (P1, P3, P4, P10, P16) also stated that collaboration is an important aspect of makerspaces.In this research direction, Kurti et al. [49] highlighted the importance of collaboration for (educational) makerspaces.
However, while social interaction, exchange of knowledge, collaboration and the sharing of skills and tools are core values of (most) makerspaces, some participants (e.g., P4 and P9) mentioned that they should be able to work undisturbed as well, with P9 even noting that 'other people watching her struggle to learn a new skill' was the major barrier that kept her from participating in makerspaces.
Design opportunity: Makerspaces should provide areas for collaboration, such as large tables, workshop rooms, and flexible configurations, that can be used for different modes of working.Makerspaces can, and should, provide ways for the members to share knowledge and exchange with others, but there is also an opportunity for the design of a system that allows for, e.g., temporal compartmentalization, indicating when another person is open for exchange, and when they would rather be left alone.
Figure 3: P20 put his main focus on the storage room and the situation within this room -on the left side: well-organized materials; on the right side: chaos.P20 noted that some 'organized chaos' will always be part of a makerspace, and he even emphasized that the chaos (on the right) is meant to be a memorial of past projects.

Tensions in the Design of Makerspace
The findings from the MYMS activities can be described as tensions, as each theme that was developed from the data could be paired with an antagonist theme, resulting in two distinct tensions.The interaction between these tensions in makerspaces are described in the following.

4.2.1
Putting the 'Fun' in Functionality.The first tension is centred around how the physical space of the makerspace is used.Some makers focus strongly on the functionality of the space addressing storage and organization of materials and projects.For these participants, it was important that the space was equipped with all the machinery they could need for their projects, and furnished in a practical way (P3), so that they could efficiently work on their projects: P20 mentioned that he would simply fill his makerspace with laser cutters, and P21 said that the ideal number of laser cutters is always one more than you currently have, since the laser cutters in the makerspace they are a member of are always occupied.According to these participants, the focus of the space should be on the machinery.
It was also important for these participants that it is easy to get a grasp on the space and to learn how to use the machinery (P3, P7, P8, P19), so people can work on their projects effectively and safely.P19 stated that it is impossible for him to work in a space that he does not know well, and P9 stated that not knowing how to get started in the makerspace was a barrier for her to get engaged.Further, other participants (P1, P2, P3, P8, P9, P10, P19) stressed the importance of proper organization of materials and tools in the makerspace, so that they could work efficiently and effectively.This need for efficiency was also reflected in commentary about the cost of using a makerspace: P1, P8, P16, and P20 mentioned that the benefit of using the space should correlate to the price of using the space and/or machinery.
On the other hand, participants placed a great deal of emphasis on the fun and excitement that, in their opinion, should be part of a makerspace.For example, P7 commented that it is simply part of a makerspace to be a bit chaotic and unorganized.P20 said that, although they try to keep things clean and tidy in their makerspace, there always is some 'stored chaos' (see figure 3) in their storage.Some participants focused in their makerspace on atmosphere, rather than functionality.These spaces were often filled with plants (P3, P9, P11, P12) and had no shortage of natural light (P3, P11, P12).An outdoor area, both for working and relaxing, was also mentioned regularly (P3, P11, P12, P13, P17).Having a space to relax (P3, P4, P17) or even sleep (P13), including an area where one could eat and drink (P3, P4, P11, P12, P17) were top priorities for these participants.
Furthermore, several participants added items to their makerspace for purely recreational reasons, such as a slide (P13), a pool and bowling alley (P4), and a bouldering wall (P5).In this regard, P4 stated that 'a makerspace should be a playground for both kids and adults'.This is in direct contrast with the makerspaces of participants who focused on functionality: these participants want to load the space with as much machinery and storage space as possible, to efficiently complete their projects.

4.2.2
Hell is(n't) Other People.The second tension lies between openness and restriction.Many makerspaces adopt partially opendoor policies, allowing anyone to enter and use the space, with some prerequisites like training for machinery.This openness was highly appreciated by makerspaces users of our sample.For example, P14, P19 and P21 mentioned that the 24/7 accessibility of a makerspace is an important aspect.Furthermore, participants built extensive, open spaces (see figure 4), with large surfaces for collaboration (see figure 5) (P1, P3, P4, P9, P10, P13, P19).
Participants described preferring a casual environment (P4) with social components (P3, P4, P9, P14, P16) that make exchange of ideas possible (P1, P4, P14, P17, P18).Furthermore, participants mentioned that watching others work inspired them (P9, P16, P17), and some even noted that they liked watching others work in the space to learn about the space, and to see what is possible in the space (P9, P13, P17).These findings clearly denote a preference for a space that is open, transparent, and encourages social and professional exchange.
At the same time, the openness theme also has a counterpart: the theme of restriction.Several participants (P1, P3, P4, P8, P11, P12) noted that in an ideal world, they would have their own, private makerspace (see figure 6).P11 and P12 noted that they would like to work in a private space, but still have the benefit of social interaction in the form of visitors.The preference for a private makerspace seems to be based on two grounds: First, several participants noted that it can be difficult to have space for different types and modes of working in a shared makerspace (P1, P3, P4).P3 noted that she would often long for quiet space and be distracted by noise when working in a shared space, and P4 preferred to work alone at first, and only share and exchange with others when she was ready for it.Second, wanting a private makerspace was the feeling that others in the space impede work in various ways, e.g., by 'messing with the  equipment' or blocking machinery (P1), by breaking tools (P1, P3, P10, P11, P12), or in the worst case, by stealing or using materials that don't belong to them (P1, P3, P10).Some participants advocated for a mix between public and private space in makerspaces, i.e., by providing private lockers (P10), placing a sliding door between work areas (P3) or placing a wall to separate the makerspace into a 'pro' area and a 'hobby' area (P1) (see figure 7).
Two participants (P1, P2) even described the problems that occur in makerspaces as being similar to problems in shared flats.An example of trying to solve this contradiction was proposed by P3, who explicitly added a quiet area to her makerspace and on the other hand placed machinery in the coffee area to foster unstructured and unplanned exchange -see Figure 8.

