The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0040-0912.htm

From making
From making gadgets to gadgets to
making talents: exploring making talents

a university makerspace
Inger Beate Pettersen 145
The Mohn Centre for Innovation and Regional Development,
Received 28 April 2019
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway, and Revised 25 September 2019
Elin Kubberød, Fredrik Vangsal and Axel Zeiner 3 November 2019
Accepted 28 November 2019
School of Economics and Business,
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Ås, Norway

Abstract
Purpose – The maker movement has been gaining increased attention worldwide and has recently spread to
universities, strengthening the entrepreneurial university. Makerspace communities are seen as open and
democratic social spaces where knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer learning are essential. However, few
scholars have examined the social learning dynamics in makerspace communities. The purpose of this paper
is to contribute to these recent calls to investigate makerspaces and their relevance in enhancing learning in a
university context.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors used a case study design to explore the social learning
dynamics in the maker community. The authors used observations and interviews to gather rich data from
ten members, including two founders. The study occurred over a five-month period.
Findings – In contrast to free-choice activities, this makerspace community practised a highly hierarchical
and well-managed regulation of activities. The high emphasis on project work and serious play illustrates a
community where technology is a means of delivering value through projects rather than a means to play and
learn in itself.
Practical implications – Seen in the light of rapid technological development, educators are facing the
danger of teaching outdated skills. The makerspace model represents an advanced type of pedagogy and
mastery development in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects and has the potential to
inspire educational designs while challenging traditional education.
Originality/value – The research provides insights into makerspace as a producer of talents, repositioning
of technology transfer and value creation from an entrepreneurial university.
Keywords Makerspace, Making, Entrepreneurial university, Community of practice, Maker movement,
Social learning dynamics
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The current paper sheds light on the social learning dynamics of a makerspace at a
university campus. The maker movement first originated from the general maker culture;
since then, the movement has gained increased attention worldwide (Kwon and Lee, 2017;
Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017) and has recently spread to universities and student
communities, strengthening the entrepreneurial university (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017).
The maker movement builds on an individual’s ability to be a creator of things, a “maker”.
In makerspaces, individuals build competence in using new tools and technologies through
various hands-on activities.
Makerspace communities are seen as fundamentally open and democratic social spaces
where technological tools are learned about through sharing knowledge with other makers.
However, few scholars have deliberately examined the regulation of the social processes and Education + Training
learning dynamics in makerspace communities (Davies, 2018; Han et al., 2017), nor have they Vol. 62 No. 2, 2020
pp. 145-158
questioned the assumed “myths” of the informal maker movement or studied the “real” © Emerald Publishing Limited
0040-0912
complexities of the learning practices. With our research, we contribute to the recent calls to DOI 10.1108/ET-04-2019-0090
ET investigate makerspaces and their relevance in enhancing learning in a university context
62,2 (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Sheridan et al., 2014).
Makerspaces can also be seen as “communities of practice” (CoP) (Lave and Wenger, 1991)
for a group of people working in a common domain and who share knowledge and
experiences (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014). This community of practice consists of “makers”
who share an interest and involvement in technology aiming to enhance their expertise with
146 fellow peers (Wenger et al., 2002). Hence, in the current research, we employ the theoretical
framework of CoP (Lave and Wenger, 1991) to explore the social structures and dynamics
regulating learning in a student makerspace. The CoP framework has been applied in one
empirical comparative case study to better explore learning dynamics across various
makerspaces (Sheridan et al., 2014). In this one study, the CoP framework proved to be useful
in understanding the learning arrangements, associated norms and governance mechanisms
of the makerspace.
Makerspaces are now moving into the university territory (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014).
In line with Roberts (2006), we need to consider the institutionalized context of the university
in which makerspaces are situated. A university context emphasizing formal education may
have an impact on the activities and their meaning within a makerspace community. With this
in mind, the overall aim of the current research paper is to explore the relevance of making in
students’ learning.
The present paper is organized as follows: first, we present the theoretical perspectives,
which include the literature of the maker movement and the entrepreneurial
university, makerspaces as a learning context for students and makerspaces as CoP.
Second, we present the methods and context. Third, we present the findings. Fourth, we
discuss the findings, and in the concluding section, we address the study’s implications
and limitations.

