TITLE file · Web viewTITLE. Access and Express: Professional Perspectives on Public Library Makerspaces and Intellectual FreedomAUTHOR INFORMATION. Shannon Crawford Barniskis

ACCESS & EXPRESS: PREPRINT ONLY, Please cite final version in Public Library Quarterly

1

TITLEAccess and Express: Professional Perspectives on Public Library Makerspaces and Intellectual FreedomAUTHOR INFORMATIONShannon Crawford BarniskisUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Information [email protected] Crawford Barniskis is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Information Studies, with a research focus on information policy, public libraries, creative spaces, power and agency.

ABSTRACT This study examines the roles of makerspaces and librarians in public libraries, as defined by nine librarians instituting makerspace services. It explores their understanding of creative spaces and library policy, specifically the foundational principles of intellectual freedom and access. Using constructivist discourse analysis tools, this study analyzes interview data to illuminate a concept of access grounded in expression, incorporating hands-on activities, tools, and social connections. This study has implications for practitioners and policymakers in reconsidering access as a positive liberty enabled by social contexts, and librarians’ enzymatic roles in facilitating those contexts.

KEYWORDSaccess, intellectual freedom, public libraries, makerspaces, media labs, library programs, content creation, public sphere, library as space, librarians

ARTICLE CLASSIFICATIONResearch paper

mailto:[email protected]


2

Introduction

Makerspaces are collaborative communities in which people share the tools and knowledge

for creation (Britton 2012, Meyer and Fourie 2015). This study grounds the case for library

makerspaces in library and information studies (LIS) theory such as a positive-liberty

interpretation of intellectual freedom, which involves ensuring equitable access to not only

informational media, but also tools, spaces, and social networks that support knowledge, as well

as facilitating users’ knowledge creation. Public libraries, as publicly-funded community

institutions, manifests access to knowledge through such spaces. Access to makerspaces can be

understood as a response to increasing socioeconomic polarity, often labeled as the ‘digital

divide,’ by incorporating the public sphere theory proposed by philosopher Jürgen Habermas

(1991, 1974) into an broadened concept of access that incorporates expression as well as use of

materials created by others. In this study, nine public librarians describe how they interpret their

professional duties in light of an access mandate and makerspaces.

One mission of public libraries is to provide access to ideas, generally through the media

containing or expressing these ideas (Rubel 2014, Mathiesen 2013). Increasingly, libraries are

connecting people and ideas through access to creative programs, spaces, and tools. In an

environment of individualized digital production tools and participatory culture, digital and

socioeconomic divides may separate those who have access to the tools of production and

expression, and those who do not. Digital divides are here defined as not only the spectrum of

access to Internet and information and communications technologies (ICTs), but also touches on

those on the “wrong” end of the spectrum, who may lack the skills or social motivations to use

ICTs to their benefit (Warschauer 2002, Lor and Britz 2010, Ribot and Peluso 2003).

Socioeconomic divides speak to the widening access gap resulting from factors including


3

geographic location, income disparities, race, age, and gender, and so on (e.g. Tondeur et al.

2011, Pick and Azari 2008, Kozak 2010). Some LIS scholars and practitioners propose

makerspaces or other creative spaces as an ethical response to those gaps (Parham et al. 2014,

Bilandzic and Foth 2014, Little 2014, Burke 2014, Ginsberg 2012).

In this study, librarians who have created makerspaces describe connections between the

access mandate of libraries, the reasons they implemented such spaces, and how these spaces

might enable a public sphere. Librarians who contemplate a makerspace generally frame them in

more practical and technological terms than in light of access theory, though they also cite

ensuring equitable access as a primary motivator. The makerspace movement in public libraries

emerges as a tool to promote social, human, and cultural capital. Free and equitable access to the

tools and social support in library makerspaces may address concerns of new digital divides

based on those who can make, and those who cannot. As practitioners and scholars consider

these issues, the way they interpret the legitimate role of LIS professionals and libraries impacts

how libraries ameliorate these divides.

Literature Review

The provision of creative spaces in libraries has rapidly evolved in the last decade, from

discussions on makerspaces and participatory culture (e.g. Evans 2009, Fiacre 2009), to fully

realized permanent spaces. Library practitioners may find information on makerspaces at

webinars, conferences, and in the professional literature (e.g. ALA, 2013; Britton, 2012; Bagley,

2014; Jensen, 2015). While many basic case studies have been published describing the

implementation of creative spaces and affiliated programs in libraries (Moorefield-Lang and

Seadle 2014, Roberson 2015, Peltonen and Wickström 2014, de Boer, Seadle, and Greifeneder

2015, Moorefield-Lang, Seadle, and Greifeneder 2015), few research studies have been


4

published exploring the prevalence or impacts of public library makerspaces, or systemic studies

of the institutions and librarians providing them. Some studies have looked at aspects of

makerspace services, such as 3D printing and associated costs and policies (Pryor 2014, Primary

Research Group 2014, Massis 2013, Crumpton 2015). Other research describe the competencies

needed by—and acculturation afforded to—library personnel through making or makerspaces

(Bowler 2014, Parham et al. 2014, Koh and Abbas 2015). Moorefield-Lang (2015b) describes

the need for research on policy related to library makerspaces, and explores the rules and

restrictions found in 24 user agreements required by libraries. She finds that, aside from rules,

the policies provided “an avenue of understanding for library users” (367). Few library

makerspace research yet explores issues of access or intellectual freedom in light of these spaces,

though Brady et al. (2014) explore a critical aspect of access in makerspaces—that of physical

ability and accessibility for the differently-abled.

The access obligation that is encoded in the Library Bill of Rights (ALA 1996), is

increasingly being interpreted as an obligation to provide access to programs, spaces, tools, and

social interactions (c.f. Lankes, Silverstein, and Nicholson 2007, Brady et al. 2014). Theoretical

essays exploring the normative aspects of offering creative spaces in libraries, such as those

described by Meyer and Fourie (2015), are beginning to point out the social roles and

requirements of these spaces, the need to explore the motivations for use, and exploring power

and ethics dimensions of these spaces. Slatter and Howard (2013) offer one of the few empirical

studies looking at a range of perspectives of library makerspaces. They look at Australian

librarians’ views of the challenges, realities, and opportunities of public library makerspaces.