DISCUSSION
In this section, we reflect on the opportunities and tensions in the design of makerspaces and discuss the implications in the larger context of the maker movement.

Reflecting on Design Opportunities in the Design of Makerspaces
The identified themes and related design opportunities can be used as a guidance for building, designing and shaping makerspaces and makerspace identities.Moreover, the design opportunities can be used as lenses for analysing existing makerspaces and identify how the contrasting needs of makers are currently balanced in the setup of the space.More generally, the maker movement seems to be at a crossroad.On one hand, there is an increased focus on the professionalization and commercialization of makerspaces [50,53,64], and this is reflected by some of the participants in our study, who strongly focused on the functionality of the space for their projects, which they approached in a professional way.At the same time, research shows that for many makers, valorization and commercialization of their projects is not relevant, and they make for personal benefit, as a meaningful leisure activity [19].It is perhaps not surprising that the participants who focused on efficiency and functionality of the makerspace (e.g., 24/7 opening hours, extensive availability of professional machinery) all identified as men, and those who focused on makerspaces as a space for relaxation and fun (e.g., importance of atmosphere and decoration) largely identified as women.The current focus in the maker movement on product over process comes with the risk that makers who do not focus on innovation and valorization -coincidentally, those who are already underrepresented in makerspaces -will fall outside the narrative of makerspaces [38], and will struggle to find their place in makerspaces.

Reflection on Tensions in the Design of Makerspaces
The maker movement was, initially, not driven by professionals (i.e., engineers, technologists, business people), but rather a fusing of different communities that have a motivation for DIY in common, and a need for sharing and showcasing their skills, materials and tools [4].Over time, however, the movement has been professionalized, with an increased focus on entrepreneurialism [53].This professionalization can be partially attributed to the more Figure 7: P1 wanted a clear separation between an area for hobbyists and professionals.He started by building a wall, which is also the central element in his makerspace.He emphasized that in the hobby area, there should be laser cutters and 3D printers to lure people in, and more advanced materials and machinery in the professional area.Even though he argued for a strong separation, he noted that exchange and transparency is important, and thus he installed a glass door, so experts and novices could still see each other.
ubiquitous availability of high-level specialized machinery (e.g., 3D printers, CNC routers, laser cutters) for all to use [9], but in the maker movement, there is a growing penchant for digital capitalism, identifying making as a wealth-generating endeavour [50].This duality was also addressed by the participants of the MYMS activities.P13 stated, while building her ideal makerspace: everything in the makerspace she currently attends is so focused towards start-ups, there is no room any more for 'just' hobbies.On the other hand, several participants noted a need for more professional and specialized tools than were currently available in the spaces that they were using.Here, a tension also arises between fun and functionality.
Considering that (the use of) a makerspace costs money, the question arises how much space should be reserved for fun, relaxation and collaboration, and how much space should be dedicated to 'productive' machinery.These conflicting impulses -on one side, the maker movement as a new, globally distributed phase of capitalism, and on the other, a (environmentally) sustainable, sometimes explicitly anti-capitalist response to globalism [68] -results in ambivalence towards how the maker movement should move forward, and ambiguity in how makerspaces are shaped and built.This relates strongly to the selfdefined concept and direction of the makerspace.While many makerspaces started as grassroot, self-organized, independent collectives [73], a growing professionalization of the maker movement (and thus, many makerspaces) can be seen [64].However, when looking at specialized makerspaces, such as feminist makerspaces, it is clear that the focus of such makerspaces is not just on the activity of making, but also offers a site for, e.g., political engagement [77] and the building of community [14,67].It may be that these factors are especially important for underrepresented groups, and a primary motivation for them to join a space or community.Moving these factors to the periphery of a makerspace, and focussing on professionalization and valorization in the makerspace, may therefore actually decrease the value for currently underrepresented groups.
A further strong contradiction is found in the tension between individualism versus collaboration in makerspaces.Although most participants mentioned collaboration and collaborative aspects (e.g.getting inspired by others, working together with others, learning from others, etc.), it seems that the drudgery of sharing a place with others plays a defining role in the experience of a makerspace.
The contrasting needs, exemplified in the physical makerspace models built by the participants, are also a reflection of the tensions found in the basis of the maker movement.On the one hand, there is the DIY expectation to be self-sufficient, self-made, and productive, on the other hand, there is the ideal of collectivism and collaboration [29] that guides the maker mindset [57].Toombs [75] noticed that -despite the overall plurality -a shared sense of community and a common set of shared values and believes is important for hackerspace (resp.makerspace) participants.Moreover, Toombs argues that there is an inherent tension in the openness of the hacker movement, as "a practice cannot, by definition, be both counter-cultural and participated in by everyone." [75, p. 1085] Furthermore, these tensions are not just present in the maker movement as a whole, or in the spaces in which making takes place, these discrepancies also exist within participants.Toombs et al. [76] describe this as an implicit tension between a care ethos (i.e., collaborating on projects, sharing tools) and a libertarian ethos (i.e., self-sufficiency and independence).For example, participants laid great importance on the availability of large work surfaces for collaboration, but during the co-creation activity also admitted that the perfect makerspace would be a private space for them only.Also, participants stated that it is important for new people to be introduced to the space and be able to learn from others, but simultaneously expressed discontent with others in the space for using their materials and breaking their tools.
Also, participants experience a discrepancy between their desire to be "real hackers" [76, p. 9] and the desire to be supportive community participants.The design considerations that stem from the findings, along with the tensions we have described in this paper, offer a challenging but exciting opportunity to reimagine makerspaces as new, improved, democratic, open sites for collaboration and innovation.