Theory and literature

The makerspace movement and the entrepreneurial university
The definition of the maker movement is broad and builds on an individual’s ability to be a
creator of things, or a “maker”. The maker culture can be portrayed as a philosophy where
individuals or groups create artefacts that are rebuilt and assembled using software and/or
hardware. Sheridan et al. (2014, p. 31) further describe makerspace activities as “creative
production in art, science and engineering where people of all ages blend digital and
physical technologies to explore ideas, learn technical skills and create new products”.
Furthermore, makers can be defined as “people who design and make things on their own
time because they find it intrinsically rewarding to make, tinker, problem-solve, discover,
and share what they have learned” (Martin, 2015, p. 31).
The typical common interest of makers is to engage in engineering-oriented activities
comprising various technologies, such as electronics, robotics and computer software. The
rapid growth of this movement is derived from advances in technology and new digital
fabrication technologies that have allowed for experimentation with tools such as robotics,
3D printing, microprocessors and programming languages; indeed, the movement has
inspired various maker culture-based initiatives, for example, makerspaces, hackerspaces,
Techshops and start-up incubators (Martin, 2015; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017).
Makerspaces are also “learning by making” through diverse socializing processes.
In makerspace communities, knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer learning are essential to
fulfil the desire to make, and members typically support and help each other build
material objects for playful and useful ends (Kwon and Lee, 2017). It is also assumed that
the participants are primarily motivated intrinsically and can use a makerspace in an
entirely democratized manner (Han et al., 2017), engaging in doing it yourself (DIY)
practices (Kwon and Lee, 2017).
 Situated in a university context, a makerspace can contribute to bringing about the third From making
mission. The third mission has several meanings, but incorporates broadly the contribution that gadgets to
universities provide to the societal and economic development of territories (Loi and Di Guardo, making talents
2015). Entrepreneurial-oriented activities in universities, including patent disclosure, technology
transfer, spin-off generation and development of entrepreneurial mindsets among faculty and
students are important activities in this regard.
The maker movement can contribute to strengthening the third mission and 147
entrepreneurial university in several ways (Van Holm, 2015). First, the maker movement
attracts new individuals into product design, inspiring them to become entrepreneurs
through their initial technology interest. Second, the maker movement induces various
networks and clubs, creating new ideas and nurturing the development of an
entrepreneurial mindset. Third, the maker movement reduces the costs of prototyping for
potential entrepreneurs through cutting-edge technology, facilitating rapid growth
(Sheridan et al., 2014).
Makerspaces in universities can, therefore, strengthen the entrepreneurial university,
contributing to developing skills for the twenty-first century, enhancing creativity,
entrepreneurship and innovation and reinforcing universities’ connection to the wider
ecosystem (Kwon and Lee, 2017; Wolf-Powers et al., 2017).

Makerspaces as a unique learning context for students

With its technological and creative advancement, the maker movement has implications for
education and learning. The nature of making is not very different from the constructionist
view of learning in education. This view involves a pedagogy that encourages a more active
attitude towards learning where students construct their own knowledge through creative,
action-oriented and experience-based learning in contrast to being passive recipients of
knowledge (Martin, 2015; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017).
The interest in making has been greatest within the science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) fields. Further, in a review, Voussoghi and Bevan (2014) found
three main categories of making: making as entrepreneurship or community creativity,
making as a STEM pipeline and workforce development and making as an inquiry-based
educative practice.
Researchers have investigated how different making activities relate to successful
learning experiences in terms of learning, interest and engagement, and in a systematic and
comprehensive review of 43 relevant studies, Papavlasopoulou et al. (2017) describe and
summarize the main findings of this body of research (pp. 61-63). First, the research
emphasizes the need to prepare students for future work and to teach twenty-first century
skills. This involves the enhancement of knowledge and skills related to computer science,
the ability to produce objects and modelling tools and the combining of programming and
physical fabrication skills in a creative process. Research has also shown that making can
enhance students’ self-efficacy, self-confidence, enjoyment and interest in technology.
Interestingly, when the making was part of a self-driven discovery, it increased the learning
outcome (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017, pp. 61-63).
Making driven by play, fun and genuine interest among students contrasts with
traditional learning activities, where educators decide the goals and frames of the learning.
Playful activities are fun and hence intrinsically motivating, and in the absence of grading,
they are expected to induce various educational benefits, such as enhancing persistence and
experimentation in the face of learning challenges (Liu et al., 2014; Martin, 2015; Whitton,
2018). Moreover, the maker mindset is portrayed as a “growth mindset that encourages
students to believe they can learn to do anything” (Dougherty, 2013, as cited in Martin, 2015,
p. 35). This is because makers will emphasize what they can learn and do, and pay less
attention to their knowledge deficits.
ET Furthermore, makers emphasize experimentation and learning by trial and error, which
62,2 may lead to episodes of failure. Hence, failure is perceived as inherent in the creative process of
making and learning, and as such, it is celebrated, contrasting with traditional education
(Martin, 2015). Moreover, the maker mindset also includes sharing and collaboration in the
sense that makers will share ideas and projects. This collective culture of a knowledge-building
community may be quite different from the typically individual-focussed and competitive
148 nature of classroom learning. These maker mindsets are a collection of commonly held ideas of
the maker culture; hence, makerspaces situated in a university context may be inspired by a
more general maker culture. Furthermore, it is likely that the maker culture will be modified
within a university as well.
Despite a number of studies, little research has investigated how the maker movement is
positioned at the intersections between formal and informal learning (Papavlasopoulou
et al., 2017). Therefore, we seek to address this gap through the first research question:
RQ1. How may the university context influence the learning design in a makerspace, and
how are making and education related? Are there any dilemmas or synergies
between these domains of learning?