Slatter & Howard touch on access when they state that “makerspaces also align with some long-

standing library values, including facilitating knowledge creation and providing equal


5

opportunity to access materials, information and knowledge” (3). They mobilize the concept of

the public sphere in their research on library makerspaces, describing a “third place” (Aabø and

Audunson 2012) where users come together to share knowledge.

The Public Sphere

Habermas (1991) describes the public sphere emerging from Enlightenment era book groups

and coffeehouses. In the public sphere, “Citizens act as a public when they deal with matters of

general interest without being subject to coercion; thus with the guarantee that they may

assemble and unite freely, and express and publicize their opinions freely” (1974, 49). The

Library Bill of Rights positions libraries as public spheres; libraries provide “forums for

information and ideas,” and enlightenment for uses. They are to resist abridgement of “free

expression and free access to ideas,” and ensure access to space, materials, and social

interactions, irrespective of race, age, or viewpoint (ALA 1996).

While the affordances of the institutional structures, policies, staff, and space mediate

relationships and activities in public libraries, libraries remain the least-mediated institutions in

terms of the economic, political, religious, or pedagogical agendas, with an obligation to

minimize the filters between people and the information they seek. Such open space is rare in our

society. Rifkin (2000) and Zick (2009) discuss the breakdown of the public sphere, as public

spaces are increasingly privatized. They describe an alarming world in which few places remain

for people to come together to create social capital or form public opinion, and access has a price

only some can afford. Habermas (1991) notes that “the public sphere or civil society stood or fell

with the principle of universal access.” In the United States, public libraries are presumed to

ensure the necessary universal access to ensure a functional public sphere (Lor and Britz 2007,

Buschman 2003, Kranich 2001). This study asks whether makerspaces can act as a type of public


6

sphere, in which creative activities are instrumental in furthering social goals of community-

building and shared enjoyment, along with the more-regularly-cited goals of personal and

economic development.

Access and Intellectual Freedom

Sociologists Ribot and Peluso (2003) define access as an ability to benefit from materials or

services. This distinction diverges from a commonplace LIS understanding of access, in which

libraries make unbiased materials and services physically available in a structure organized for

easy consumption, and hope for their use and utility. Such collection and classification activities

are essential to help people connect with useful information (Gorman 2007). Still, the

community’s ability to benefit from the library’s materials and services is more implied than

explored in policy such as the American Library Association’s (ALA) Library Bill of Rights,

Freedom to Read, and Code of Ethics (ALA 1996, 2004, 2008). These centerpieces of library

intellectual freedom policy focus almost exclusively on the librarian’s role as a sentinel against

censorship (Budd 2008), and the freedom of inquiry rather than the allied freedom of expression

(Berninghausem 1982). Intellectual freedom1 and access coalesce in ALA policy and many

directors’ perceptions (Curry 1997, Dresang 2006), with access enabling intellectual freedom.

Many LIS scholars situate the concepts of intellectual freedom with access entirely within an

anti-censorship rights-based model (e.g. Knox 2014). This connotation of access emphasizes that

libraries “serve as guardians of the public’s access to information” (ALA 2013).

As Fricke, Mathiesen and Fallis (2000) point out, such ethical underpinnings of access to

libraries, materials and services focus on individual rights that are negative, or keep people from

1 While Dresang notes that the ALA has never resolved a final definition of intellectual freedom, she synthesizes policies to define it as the “freedom to think or believe what one will, freedom to express one’s thoughts and beliefs in unrestricted manners and means, and freedom to access information and ideas regardless of the content or viewpoints of the author(s) or the age, background, or beliefs of the receiver.”


7

interfering with one’s liberty, instead of the positive liberties in which it is the responsibility of

the state or institution to ensure that a right can be, and is, met. For example:

If freedom to read is simply a liberty right, then it only imposes on others the duty of

minding their own business and not actively preventing a person from reading a

document; if it is a welfare right, then it might require that others, libraries perhaps,

provide the books for the reading.(470)

Furthermore, to ensure the freedom to read as a positive liberty, someone has the

responsibility that people can read and have a sociocultural context in which they are likely to do

so. As Mathiesen (2013, 63) further notes that “a right is satisfied, when it is respected,

protected, and fulfilled.” However, in LIS policy, often the protection of rights outweighs other

considerations of fulfillment. An example of this is apparent in libraries that offer high speed

internet access, but do not provide training in how to use it, or facilitate a culture of doing so for

all patrons. Negative rights-based understandings of access sidelines the networks of

relationships and cultural contexts that aid or impede such ability (Lor and Britz 2010). Ability-

based access is mobilized in education scholarship (e.g. Prawat 1989), and social justice-

oriented, often international, explorations of the concept (Falconer 2007, Tise, Raju, and

Masango 2008, Stevenson 2009, Mutula 2013). Other recent LIS studies explore ability-based

models of access in a digital context (Visser and Ball 2013), or in a literacy context (Jaeger et al.

2012, Martens 2012). Of course, without the right to access, the ability is irrelevant, and vice

versa. Librarians in this study, talking about access in a makerspace context, bridge the two

concepts of access. In addition, they fill in the missing piece, that of expression. Just as the

United Nations’ (1948) Declaration of Universal Human Rights conjoins the right to express

oneself to the rights to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media”, these


8

librarians describe a need for content creation, social connections, and free expression to join

with more traditional aspects of access to provide intellectual freedom.

Critiques of Library Makerspaces

Critics are apprehensive about makerspaces in public libraries, although similar services have

existed in public libraries for many years (e.g. Davies 1974). Buschman (2003, 154, 157)

advocates a library-as-public-sphere model, but exhibits serious qualms about non-book-based

services in libraries. He cites LIS scholar Gregory Anderson as saying:

We need to propagate [libraries] with a variety of electronic data upon which systems can

be designed and prototyped … We need to play, to fulfill our drive to play [and] as we

succeed we must prepare ourselves for a very different and exciting world where the

social creation of knowledge is nurtured by the services of libraries and of multimedia.

