Towards a Social Justice Aligned Makerspace: Co-designing Custom Assistive Technology within a University Ecosystem
Higgins, Erin, Oliver, Zaria, Hamidi, Foad · 2023 · Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3597638.3608393
Summary
This paper explores how university makerspaces can serve as sites for co-designing custom Do-It-Yourself assistive technology (DIY-AT) while simultaneously engaging with social justice issues faced by students with disabilities. Conducted at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County — a minority-serving institution — the study involved three undergraduate students with disabilities and one medical professional (an audiologist) in a qualitative study combining pre-interviews, co-design sessions, and post-interviews. The researchers explicitly aligned their DIY-AT design process with social justice values by recruiting through a student disability advocacy organization, encouraging participants to reflect on systemic barriers alongside their design work, and using the co-design process as a vehicle for broader conversations about accessibility and inclusion on campus. Each participant completed two sessions: an initial interview paired with a co-design activity to create their device, and a follow-up interview after the 3D-printed device was produced. The four resulting devices were a finger splint for joint hypermobility, a custom pencil grip for dysgraphia and fibromyalgia, a turn signal extender for a driver with cerebral palsy, and a bone conduction headband designed to match the natural hair color and texture of a Black audiologist — each responding to gaps in commercially available AT or university accommodation systems.
Key findings
The study revealed several important findings about facilitating DIY-AT co-design in university settings. First, providing multiple ways to communicate designs — sketches, clay models, photographs, verbal descriptions, and existing objects as references — was essential for inclusive participation, as not all participants wanted or were able to learn CAD software. Physical interaction with prototypes was far more effective than digital communication (e.g., emailed CAD renderings) for gathering meaningful feedback. Key barriers to broader student participation included: the technical language used to describe the process (the term "DIY" itself intimidated some students), lack of awareness about campus 3D printing resources, and the absence of relationships with medical professionals who could help identify safe and appropriate projects. Participants identified the university accommodation system as deeply problematic — biased toward visible physical disabilities, dependent on privileged access to medical documentation, and inflexible in what it considers worthy of support. Motivations for creating DIY-AT ranged from economic (a 3D-printed finger splint costing far less than commercial alternatives) to empowerment (the satisfaction of making something yourself) to inclusion (creating a hearing device headband that matches Black hair texture when manufacturers only offer options for white skin tones).
Relevance
This paper makes a compelling case for reframing DIY-AT making as not just a technical activity but a form of social justice activism. For accessibility practitioners and organizations, it demonstrates how the process of creating assistive technology can surface and challenge systemic barriers — from the ableist assumptions embedded in university accommodation policies to the lack of inclusive aesthetics in commercial AT. The intersectional perspective is particularly valuable: Participant 4's bone conduction headband project highlights how race and disability intersect in AT design, an area rarely addressed in mainstream accessibility work. The practical recommendations — use non-technical language, offer multiple communication modes, leverage interdisciplinary university resources, and build relationships with medical professionals — are directly applicable to anyone establishing maker programs for people with disabilities. The study also challenges the assumption that end users must learn technical skills like CAD; effective co-design can happen through sketches, clay models, and conversation, with makers translating ideas into digital designs.
Tags: DIY assistive technology · 3D printing · digital fabrication · makerspaces · co-design · social justice · higher education · disability rights · participatory design
Standards referenced: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act · Universal Design for Learning Guidelines