The makerspace as a community of practice

Makerspaces can be characterized as communities comprised of members with different
levels of experience and motivations, working with technology and ideas materialized into
some form of physical representation (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014). In this – and parallel
to problem-based education models – the members in these communities are constructing
the learning themselves through social practice.
A valuable framework for understanding the social constructive learning dynamics in a
makerspace is the social learning theory: the CoP, originally proposed by Lave and Wenger
(1991) and Wenger (1998). This framework views learning as an ongoing, socially situated and
constructive process where people with a common interest in a particular domain and through
participation in a community share knowledge and experiences (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Thus, a makerspace can be regarded as a community of practice involving “makers” enhancing
their expertise in a specific domain (Wenger et al., 2002). Lave and Wenger (1991) conceptualize
specific statuses to capture the learning trajectory of individuals, who begin as legitimate
peripheral participants and then gradually, through an apprenticeship model, become
newcomers and eventually become accepted as full members, even experts, in the community.
The CoP perspective was employed in one multiple case study to explore learning
dynamics across makerspaces that have different cultures and philosophies (Sheridan et al.,
2014). This perspective provides a useful lens for exploring how the shared use of space,
technologies, learning arrangements, mutual practice and emergent “rules” governing the
learning, all work in tandem to form a community of practice that has its own distinctive
culture and characteristics.
The various makerspaces studied by Sheridan et al. (2014) shared many similar
characteristics across communities, yet they were also distinctively different, serving
different maker groups and purposes. This finding motivates further in-depth investigations
of the underlying mechanisms informing participation, and hence, learning. Similar to the
makerspace literature, scholars have portrayed CoP as self-organizing and fluid in structure
(Lave and Wenger, 1991). However, through closer inspection, distinct founding values seem
to be purposely operationalized in the structuring and co-ordination of the activities in the
makerspace, even though this was not the primary aim of Sheridan et al. (2014).
Evidently, limited research has been conducted to investigate the governing mechanisms
in makerspaces that regulate and guide participation, and several scholars have pointed to
the limitations of CoP in advancing participation, and hence learning, in a community
(Bentley et al., 2010; Fuller et al., 2005; Roberts, 2006). We, therefore, seek to understand the From making
social dynamics that are governing the learning trajectories and participation in the maker gadgets to
community (Gardiner, 2016) in the current research. In line with the CoP theory, we pose the making talents
second research question:
RQ2. How are the founding principles of the makerspace materialized in the governance
of learning trajectories, and how do they influence participation in the maker
community? 149

Methods and context

Research design, methods and sample
We used a single and embedded case study design to investigate a specific makerspace at a
university in southern Norway, hereafter named “Techspace”, with a focus on its social
learning dynamics. We chose an in-depth case design to investigate a socially complex
phenomenon in its real-life context as it has emerged over time (Simons, 2009; Yin, 2014).
The participants in this makerspace represented the embedded units of analysis. This
research strategy enabled us to compare findings across the embedded units and theorize on
the interesting dimensions of participation in a learning community (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The third and fourth authors collected the data under the supervision of the second author;
they were entrepreneurship master students and active members in Techspace and hence had
deep insider knowledge and easy access to the study participants. The study took place over
five months, and we used observations and semi-structured interviews to gather rich data
regarding individuals’ social participation dynamics. This triangulation contributed to
validating the different levels of participation and underlying learning trajectories in the
makerspace and hence strengthened the research’s validity. Our study included participants
with varied experiences (eight individuals). In addition, the two founders of the makerspace
were interviewed. See Table I for a detailed description of the participants.
The observations were divided into a series of unstructured observations of the general
activity level and targeted shadowing and observations of the focal interviewees. The first
series took place during one randomly selected week where the inside researchers were
observing the activity level, including logging the use of equipment and number of members