Buschman considers this quote, which could appear in any article on makerspaces, “an odd

combination of authoritarianism and ecstatic technological highs.” Buschman saliently points out

that LIS practitioners often appear to worship at technology’s altar. Such language resonates

through the formulation of makerspaces as places for STEM-based learning through high-priced

technological apparatus, as when American Libraries magazine (2013) effuses,

Makerspaces are a technological leap past library knitting and quilting circles, where

patrons and experts have often come together to learn new techniques and train others in

a skill. The new tools are a lot flashier, and certainly more expensive than a needle and

thread. The cost factor is what makes a makerspace so appealing to library visitors…

This characterization of makerspaces may not be reflected by the librarians who have

makerspaces, nor many of the users, who appear to value the community knowledge and social

gathering aspects of makerspaces as much as the tools (e.g. Griffiths 2012, Smith and Hielscher


9

2013, Tweny 2009). Yet American Libraries’ portrayal reveals what critic Hugh Rundle (2013)

calls “technolust and the fear of being left behind.” Rundle considers adding a 3D printer to the

library “mission creep,” and antithetical to what libraries should stand for: intangible ideas. He

dismisses the idea that creation necessitates intangible ideas or knowledge.

Method

This qualitative study examines nine librarians’ perspectives as they discuss their reasons for

being a librarian, roles of the library, and how these reasons and roles intersect with “traditional”

interpretations of librarianship and “new” services in makerspaces. The research questions were:

How do librarians who offer or plan to offer makerspace services see this provision in

light of access or intellectual freedom?

How do these librarians position makerspace services relative to other library services?

Do any factors affect the provision of library makerspace services, namely variables of

location, funding, and program attendance; and the age, length of service, or education of

the library director or librarian responsible for the implementation of the services?

While this study originated as an investigation of attitudes of Wisconsin directors in rural

libraries (with service populations under 25,000), the data includes information gathered from

two directors of larger libraries, one in Wisconsin, one in Illinois, to understand how directors in

diverse communities position librarianship relative to access, the public sphere, and

makerspaces. Participants were selected by convenience sample, based on who was offering

makerspace services.

The directors participated in interviews using a semi-structured interview script. Interviews

were conducted face-to-face, over the telephone, or via Skype. Each lasted from 35 minutes to an

hour. he interview data was coded and analyzed from the audio files and thematically grouped


10

according to constructivist grounded theory methods (Charmaz 2006), though an explanatory

theory was not sought. Data included the annual report data from each library, the library’s

mission statements, and their 2013 budget to ascertain how the libraries prioritized spending,

what sorts of programs attendance they enjoyed, and what sort of municipal support they have

garnered.

Results

The quantitative data in Tables 1 and 2 anonymizes service population

ranges to protect the privacy of the study participants. In addition, it

reports the numbers of materials, expenditures, circulation and cardholders

as ratios of the service population, to compare apples to apples. As a

proportion of the service population, these numbers give a useful picture of

the service each library provides for a town of its size. The table compares

the libraries that participated in the study to all Wisconsin libraries, and all

Wisconsin libraries serving fewer than 25,000 people, to offer further

context. The table obscures the pertinent factor of location; some of the

libraries that have smaller service populations lie within a few minutes of

much larger municipalities. These libraries may have different experiences

than those more remote. This data reveals that these libraries are more or

less average. Compared to all Wisconsin small libraries, these libraries fall

evenly above and below the mean in most areas. The libraries fall within the

range of average circulation, registered users (they are overall below-

average there), and quantities of most materials (excepting audio

materials). Even with an outlier in terms of money—the Illinois library


11

enjoys a 50% increase over the average local appropriation for small

Wisconsin libraries—they suffer below-average municipal funding. As a

group, they stand out only in that they draw well above-average numbers of

program attendees. In no other way do they appear extraordinary in this

dataset. None of these factors appear to explain why these libraries offer or

are planning to offer makerspace services. Similarly, one cannot assert that

the librarians pushing these services forward are distinctive in age, length

of library service, or education (see Table 3).

[insert Table 1,2, and 3 here]

The qualitative data, gathered through open coding and theoretical sorting of the interview

transcripts, revealed three recurring themes in how these librarians explain their makerspace

services:

Expanding the concept of access to encompass an ability-based network of knowledge;

Reframing our roles as librarians to be catalysts of engagement;

Diving into what seem like novel types of library services.

Expanding Access

The participants expressed broadly similar views on how library makerspaces intersect with

the principles of access and intellectual freedom. Most began by grounding the makerspace idea

immediately in ability-based access, as described in the theoretical scaffolding of this paper, as

part of the library’s mandate to ensure equity and learning. Seven participants each described a

clear path from offering access to knowledge to offering access to tools of creation. One said,

“The library’s unique role is to inspire with access to stuff” and saw no difference between


12

encouraging people to create new ideas from reading and encouraging them through making.

These participants described ensuring access as “opening up” patrons’ worlds. Notably, the

people who most closely linked access and makerspaces already offered makerspace services, or

were well on their way in the planning process. The other two participants did not open their

interviews by describing an access model, though they eventually connected those dots,

describing makerspaces as ensuring access.

While participants described makerspaces in ability-based access terms, questions directly

about intellectual freedom as a concept found all but two of the participants retreating to an anti-

censorship rights-based model of intellectual freedom. Six participants linked makerspaces to

intellectual freedom and access without corollary questions. Three required follow-up questions

to establish whether they saw any connections. All but one did. This participant who said, “I’m

having a hard time seeing a connection between intellectual freedom and access to a

makerspace,” had already described his proposed makerspace as “a way for people have access

to tools and knowledge they could not otherwise have.” This apparent contradiction reveals

either cognitive dissonance, a disagreement with the idea that makerspaces enable access or

intellectual freedom, or perhaps a lack of engagement with the intellectual freedom concept.

The LIS acculturation to equate censorship and intellectual freedom described by Knox

(2014, 12), and enacted through education and professional training, offers an explanation of

why the participants educated in LIS adhered to an anti-censorship view of intellectual freedom

when asked to describe what intellectual freedom meant. They naturalized one view of

intellectual freedom as described in library policy, but described a broader interpretation in

practice. The two directors who did not touch immediately on issues of rights or censorship when

speaking of intellectual freedom did not have MLIS degrees. Based on the limited evidence of


13

this study, a spectrum of understandings of intellectual freedom and access appears to loosely

coincide with the length one has served as a library director, and/or how much library training

one has. The person who most closely identified intellectual freedom and access with ensuring

ability and creative networks did not consider herself “really a librarian,” and described her path

to the profession as an accident. Of all the participants, she most fiercely emphasized the point

that libraries are free and open to all.