Limitations & Future Work
There are limitations that need to be addressed in relation to this work.While we achieved a balance in the number of participants identifying as women and the number of participants identifying as men, we acknowledge that our sample does not include any non-binary participants.Furthermore, we did not collect data on, e.g., cognitive or physical disabilities amongst participants, and difficulties experienced based on disability did not explicitly come up during the co-creation activities.However, a number of comments of our participants are in line with suggestions from related work to make makerspaces more accessible for those with disabilities, such as creating dedicated low-noise spaces, keeping tools and equipment in designated areas, and organizing the space using clear labels and signs [70].We suggest for future work to include a more diverse sample of people that make and also people that might not yet make.
Second, the sample of participants may have been influenced by the location of the activities, as co-creation is a contextual design research method [33].Although many of the participants were not members of makerspaces, they had found their way to the activities, which took place in a makerspace and at a maker festival, respectively.This indicates that these participants were not hindered by, or had indeed already overcome, barriers towards visiting a makerspace, and will have had an influence on the experiences they shared in the co-creation activities.In future work, we therefore intend to explicitly address makers, crafters, and creators that have not found their way to makerspaces.

CONCLUSION
In this work, we investigated how users would describe, design and build their ideal makerspace.Based on the data, we identified design opportunities that can be used as a guidance for designing makerspaces and also can be used as lenses for analysing existing makerspaces.By gathering data at four events at two space and subsequently coding and analysing the data, we identified two tensions that arise in the data: fun vs. functionality (Tension 1: Putting the 'Fun' in Functionality) and openness vs. restriction (Tension 2: Hell is(n't) Other People).Furthermore, we reflected on the overall state of the maker movement, and how choices in the development of new makerspaces can influence the participation of underrepresented groups.We applied Person-Environment Fit Theory [15,22] lenses by focussing on needs, and discussed the three notions of Elsbach and Pratt [24] to resolve tension in physical spaces (i.e., sacrifice, integration, and compartmentalization) in relation to our findings.In doing so, this work contributes to a better understanding of the design of makerspaces for all.Through the identified tensions, and the design opportunities proposed in this paper, this work supports the design of accessible and open makerspaces that meet the needs of individuals with affinity to making, that may otherwise miss out on the promise of making.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: P17 built a large platform in her ideal makerspace, for newcomers to sit and watch others work, while getting their bearings in the space.

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: Many of the makerspaces created during this activity were large, open spaces, without any separation of rooms or access-control.In this makerspace (built by P11 and P12) an especially large gate for entering the space is visible.

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: Often, participants placed large surfaces in the space to collaborate at.In the makerspace built by P9, seen above, a different material (cardboard) was sourced to build an extra large table.

Figure 6 :
Figure6: P8 focused on creating a good-looking space, and mainly provided insights on a verbal level, rather than via the model.It is noteworthy that P8 did not add any other persons into the space that he built.

Figure 8 :
Figure8: P3 emphasized the contradiction between the need for collaboration, and the need to be left alone and work quietly on a project.Thus, she proposed several different areas:(1) outdoor-area, (2) coffee and food area combined with tools and machinery, so one can work and learn in a relaxed atmosphere.This combination of relaxation elements and machinery should support unstructured collaboration and exchange, (3) storage, (4) workshop-area for planned/structured collaboration, (5) Quiet Room for working alone.

Table 1 :
Overview of the four events

Table 2 :
Demographic information of participants.*Note: age data were not collected in the first activity.