Participant Experience/role Disciplinary background

Founder 1 Cofounder Civil engineer

Founder 2 Cofounder Civil engineer
E1, Per Member since 2014 Fifth year civil engineering study in machine, process and
product development
E2, Kristoffer Member since Spring 2016 Fourth year civil engineering study in machine, process
and product development
E3, Lars Member since Spring 2016 Third year civil engineering study in machine, process
and product development
E4, Magnus Member since Autumn 2015 Last year master’s in entrepreneurship and innovation
N1, Einar Member since Autumn 2017 Last year master’s in food science
N2, Tor Member since Autumn 2017 First year civil engineering study in machine, process and
product development
N3, Rune Member since Autumn 2017 First year civil engineering study in machine, process and
product development
N4, Anders Member since Autumn 2016 Second year civil engineering study in machine, process Table I.
and product development Participants in
Notes: E, expert, a lot of experience in Techspace; N, newcomer, little experience in Techspace the study
ET working in Techspace. This was done to ensure the activity level reflected a community of
62,2 active members present in the community after school hours. The second category of
observations was performed the week after the first round of unstructured observations and
included observing and logging the members’ time spent, use of facilities and equipment
and level of involvement, participation and responsibilities.
The semi-structured interviews were carried out in a quiet room in Techspace. All
150 interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed. Because of general privacy
considerations, we anonymized the participants’ names. The founders are referred to as
Founder 1 and Founder 2. We focussed on the following main topics in the interviews:
motivations for participation, learning arrangements and access possibilities, involvement and
learning with peers, the governing and structuring of learning, the relevance of participation in
the makerspace for competence development and future employment, and synergies between
the makerspace and education.

Techspace and its members

A voluntary student association at a university in southern Norway established Techspace
in 2014. The founders are still there and are currently employed by the university.
Techspace started mainly with programming as its focus area. From the outset, Techspace
was provided with a physical space and infrastructure by the university. During the initial
years of Techspace, courses and workshops were held on programming, primarily using the
programming platform Arduino. In a short time, the founders also started working with
other technologies, such as 3D printing, thus expanding the “learning curriculum” content to
include electronic prototyping. For a long time, these activities, which are typical of a
makerspace, were the main pillars of Techspace. The vision of the community is clearly
stated on the community website, as follows:
The mission of Techspace is to facilitate innovation and value creation from students through
active learning and competence building activities. The main priority of the makerspace is
activities within technology, sustainable development and innovation, where the ambition is to
make it possible for participants to build competence through mastery experience while developing
their entrepreneurial mindset.
Indeed, makerspaces can take the form of small business incubators for idea prototyping
(Sheridan et al., 2014), as is the case for the makerspace investigated here. The makerspace is
positioned at the interface between education (Founder 1: Civil engineering student in 2014
who later became employed by the technical faculty and develops university courses
situated in Techspace by using the technology there) and knowledge transfer (Founder 2:
Civil engineering student in 2014 who later became employed by the Technology Transfer
Office (TTO) to facilitate project co-operation, supporting the triple helix).
Techspace’s participants (students) come from various faculties and disciplines (see Table I).
Most of the students who are active members of Techspace are engineering students, yet the
student member group has become increasingly cross-disciplinary over the last two years. For
example, the entrepreneurship master students can include a university course in electronic
prototyping, which is situated in the makerspace.

Data analysis process

After each interview, the interviewers discussed their notes and perceptions of the interview
to obtain an overall impression and validate whether the participants’ experiences
corresponded with the observations and categorizations of either newcomer or more
advanced member. Then, each interview was transcribed.
Later, the researchers independently read the transcripts and coded them openly;
the next step of the coding involved a thematic analysis approach (Mason, 2002), building on
the theoretical framework (making and education, learning arrangements, learning From making
trajectories, founders’ governance) to explore the main patterns emerging from our data. gadgets to
In the thematic analysis, we identified unique patterns in each interview before performing a making talents
cross-case comparison. The rich data from founders and participants contributed to an
expanded and varied interpretation of the patterns, adding different angles in the search for
meaningful themes.
The researchers then discussed and confirmed the main patterns found in the data, to 151
interpret these into overall common themes. Five themes emerged from the analysis of the
interplay between the social learning dynamics and its regulation, which answered our research
questions (RQ1 and RQ2). The themes are: founders’ vision and strategy for the community
(RQ2), materializing a social practice through projects as a learning platform (RQ2, managing
learning trajectories (RQ2), guiding norms and underlying drivers in the makerspace (RQ1) and
expanding university education through learning in the makerspace (RQ1).
In the final step of the analysis, we consulted the data material and the open coding
schemes to confirm that the themes were reflected in the main structures. We used
observational data to enrich and validate the final interpretations of the themes.

Findings
Founders’ vision and strategy for the community
The two founders had a clear idea and vision from the start when it came to directing the
activities in Techspace in that they identified a shortcoming in university education
regarding providing students with relevant practical experience when entering the labour
market. Their goal was to enable students to differentiate themselves from the crowd
through industry-related project work by using cutting-edge technology in the makerspace,
hence enhancing their employability. In addition, developing technology-competent
students and their talents was a top priority, as seen in the following quotes:
Techspace is like an innovation lab. A kind of extended arm of education. Anchored in the duration
of the programmes here. It is for students who want to make more out of their studies, to work on
projects and acquire knowledge beyond the courses. (Founder 2)
The Techspace model, it is in fact producing talents, and you cannot do this during one semester.
(Founder 1)
During the first year, the founders organized workshops on programming and coding
(Arduino) in the afternoons, testing interest in this makerspace. Students willingly came to
participate in the workshops and the process of identifying and picking out high-performing,
talented students started. According to the founders, this emphasis emerged naturally
because they needed students qualified to run the workshops. Gradually, four university
courses anchored in different university disciplines replaced the workshops. This happened in
co-operation with faculty in different engineering departments, converting the workshops’
content into five credit courses. Hence, the founders had support from faculty at the
university, who recognized the “talent development programme”.