The responses to outright questions about intellectual freedom and access to knowledge

describe a set conception of how librarians have traditionally upheld those pursuits. These

participants have not entirely synchronized the ability-based access model they describe in terms

of makerspaces, the roles they ascribed to libraries, and their reasons for being librarians, with

the rights-based access model they envision when considering intellectual freedom. While all

participants used access as a concept to justify public library makerspaces to some degree, they

did not all immediately connect the idea to the more traditional rights-based intellectual freedom

and access roles.

Parsing the participants’ views of intellectual freedom precisely remains impossible without

reading far more into some participants’ words than they might prefer. “I just don’t think about

these issues in my day-to-day work,” said one. Others concurred. But the data revealed an

unsettled apprehension regarding intellectual freedom. One worried that the LIS profession

considers intellectual freedom a luxury—that people focus more on keeping their jobs than

protecting rights. Another said she would not celebrate intellectual freedom events such as

Banned Books Week, because she worried about alienating her conservative community. These

librarians were comfortable advancing an access model of creative activities in libraries. Four


14

participants noted feeling more excited about access and intellectual freedom issues when they

considered them in light of creative services.

Four participants made a point of connecting intellectual property issues, intellectual freedom

and makerspaces. A librarian with a long-running makerspace noted a strong material connection

between 3D printing technology and intellectual freedom. He said that one of the early users of

his library’s 3D printer built a model of a grenade, leaving him to wonder, “Do I need to write a

policy saying they can't make certain kinds of things?” He decided that the answer was

emphatically “No,” and that intellectual freedom means the freedom to create anything. If users

were comfortable sitting next to the printer for the six hours required to print a sex toy, he was

not going to stop them.

Participants identified many ways that they ensured access for their patrons, all of which

align with the makerspace concept, including through:

teaching computer skills,

digitizing formerly less-accessible materials,

ensuring patrons know the availability of information,

building relationships through informal outreach inside and outside the library,

offering free materials,

offering open and strong wifi connections,

ensuring a range of programming,

teaching people to find information,

welcoming all people in community, not just “readers,”

offering intergenerational programs instead of artificially delineating who would be

interested in which program,


15

and democratizing access to, and understanding of, technology.

Moreover, the respondents described the ways that they ensured physical access for the

differently abled, whether that meant physical or mental abilities, or past experience with

technology tools. They also identified personality variability in willingness to try things, make

mistakes, and engage with new technologies.

Seven of the participants situated the makerspace as a place not just for user-centered

programming, but programming led by the patrons. Several considered this a new form of

access, democratizing the library space. Participants described access using images that align

with Ivan Illich’s (1973, 22) concept of conviviality:

Tools foster conviviality to the extent to which they can be easily used, by anybody, as

often or as seldom as desired, for the accomplishment of a purpose chosen by the user.

The use of such tools by one person does not restrain another from using them equally.

They do not require previous certification of the user. Their existence does not impose

any obligation to use them. They allow the user to express his meaning in action.

Conviviality accords with an intellectual freedom basis for library makerspaces. Some

participants revealed concerns about pushing or controlling the activities of library users,

revealing awareness of the uneven power relations between librarian and library user. While the

non-coercive meeting of equals that characterizes a Habermasian public sphere may not be fully

realized in library makerspaces, the participants described their shifting roles, and some

described more power-sharing with users. This signals a significant difference in the ways that

librarians perceive their role vis-à-vis programming: from a role as information expert serving

enlightening programs to people (Van Fleet and Raber 1990, Robertson 2005, McCrossen 2006),


16

to an enzymatic role2 as a catalyst for idea creation when providing a platform for users to

educate and entertain one another. These shifting roles lead us to the next theme explored in this

work, that of the role of the library and how it intersects with creative spaces.

Reframing our Roles

“Sometimes I feel like a hostess,” a participant laughed, revealing how some librarians saw

their duties shifting from information experts, or collectors and organizers of materials, to

community advocates, teachers, and as matchmakers for people to meet one another and new

ideas. Throughout this study, participants framed their personal roles as instigators,

collaborators, and advocates of change. This role is not entirely new (c.f. Latham 2009, 2011,

Aabø and Audunson 2012, Grant 2013), but was described as if new by several of the

participants. This suggests a perceived, if not actual, shift.

The role of the library

These librarians described the role of libraries in an information network. They forge social

and information hubs in ways that rarely draw attention, such as generating social capital through

open access to a convivial space. One recounted how her community government built a path to

link city hall to the library, signaling the library’s important node in the community network.

Several people characterized libraries as “where connections take place” in an information

network, a physical or virtual node that people know and trust. The network “connections can go

out, from the computers,” or can come together, as when libraries host cultural festivals.

Participants did not entirely agree on the roles and functions of the library. Yet they all

agreed, “We were never really a warehouse…and we’re not now.” A librarian with a strong

lineup of creative participatory activities avoided mention the books or materials that many

2 Thanks to Max Yela for the useful characterization of the “librarian as enzyme” role of in bringing people and ideas together. This concept is by no means new; Latham (2009) describes enzymatic librarianship, though it was not called enxymatic, in 1930s Chicago, for example.


17

consider the core of library services, until she was asked about the collection. She then said, “I

may be coming at this backwards, but our collection development is actually reliant on and

created by the programs we run, and the community’s response to them.” All participants cited

their libraries’ functions as spaces for civic engagement, learning opportunities, fun, and

socializing. Four participants explained their offering of access to makerspaces as sneaking in an

activist model of librarianship that seeks to ensure a level playing field for the entire community.

One said, “Libraries can do a lot of activism if it isn’t framed as activism…it’s like parents

saying ‘this isn’t really vegetables.’”

These libraries faced a common conundrum. Although even the largest communities offer no

other free places for people to gather and create, and the library is the only institution that offers

access freely as an ethical tenet, funders do not often recognize the value of this point. While all

of the participants wanted to offer free makerspace services and programs, they were concerned

that they had no or little money to make their wishes a reality.

Of the five small libraries that contributed recent budgets for this study, none allotted more

than $2000 for an entire year of programs. While these librarians equated access to knowledge

with interactively engaging with tools of creation, they did not subsidize that access with a

similar financial commitment as to books. Budgeted program expenditures were 3-4% of the

materials budget. This could suggest that the librarians either do not fully believe their rhetoric

that hands-on engagement with creative tools comprises an appropriate role of the library, that

they think their funders will not agree, or perhaps they consider programs auxiliary to their

mission to supply materials. Only one of the interviewees, from a large library, said he had

money pigeonholed for a makerspace project. The role of the library as a provider of media still

holds significantly more weight, in terms of dollars spent today, than the provision of creative


18

spaces and programs. This may reflect the need to constantly invest in new media for turnover of

materials. One would need to examine long-term programming funding to contextualize this

finding more fully.

The role of library stakeholders

These library directors interviewed for this study defined not only their role, but the rightful

roles and functions of their libraries. Library staff, trustees, city government, and a host of other

stakeholders, may hold entirely different views of libraries. The participants described their own

attitudes as rapidly changing. They considered makerspace services novel to their communities,

even as they realized that creative programs and services were long practiced in their libraries.

One participant had never heard of makerspaces before participating in the study, and had

researched the concept just prior to the interview. Her conception of the makerspace possibilities

evolved throughout the conversation. Her shifting perception stands as a motif for all of the

participants. Each one described divergent pathways of understanding, not just their own, but

those of other stakeholders.

As noted in earlier studies and makerspace articles (e.g. Slatter and Howard 2013, Crumpton

2015, Meyer and Fourie 2015, Moorefield-Lang 2015a), participants often considered the

makerspace idea as a way to refashion libraries for an uncertain future. Not all stakeholders

appear equally comfortable with this change. Participants noted that some staff members were

unhappy or “old-school” when confronted with the makerspace concept or asked to endorse new

types of programs, while other staff members were “science-y type[s]” or artistic and

comfortable with the idea of high-tech and/or creative spaces.

The provision of creative spaces and programs impacts community. One librarian noted that

only her innovative creative programming was able to capture the attention and approval of an


19

apathetic city council. Most of the participants said that their boards of trustees, friends of the

library, and municipal funders would like the idea of a technologically-advanced makerspace

model, but that they might be confused about what making has to do with libraries. These

stakeholders need clear connection to understand why they should support a collaborative

creative space. A participant clarified that 3D printing technology would be more appealing than

crafting for a trustee likely to support a makerspace:

She would say, ‘I want something where I can sparkle.’ So groups like knitters and

quilters won’t do it for her…it’s supposed to be technology and that’s not technology… I

don’t think she would necessarily be as interested in makerspaces just because she’s

seduced by the idea of the technology, but I think our patrons would.

This distinction is critical, and potentially problematic. If funders’ ideas of what the library

should undertake does not align with what the patrons want, the librarian must translate the

patrons’ desires to the people in power. This participant described her process of translation by

describing a craft-based programming model that she was considering for her library as a path to

“edge our way into technology, to show that one board member that we’re going in this

direction.” Participants worried that new roles for libraries might alienate core users (i.e. older

adults and readers), but remained committed to the idea of makerspaces nevertheless. Some said

that libraries “must change or die.” Others explained that makerspaces were not different from

the services they already offered.

The role of creative spaces

Librarians defined makerspace functions and tools variously. One contributor said her library

offered a makerspace with access to sewing machines. Another hesitated to say that his library’s

3D printer and die-cut machine comprised a “real” makerspace, even though most of the


20

participants identified a makerspace as having this type of equipment. One said her makerspace

was the library’s kitchen, and went on to describe intensive cooking, media lab equipment, and

art programs that would fulfill any definition of the term makerspace. Another said she disliked

the term “makerspace” because she could not “wrap her head around it,” and wished there were a

different name for the type of librarianship she was offering.

Librarians in the small communities emphasized that makerspaces offer users a venue in

which to shine, discover new things about themselves, or reveal hidden local talent. The rural

library makerspace is a place for people to find one another. They considered this especially

valuable in a small community. “There is nothing else here,” was a constant refrain. One asserted

a false perception of small communities as close-knit, saying “people are very isolated from each

other.” Additionally, the participants saw creative spaces as promoting:

lifelong learning, intergenerational sharing;

connecting, knowledge sharing, collaborating, “a unity of purpose”;

problem-solving, resilience, adapting a consumer lifestyle to a creative one;

innovating, and discovering, enhancing creativity and imagination;

supporting entrepreneurship, economic marketability, the local economy;

working with one’s hands in a way one cannot do elsewhere, and schools no

longer teach;

“turning ideas into physical things,” making useful or exciting stuff;

having fun.

The participants frequently focused on instrumental effects of makerspaces, wherein the

making provides a pathway to goals of economic or educational advancement, which may be

more “important” than the act of creation itself. They described economic success as requiring


21

significant creative problem-solving skills and technical savvy. One accepted that his small town

library makerspace “was not likely to facilitate production or prototyping,” while others

described attracting entrepreneurs with opportunities to create advertisements or prototype

designs.

However, the participants did not see the makerspace as solely instrumental. They described

the goals of creating, having fun, and sharing as important enough to consider a makerspace,

further impacts notwithstanding. Some participants saw a need for more handcrafts in response

to consumer and high-tech culture, and said, “It may very well be that there is an untapped

yearning for this.” Every participant disclosed their hope that a makerspace would satisfy

otherwise unmet needs in the community, and materially market the library as technologically

relevant, and "cool."

Some participants reframed their understanding of the roles and functions of the makerspace

over the course of the interview:

As I talk to you, it seems to me that makerspaces are more outgoing, where you want

other people, and you talk to one another. If you’re in technology you could be isolated

… it is a loner type of operation … but the whole idea of when you get together is like

with book discussions, you could read—and you probably are a heavy reader—but it’s

that give-and-take that enriches what you are doing. The enrichment comes—and in

makerspaces—because you’re sharing it with other people. With the digital labs, it’s that

you’re doing something that’s high-tech, and you’re getting it out to people. But I think

that interaction of people is stronger in a sense … in the makerspaces.

This thought process reveals an understanding of digital media labs that may be less group-

based or interactive in the act of creation than actually occurs, but these distinctions are


22

important. For this librarian, makerspaces are more convivial spaces—as Illich (1973) described

conviviality in all its connotations—than digital media labs.

A concern for those who already offer makerspace-like services was that of creativity versus

consumption. One noted that most users of the 3D printer, for example, were not creating new

materials, but simply printing existing models that they found online. Another said that his

library’s rural users were unlikely to be prototyping new products. Creativity may not be the

primary activity initiated in public library makerspaces. Participants discussed social connections

more than innovation or creativity on the parts of their patrons. The interviewees described ways

they were going to facilitate more creative applications of the tools they offered, but that they

needed to learn new skills to offer assistance for their patrons in that regard.