Materializing a social practice through projects as a learning platform

The makerspace’s activities gradually concentrated on projects, including internal
low-threshold projects and more advanced high-threshold projects on behalf of industry.
The projects differed in several aspects. The low-threshold projects were small in scope and
economy, whereas the high-threshold projects were large, complex and resource demanding.
The projects could be exploratory and experimental or highly specified; industry projects
could be very specific, for example, to implement MATLAB code in C programming,
whereas internal university projects typically were early-phase projects where students
ET could work more freely, experimenting with possible technological solutions. The projects
62,2 could also originate from student ideas before evolving into larger projects with external
partners, investors and research funding.
The makerspace also looked for research and development (R&D) collaboration with
researchers at the university and other institutions, as well as TTOs. Yet, the R&D projects
focussed on the development aspect. The projects related to engineering in terms of the
152 product or final solution (software and/or hardware). Larger and more complex projects
typically had cross-disciplinary teams of different engineering disciplines and economists
committed to them. In addition, various sources financed the projects and technology
equipment, e.g. research projects, the university, Innovation Norway (national funding
institution), the county, banks and industry.
Students’ first encounters with Techspace came through introductory courses and
internal projects situated in the makerspace. In general, the students had a genuine interest
in learning and playing with technology; then, they really enjoyed the introductory learning
activities and were further inspired to learn more. To qualify for learning that is more
advanced and project work, the students had to build competence by means of introductory
internal projects with other peers and by taking several courses in programming and
diverse technology equipment, for example, Arduino, Fusion, Udacity and EdX and
Coursera, 3D printing and laser cutting. Newcomers were granted a legitimate peripheral
position in the makerspace through introductory courses and experiences with the internal
projects (Lave and Wenger, 1991). By progressing to advanced and high-threshold projects,
the students became members and, ultimately, experts:
If you have been involved in various projects from Techspace, then you have slightly more to say.
This relates how to work in projects and that you have experience and advanced knowledge in the
latest technologies and of their relevance in the market at that time. (E1, Per)
As reflected above, the social practice evolved around project work as a learning platform,
and the students proved their competence not only in technology but also in their ability to
work with technology to solve problems for “real actors”.

Managing learning trajectories

As the makerspace increasingly emphasized project collaboration financed by external
actors, it also became important to ensure high-quality project work. Therefore, the founders
needed to control the quality of team members and the composition of teams:
I don’t feel like we’re in control. We keep a little more order. I feel we are just channelling the energy
that is present without overstepping. We just have to know what kind of obligations we have taken
on, and things like that. So, we try to find a way to channel the ambitions and goals into a scheme
that is a bit more framed without taking absolute control. (Founder 2)
The two founders put together our team for our first project, EcoTarget. They just chose people
that they felt would fit in. They found a person with abilities in mechanics, one for industrial
drawing and for machining and suchlike. Then, there was somebody for electronic prototyping and
programming. (E1, Per)
The founders decided which students would be part of the projects. The students signalled
an interest by staying around in the makerspace after school, investing in their technology
competence and socializing with peers. These behaviours appeared to be important and
increased their chance to be chosen:
If Founder 1 knows that this would suit a certain person, then that person will often be asked to join
in. But that is if you are around. If you are never around, you normally would not get any projects.
You have to be around. So much is happening; so, if you are not within sight, you tend to be
forgotten. (E3, Lars)
When it comes to newcomers, in the introductory phase, the founders tested students’ From making
interests and motivation to best match students’ interests to the available projects. gadgets to
Furthermore, the founders continued to govern the project work to ensure progress and making talents
results. Demonstration of basic skills in technology through experience with the internal
projects was a prerequisite to move from the periphery to a more central role as an active
and performing member. However, the students working on projects were accorded
substantial responsibility and independence if they signalled an interest and engagement in 153
the general community. In exploratory low-threshold projects, the students were given
substantial autonomy to learn through trial and error, progressing in their learning and
proving their competence.
The managing and governance processes in the makerspace seemed to be concealed
to the students. Indeed, the students perceived the founders as being highly involved in
the decisions:

Just the way they gather the students – I don’t really understand that myself. Because they don’t
advertise – though they need quite a few students for all these projects. So, it’s – I don’t really
understand how that happens […] (E1, Per)
Interestingly, our analysis reveals a highly regulated progressive learning advancement
model, one where newcomers first are assigned to low-threshold projects and progressively
may qualify for more advanced projects. Finally, the students can obtain project manager
roles and more advanced expert roles in the community, illustrating a hierarchy in the social
community practice. The founders carefully managed the selection of students to projects,
and as such, the founders play a large part in students’ learning trajectories. This finding
contradicts the social learning dynamics in the making literature, which typically displays
communities free from centralized power regulation, with a greater variety of both
knowledge creation and knowledge sharing laterally in the community. This finding also
problematizes the notion of centralized power hampering distributed learning among
community members (Roberts, 2006).

Guiding norms and underlying drivers in the makerspace

The students had a common perception of the ease of peer-to-peer learning in Techspace.
Members typically had different and complementary competencies and interests and
voluntarily shared these with others. If someone struggled with some specific problem or
just happened to be curious about some technology or programming issue, that individual
could easily turn to others, and they would help:

The good thing about this makerspace is that it is open for all. The atmosphere here is really good;
it seems people are keen to give each other “an up”, a helping hand to get started. We are on
different projects and might even be considered competitors, but we wish each other success to
achieve things. It is not like that everywhere […] So that is good. (N1, Einar)
As this account shows, the community has a culture of knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer
learning and students were inspired by assisting each other in contributing to individual
goals. At an individual level, the students were driven by an inner motivation to learn
something new, developing technological skills and achieving DIY competence:

I enjoy programming. I have always found the idea of programming a cool one; and now, I can
actually do it. Earlier, I was more into maths and physics, but my interest is now in programming.
I enjoy making it work […] I am motivated to be at Techspace simply because I enjoy it. (E3, Lars)
In the beginning, the founders referred to Techspace as the official makerspace at the
university. In recent times, they have referred more to Techspace as an innovation space
ET with activities that are less associated with the makerspace concept, where students have
62,2 less time to engage in informal and spontaneous technology play and DIY activities:
There has not been much of what you might call “makerspace activities” lately. I have done some
3D printing and laser cutting, but the driving force has been to find good solutions for real projects
or to make a prototype. The use of 3D printers for their own sake, because they represented cool
and exciting technology, is over. (E4, Magnus)
154
Thus, as the above quote reveals, it seems that the emphasis on project work changed the
makerspace’s culture and activities, moving from free-choice activities to serious play.

Expanding university education through learning in the makerspace

Makerspace activities were mainly extracurricular and undertaken in the afternoon.
University studies were, however, the first priority, and most members performed well in
their theoretical studies. The hands-on and applied activities in Techspace, therefore,
became a valuable complement to the more theoretical education. Because of the practical
learning experience, the students also discovered the value and synergies between
academically acquired knowledge and knowledge from practice:
You do gain insights into subject matter by spending time in Techspace. You get to see the
practical side of things. Statistics, for instance, I did not realize I could use it for anything before I
started working on artificial intelligence. (E1, Per)
As mentioned, students were genuinely motivated by making and DIY activities.
In traditional education, engineering students learn basic mathematics and physics as
separate and theoretical sciences. Therefore, the students viewed the makerspace as a place
where the subjects are integrated into building things. In Techspace, the students acquire
practical, technical skills and specific programmes not taught at university:
Here at our university, they only have simple Python and MATLAB programming – and some R
perhaps. But we are not taught Arduino or anything more advanced until very recently. So, it is a
good way to gain insights into something more than what we are taught. (E3, Lars)
The project work provided experience with working in a team on real projects, using
cutting-edge technology and learning to collaborate with and delivering to industry. The
project work experiences enhanced students’ value in job-seeking processes in terms of
providing them with industry contacts:
Kongsberg Gruppen and other big companies in automation and robotics have a high demand for
this skill; they need people who know ROS. NTNU doesn’t teach it, and our university doesn’t
either. So if a student can program in ROS, he is miles ahead. (E2, Kristoffer)
The students had truly nuanced perceptions of their underlying motivations of engaging in
the makerspace. The intrinsic motivation for learning with technology and DIY was an
important driver from the start, and then learning in Techspace complemented and
expanded the university education. Lastly, the project experience enhanced students’
attractiveness in the labour market:
Earlier I was more into maths and physics, but my interest is now in programming. I enjoy making
it work and I know I can make a living from it later. So, that is an underlying idea. It is not like
throwing a frisbee; it is not just fun because it is fun. In addition, it may lead to a paid job. That is
naturally a factor. (E3, Lars).
Hence, as this account reflects, it seems that the students were primarily driven by the joy in
learning and at the same time realizing that the play had a clear purpose.
Discussion From making
Our case study reveals that Techspace shares some characteristics with the makerspace gadgets to
phenomenon depicted in the literature (e.g. Kwon and Lee, 2017; Martin, 2015). The making talents
development of skills in cutting-edge technology and the experimentation and creative use
of technical tools and equipment was at the heart of Techspace in the current study.
However, the university makerspace differentiates somewhat from the common ideas of the
maker movement. The high emphasis on project work and serious play illustrates an 155
evolution in the community, where technology is a means for delivering value through
projects rather than a means to play and learn in itself.
Techspace started out with two founders who had a vision that coalesced into a more
formalized and regulated community that had strong centralized management.
The founders were granted supervisor and manager roles through their deep
involvement in the community; this involvement had a higher purpose: spotting the
talents in the maker community. This management included a careful and strategic
selection of students to projects and continued surveillance of student teams as the projects
progressed and delivered. This finding is in contrast with the makerspace literature that
frames a makerspace’s virtues as being democratic, open and self-organized with free-choice
activities for individuals and groups (Martin, 2015). The makerspace in its university status
practised a highly hierarchical and well-managed regulation of activities, almost like a
well-run consultancy firm. This evolution is a typical example of a mature community of
practice, where leadership is evident yet not formalized or written down. Roberts (2006)
problematized the notion of centralized power dynamics in a CoP because it might hinder
members from developing beyond peripheral participation. Over time, founders can become
dominant and reduce variety in “[…] the voices actively shaping and negotiating meaning”
in the community (Roberts, 2006, p. 628). Furthermore, influential founders can inhibit
members in developing common activities identifying the makerspace as an open
community, leading to stagnation of creativity and experimentation.
Despite its centralized power, the gradual adherence to the norms of serious play
happened indeed through a socializing process as described in the community of practice
literature. Here, members participate in diverse learning activities, evolving and advancing
their learning trajectory ladder (Lave and Wenger, 1991). We can infer that the university
context somewhat influenced the learning arrangements in Techspace and the students’
willingness to adopt the norms of serious play, concentrating on project work. After all, the
students wanted to develop their competence as this coincides with their interest in
pursuing higher education. Ultimately, Techspace functioned as a channel for projects
anchored in the university’s TTO, facilitating prototyping and project development by
student teams. Therefore, Techspace contributed directly to the university’s third mission
and strengthened the entrepreneurial university (Voussoghi and Bevan, 2014).
The makerspace’s role as a collaborating partner with industry also contributed to
developing twenty-first century skills among students complementing their university
education (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017). Students with entrepreneurial mindsets were
further nurtured by the makerspace culture, made use of the makerspace technology
infrastructure, cross-disciplinary teams and industry networks to develop their own
entrepreneurial projects (Kwon and Lee, 2017; Wolf-Powers et al., 2017).