Makerspaces in libraries differ from private makerspaces by virtue of the library’s

commitment to inclusiveness and free access. The ethical mandate for librarians to ensure access

was cited as the reason creative spaces were necessary in libraries, as a direct answer to the

problem of the digital and socioeconomic divides that private makerspaces, or those in schools,

may not address.

Diving In

As the participants in this study described their path toward the provision of creative spaces

and programs, an overarching theme emerged describing a sense of diving in, perhaps into the

“deep end.” The patrons who tried new tools and programs were diving in as well, often assisted

by the librarians who created a culture of “trying things out.” The theme “diving in” includes the

challenges and opportunities of offering new services, and aligns closely with the findings of the

Slatter & Howard (2013) study.


23

Participants expressed concern about the physical space when they mentioned the library’s

carpet, about marketing concerns in speaking of not knowing how to advertise the new uses of

the library space, and concerns about their funding situations when they wondered about how

they would pay for materials. All of those concerns are manifestations of the ways these

librarians expedite access in their library buildings. They expressed a sense of a public trust in

the way they maintained buildings, collections, and public funds. Yet they were all willing, to a

greater or lesser extent, to make a leap into a future their communities were not yet requesting, as

when libraries began offering Internet access, even if they were gladly participating once the

changes were made. This process of keeping just ahead of what patrons want is similar to the art

of collection development, in which librarians purchase not only bestselling materials or those

that patrons request, but also materials people might want, but do not know about. Six of the nine

participants indicated that they were keeping ahead of the technology curve, and eight said that

while their communities did not yet know about 3D printers and other high-tech makerspace

equipment, the library was the place people came to learn about new ideas. The interviewees

depicted this discovery process as a key factor in enabling access and intellectual freedom.

Some challenges and opportunities that the participants articulated connect to ways

makerspaces enable or block access. For example, one participant expressed concerns about any

one age group taking over a makerspace, and creating a culture that dissuades other age groups

from using it. She wondered, “How do we schedule this?” Another tackled the question of age in

describing intergenerational programming as a welcome surprise for patrons. Patrons were used

to activities that kept adults and children separate, but the librarian felt strongly that programs

should be inclusive to ensure access. Entire families travel from many larger communities for

these programs. Issues of gender emerged from the interviews, with most participants describing


24

crafting as more female-friendly than activities such as making things with microprocessors.

Two participants described a process of spanning the perceived gap between the genders with

activities that incorporate both traditional crafting and technologically advanced components,

such as e-textiles.

Two directors with the longest-running and most extensive makerspace offerings dove into

makerspace offerings, and flourish in their new waters. One offered a pointed comparison to

larger, slower-moving libraries. She saw them as complacent. They “may rest or not strive for

innovation.” Her tiny rural library, which could “turn on a dime,” had to “try new things to

ensure that patrons come in the door, otherwise the numbers are so small.” She described

persevering with programs, because it can take time for word to penetrate the community that the

library is “cool” and programs are worth attending. Some of her patrons heard about programs

for two years before attending. Her advice was to try things, and persist with programs that do

not immediately draw crowds. The librarian offering a longstanding makerspace likewise

described his willingness to dive into new library services as a “why not?” gamble that has paid

off with wide recognition, innovative uses of the equipment, and happy patrons.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Although this study sought any characteristics of individual libraries or librarians to account

for why these librarians offered makerspace services, when many libraries do not, no factors

were identified as important, either in the funding, circulation, or program attendance data, or in

the interviews with the librarians. Instead, the key findings of this study revolve around shifting

roles and frameworks for LIS. A surprising finding was the fact that the library directors with the

least administration-intensive backgrounds described themselves as more willing to try new

services and expand the theories of access and intellectual freedom than those with masters’


25

degrees, or lengthy careers in library administration.3 While this small-scale study cannot capture

the connections between innovation and being new to LIS, it is worth follow-up in future studies.

When participants described access and intellectual freedom as ability-based, they were

enthused and engaged in discussing abstractions of intellectual freedom. They were more

interested in being facilitators of knowledge creation than guardians against censorship. This has

implications for how LIS defines its foundational tenets. Many librarians may be energized by

reframing access to knowledge concepts and the public library role in ensuring it. The symbolic

power described by Knox (2014) may be broadened and solidified by recoding the concept of

access and intellectual freedom to include freedom of expression in addition to inquiry, and

supporting the ability for people to engage in intellectual pursuits. The term intellectual might

well be revisited, as these concepts, when grounded in ability, encompass emotional and social

freedoms. This could affect advocacy, education, and policy efforts.

The library-as-place and issues of isolation in rural communities should be considered in

future research. In addition, researchers should consider the challenges and opportunities in

offering intergenerational activities and spaces as an ethical response to alienation of some age

groups from some library activities. Little research has been published on how library programs,

either the content or their structure, impacts users. This is a rich area for future investigation.

Finally, the concept of “librarian as enzyme” inhabits a critical but largely unexplored place

in LIS scholarship. The role of the library staff in bringing people together, introducing people to

tools and offerings, and in creating a culture of ‘diving in’ appears crucial to the success of these

library services. Without this enzymatic role, creative spaces and tools may exist, but few may

3 The age of the librarian does not appear to be the driver of innovative services, since these librarians were many different ages


26

use them. In creating the networks that fortify knowledge-building, librarians play a significant

role. One participant in this study described the role of makerspaces in libraries like this:

Magic is what library needs to do…Neil Gaiman wrote something about this in libraries,

if he could write something on the wall of every library …he would just, in the children’s

section, write ‘And then what happened?’ He was talking about that magic of the

imagination and the spark. I think that having something material really makes it magic.

It’s less like ‘Yeah, I’m imagining something,’ and that’s great, but ‘I have this thing in

my hand now that wasn’t there 20 minutes ago.’

This magic cannot happen without librarians willing to offer innovative services, ensuring

that all have access to them, and connecting likely users to the tools and services.