Conclusions
Recently, scholars (e.g. Davies, 2018; Han et al., 2017) have called for research to
investigate the assumed “myths” of the social processes in makerspaces. Therefore, the
current case study contributes to the makerspace literature by scrutinizing the social
learning dynamics in one makerspace situated in a university. Our findings also extend
Lave and Wenger’s research.
ET First, our study contributes with new knowledge on power dynamics in community-
62,2 based learning trajectories, which is called for in critiques (Fuller et al., 2005; Roberts, 2006).
Second, our findings revealed a makerspace with a highly regulated, advanced community,
together with a specialized pedagogy.
The learning happened formally through instructional courses as well as informally
among peers, which contradicts Lave and Wenger (1991). The formal learning was indeed
156 influential in governing participants’ movement from the periphery to the centre of the
community. Other scholars have addressed this limitation to raise awareness of the
importance of pedagogy and instructional knowledge in advancing learning and participation
in CoP (Bentley et al., 2010; Fuller et al., 2005). As such, this study informs the making
literature in emphasizing the role of instruction and pedagogy to cultivate learning that
facilitates long-term memberships and advancement beyond serious play in a makerspace.
As an expanded makerspace community, thus as neither a makerspace nor an incubator,
the community responds to its environment but also shapes it (Wenger et al., 2002).
Traditionally, technology transfer projects or academic spin-offs represent only a marginal
contribution from universities (Rasmussen and Wright, 2015). This is because scientists,
as academic entrepreneurs, are less equipped to handle the commercialization of their
research and follow their ideas across university borders and into the industry sphere
(Lundqvist, 2014; Vohora et al., 2004). Makerspace activities seem to facilitate this transition
and pave the way for other constellations and talents to enter and reposition technology
transfer and value creation from an entrepreneurial university.