In this study, nine library directors described expanding access, both literally and as a

theoretical construct interrelated with intellectual freedom. They reframed their own roles and

the roles and functions of their libraries through offering new types of tools and participatory

spaces along with the creative programming that has existed in public libraries for over a

hundred years. They contemplate diving into an unknown future, remaining idealistic and

engaged with that unknown because they see a willingness to try new things as the rightful role

of public libraries. To reduce the digital and socioeconomic divides, these librarians plan a future

that includes access to the tools of production and creative expression, and a public sphere that

supports the creativity, curiosity, and social engagement necessary for their communities to

prosper.


27

References

2013. Manufacturing makerspaces. American Libraries. Accessed February 13.

Aabø, Svanhild, and Ragnar Audunson. 2012. "Use of library space and the library as place."

Library & Information Science Research 34 (2):138-149. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2011.06.002.

ALA. 1996. "The library bill of rights." American Library Association, Last Modified January

23, 1996. http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/index.cfm.

ALA. 2004. "The freedom to read statement." American Library Association, Last Modified

June 30. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/statementspols/freedomreadstatement.

Ala. 2008. "Code of ethics of the American Library Association." 2009.

ALA. 2013. "Library makerspaces: The field trip." http://ala13.ala.org/node/11674.

Berninghausen, David K. "Toward an Intellectual Freedom Theory for Users of Libraries."

Drexel Library Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1982): 57-81.

Bilandzic, Mark, and Marcus Foth. 2014. "Learning beyond books—strategies for ambient media

to improve libraries and collaboration spaces as interfaces for social learning."

Multimedia Tools and Applications 71 (1):77-95. doi: 10.1007/s11042-013-1432-x.

Bowler, Leanne. 2014. "Creativity through "maker" experiences and design thinking in the

education of librarians." Knowledge Quest 42 (5):58.

Brady, Tara, Camille Salas, Ayah Nuriddin, Walter Rodgers, and Mega Subramaniam. 2014.

"MakeAbility: Creating accessible makerspace events in a public library." Public

Library Quarterly 33 (4):330-347. doi: 10.1080/01616846.2014.970425.

Britton, Lauren. 2012. "The makings of maker spaces, part 1: Space for creation, not just

consumption." The Digital Shift-On Libraries and New Media.


28

Budd, John. 2008. Self-examination: the present and future of librarianship: Greenwood

Publishing Group.

Burke, John J. 2014. Makerspaces: A Practical Guide for Librarians. Vol. 8. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Buschman, John. 2003. Dismantling the public sphere: situating and sustaining librarianship in

the public philosophy. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through quantitative

analysis. London: SAGE Publications.

Crumpton, Michael A. 2015. "Fines, fees and funding: makerspaces standing apart." The Bottom

Line 28 (3):90-94. doi: 10.1108/BL-04-2015-0004.

Curry, Ann. 1997. The limits of tolerance: censorship and intellectual freedom in public

libraries: Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.

Davies, D. W. 1974. Public libraries as culture and social centers: The origin of the concept.

Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

de Boer, Jeroen, MichaelS Seadle, and Elke Greifeneder. 2015. "The business case of FryskLab,

Europe’s first mobile library FabLab." Library Hi Tech 33 (4).

Dresang, Eliza T. 2006. "Intellectual freedom and libraries: Complexity and change in the

twenty-first-century digital environment." The Library Quarterly 76 (2):169-192.

Evans, Woody. 2009. Building library 3.0: Issues in creating a culture of participation. Oxford,

England: Chandos Publishing.

Falconer, Cobi. 2007. ""You got to have FAIFE": The role of free access to information and

freedom of information." Library Hi Tech News 24:22-25.


29

Fiacre. 2009. MiniSoOnCon 2009 and why libraries should embrace maker culture. In Library

Cult.

Frické, Martin, Kay Mathiesen, and Don Fallis. 2000. "The ethical presuppositions behind the

library bill of rights." The Library Quarterly 70 (4):468-491. doi: 10.2307/4309463.

Ginsberg, Sharona. 2012. "3D Printing and creative literacy: Why maker culture benefits

libraries." In Everything You Wanted to Know About Information Literacy But Were

Afraid to Google, edited by Kristin Fontichiaro, 89-92. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University

of Michigan Library.

Gorman, Michael. 2007. "The wrong path and the right path: The role of libraries in access to,

and preservation of, cultural heritage." New Library World 108:479-489.

Grant, Carl. 2013. "Value-added librarianship: Creating it in our services and in the

Infrastructure upon which we rely." Public Library Quarterly 32:21-32.

Griffiths, Sarah. 2012. "The amateur at play: Fab labs and sociable expertise." Crafting the

future: 10th European Academy of Design Conference, University of Gothenburg,

Sweden, April 17-19.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1974. "The public sphere: An encyclopaedia article." New German Critique

3:49-55.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a

category of bougeois society. Translated by Thomas Burger. Edited by Frederick

Lawrence. 1st MIT Press paperback edition ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Illich, Ivan. 1973. Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper & Row.


30

Jaeger, Paul T, John Carlo Bertot, Kim M Thompson, Sarah M Katz, and Elizabeth J DeCoster.

2012. "The intersection of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital

literacy, digital inclusion, and public libraries." Public Library Quarterly 31 (1):1-20.

Knox, Emily J. M. 2014. "Supporting intellectual freedom: Symbolic capital and practical

philosophy in librarianship." The Library Quarterly 84 (1):8-21. doi: 10.1086/674033.

Koh, Kyungwon, and June Abbas. 2015. "Competencies for information professionals in

learning labs and makerspaces." Journal of Education for Library and Information

Science 56 (2).

Kozak, Nadine Irène. 2010. "On the last mile: the effects of telecommunications regulation and

deregulation in the rural western United States and Canada." PhD dissertation,

Communication, UC San Diego.

Kranich, Nancy C. 2001. Libraries & democracy: The cornerstones of liberty: American library

association.

Lankes, R. David, Joanne Silverstein, and Scott Nicholson. 2007. "Participatory networks: The

library as conversation." Information Technology and Libraries 26 (4):17-33.

Latham, Joyce M. 2009. "Wheat and chaff: Carl Roden, Abe Korman, and the definitions of

intellectual freedom in the Chicago Public Library." Libraries & the Cultural Record 44

(3):279-298.

Latham, Joyce M. 2011. "Memorial Day to Memorial Library: The South Chicago Branch

Library as cultural terrain, 1937-1947." Libraries & the Cultural Record 46:321-342.

Little, Geoffrey. 2014. "Space: The final frontier." The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40

(6):632-633. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.10.006.