Implications for education and learning

The current study answers the recent call for a more in-depth investigation of
making practices and their relevance and applicability to universities and learning
(Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017). We found that the culture of informal knowledge sharing
among peers, combined with close instruction and supervision from more advanced peers,
offered a unique opportunity to learn about technology and use it for value creation
purposes. In this way, Techspace exemplifies an intriguing form of pedagogy and template
for mastery development in STEM subjects because it balances the art of serious play with
progressive peer learning (Topping, 2005) and formal instruction. The learning in this type
of makerspace is inspirational for educational designs but its pedagogy is challenging to
incorporate within a short semester and in a traditional educational structure.
Bringing in the makerspace concept would demand a rethinking of the role of educators,
moving them more towards acting as managers and leaders with visions. Considering this
notion, the pedagogical challenge lies in organizing learning arrangements among students, as
well as building norms, governance structures and cultures for learning over time. Yet, we need
to initiate a research conversation to investigate whether social constructive making as found
in a makerspace guarantees learning for all, and if so, how can we secure and measure it? After
all, to facilitate and secure learning is the core responsibility of educators. Participation in
makerspaces is time-consuming, and integrating making into the university curriculum might,
in fact, increase participation among university students, who normally would not participate.
Halverson and Sheridan (2014) have recently raised a debate about whether
institutionalizing makerspaces into universities might negate its democratized nature of
learning. However, seen in the light of the rapid technological development in society, we are
facing the danger of teaching students outdated skills. Related to this, an institutionalizing
of makerspace into education might be one way to meet this challenge.

Limitations and future studies

This is just one of a few attempts to explore a attempt to explore the makerspace phenomenon
and more case studies are needed to gain in-depth knowledge of the subject. The literature is
scarce, and the current study may motivate future studies to build knowledge about the From making
phenomenon and its relevance for student learning and university education. It would also gadgets to
be interesting to inspect further the maker movement’s role and ways of strengthening the making talents
entrepreneurial university.

References
Bentley, C., Browman, G.P. and Poole, B. (2010), “Conceptual and practical challenges for implementing 157
the communities of practice model on a national scale – a Canadian cancer control initiative”,
BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Davies, S.R. (2018), “Characterizing hacking: mundane engagement in US hacker and makerspaces”,
Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 171-197.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Etzkowitz, H. and Zhou, C. (2017), The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Routledge, London.
Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P. and Unwin, L. (2005), “Learning as peripheral participation in
communities of practice: a reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning”, British
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Gardiner, C.M. (2016), “Legitimizing processes: barriers and facilitators for experienced newcomers’
entry transitions to knowledge practices”, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, Vol. 11,
December 16, pp. 105-116.
Halverson, E.R. and Sheridan, K. (2014), “The maker movement in education”, Harvard Educational
Review, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 495-504.
Han, S.Y., Yoo, J., Zo, H. and Ciganek, A.P. (2017), “Understanding makerspace continuance: a
self-determination perspective”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 184-195.
Kwon, B.R. and Lee, J. (2017), “What makes a maker: the motivation for the maker movement in ICT”,
Information Technology for Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 318-335.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Liu, W.C., Wang, C.K.J., Kee, Y.H., Koh, C., Lim, B.S.C. and Chua, L. (2014), “College students’ motivation
and learning strategies profiles and academic achievement: a self-determination theory
approach”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 338-353.
Loi, M. and Di Guardo, M.C. (2015), “The third mission of universities: an investigation of the espoused
values”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 855-870.
Lundqvist, M.A. (2014), “The importance of surrogate entrepreneurship for incubated Swedish
technology ventures”, Technovation, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 93-100.
Martin, L. (2015), “The promise of the maker movement for education”, Journal of Pre-College
Engineering Education Research, Vol. 5 Nos 1-4, pp. 30-39.
Mason, J. (2002), Qualitative Researching, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M.N. and Jaccheri, L. (2017), “Empirical studies on the maker
movement, a promising approach to learning: a literature review”, Entertainment Computing,
Vol. 18, January, pp. 57-78.
Rasmussen, E. and Wright, M. (2015), “How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An
entrepreneurial competency perspective”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp. 782-799.
Roberts, J. (2006), “Limits to communities of practice”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 623-639.
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E.R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L. and Owens, T. (2014), “Learning in
the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces”, Harvard Educational Review,
Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 505-531.
ET Simons, H. (2009), Case Study Research in Practice, Sage Publications, London.
62,2 Topping, K.J. (2005), “Trends in peer learning”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 631-645.
Van Holm, E.J. (2015), “Makerspaces and contributions to entrepreneurship”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195, July, pp. 24-31.
Vohora, A., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. (2004), “Critical junctures in the development of university high-
tech spinout companies”, Research Policy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 147-175.
158 Voussoghi, S. and Bevan, B. (2014), “Making and tinkering: a review of the literature”,
National Research Council Committee on Out of School STEM, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, pp. 1-55, available at: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/
documents/webpage/dbasse_089888.pdf
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A. and Snyder, W. (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to
Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.
Whitton, N. (2018), “Playful learning: tools, techniques, and tactics”, Research in Learning Technology,
Vol. 26, September, pp. 1-12.
Wolf-Powers, L., Doussard, M., Schrock, G., Heying, C., Eisenburger, M. and Marotta, S. (2017),
“The maker movement and urban economic development”, Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 365-376.
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Inger Beate Pettersen can be contacted at: Inger.Beate.Pettersen@hvl.no

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com