31

Lor, Peter Johan, and Johannes J. Britz. 2010. "To access is not to know: A critical reflection on

A2K and the role of libraries with special reference to sub-Saharan Africa." Journal of

Information Science 36 (5):655-667. doi: 10.1177/0165551510382071.

Lor, Peter Johan, and Johannes Jacobus Britz. 2007. "Is a knowledge society possible without

freedom of access to information?" Journal of Information Science 33 (4):387-397. doi:

10.1177/0165551506075327.

Martens, Marianne. 2012. "Issues of access and usability in designing digital resources for

children." Library & Information Science Research 34:159-168. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.12.003.

Massis, Bruce E. 2013. "3D printing and the library." New Library World 114 (7/8):351-354.

doi: doi:10.1108/NLW-03-2013-0030.

Mathiesen, Kay. 2013. "The human right to a public library." Journal of Information Ethics

22:60-79. doi: 10.3172/JIE.22.1.60.

McCrossen, Alexis. 2006. ""One cathedral more" or "mere lounging places for bummers"? The

cultural politics of leisure and the public library in Gilded Age America." Libraries &

Culture 41:169-188.

Meyer, Anika, and Ina Fourie. 2015. "What to make of makerspaces: tools and DIY only or is

there an interconnected information resources space?" Library Hi Tech 33 (4).

Moorefield-Lang, Heather. 2015a. "Change in the making: Makerspaces and the ever-changing

landscape of libraries." TechTrends 59 (3):107-112. doi: 10.1007/s11528-015-0860-z.

Moorefield-Lang, Heather Michele. 2015b. "User agreements and makerspaces: a content

analysisnull." New Library World 116 (7/8):358-368. doi: 10.1108/NLW-12-2014-0144.


32

Moorefield-Lang, Heather Michele, Michael S. Seadle, and Elke Greifeneder. 2015. "When

Makerspaces go mobile: Case studies of transportable maker locations." Library Hi Tech

33 (4).

Moorefield-Lang, Heather, and Michael S. Seadle. 2014. "Makers in the library: Case studies of

3D printers and maker spaces in library settings." Library Hi Tech 32 (4).

Mutula, Stephen M. 2013. "Information access/accessibility in a digital environment." African

Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science 23 (1):1.

Parham, Krista E, Anna M Ferri, Stephanie Fan, Matthew P Murray, Rebecca A Lahr, Ekatarina

Grguric, Monica Swamiraj, and Eric Meyers. 2014. "Critical making with a Raspberry Pi:

Towards a conceptualization of librarians as makers." 77th ASIS&T Annual Meeting,

Seattle, WA, Oct. 31-Nov. 4.

Peltonen, Marjukka, and Mikaela Wickström. 2014. "3D-prints and robots play a part in my

story. Participatory learning action and content creation in a library maker space." IFLA

WLIC 2014 - Libraries, Citizens, Societies: Confluence for Knowledge, Lyon, France,

August 16-22.

Pick, James B., and Rasool Azari. 2008. "Global digital divide: Influence of socioeconomic,

governmental, and accessibility factors on information technology." Information

Technology for Development 14 (2):91-115.

Prawat, Richard S. 1989. "Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students:

A research synthesis." Review of educational research 59:1-41.

Primary Research Group, Inc. 2014. Survey of 3D printing in the library. Library of Congress.

Pryor, Steven. 2014. "Implementing a 3D printing service in an academic library." Journal of

Library Administration 54 (1):1-10.


33

Ribot, Jesse C., and Nancy Lee Peluso. 2003. "A theory of access." Rural Sociology 68 (2):153-

181. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.

Rifkin, Jeremy. 2000. The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism, where all of life is

a paid-for experience: Penguin Harmondsworth.

Roberson, Tezeno L. 2015. "“STEM”-ulating young minds: Creating science-based

programming @ your library." Journal of Library Administration 55 (3):192-201. doi:

10.1080/01930826.2015.1034041.

Robertson, Deborah A. 2005. Cultural programming for libraries: Linking libraries,

communities, and culture. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Rubel, Alan. 2014. "Libraries, electronic resources, and privacy: The case for positive

intellectual freedom." The Library Quarterly 84 (2):183-208. doi: 10.1086/675331.

Rundle, Hugh. 2013. Mission creep – a 3d printer will not save your library. In It's not about the

books.

Slatter, Diane, and Zaana Howard. 2013. "A place to make, hack, and learn: makerspaces in

Australian public libraries." The Australian Library Journal 62 (4):1-13. doi:

10.1080/00049670.2013.853335.

Smith, Adrian, and Sabine Hielscher. 2013. Grassroots digital fabrication and makerspaces:

Reconfiguring, relocating and recalibrating innovation? : SPRU-Science and Technology

Policy Research, University of Sussex.

Stevenson, Siobhan. 2009. "Digital divide: A discursive move away from the real inequities."

The Information Society 25 (1):1-22.

Tise, Ellen R., Reggie Raju, and Charles Masango. 2008. "Libraries driving access to

knowledge: A discussion paper." IFLA journal 34:341-346.


34

Tondeur, Jo, Ilse Sinnaeve, Mieke Van Houtte, and Johan van Braak. 2011. "ICT as cultural

capital: the relationship between socioeconomic status and the computer-use profile of

young people." new media & society 13 (1):151-168.

Tweny, Dale. 2009. DIY freaks flock to ‘hacker spaces’ worldwide. In Wired.

United Nations. 1948. "Universal declaration of human rights."

Van Fleet, Connie, and Douglas Raber. 1990. "The public library as a social/cultural institution:

Alternative perspectives and changing contexts." In Adult Services: An Enduring Focus

for Public Libraries., edited by Katherine de la Pena McCook and D. P. Wallace.

Chicago: American Library Association.

Visser, Marijke, and Mary Alice Ball. 2013. "The middle mile: The role of the public library in

ensuring access to broadband." Information Technology and Libraries 29:187-194.

Warschauer, Mark. 2002. "Reconceptualizing the digital divide." First Monday 7.

Zick, Timothy. 2009. Speech out of doors: Preserving First Amendment liberties in public

places: Cambridge University Press.

Documents

TITLE file · Web viewTITLE. Access and Express: Professional Perspectives on Public Library Makerspaces and Intellectual FreedomAUTHOR INFORMATION. Shannon Crawford Barniskis