make-a-thek Impact Assessment Plan

Deliverable D3.2 Impact Assessment Plan Disclaimer: Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them. 2 Grant agreement number 101177660 Project name Modular Library Makerspaces for Heritage Crafts Innovation and Digitization Project acronym make-a-thek Type of action HORIZON-IA Project starting date 1st February 2025 Duration of project 36 months Due date of deliverable 30th of September 2025 Version 1.0 Dissemination level Public Project website https://www.makeathek.eu/ Project Lead Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI) Lead Partner Deliverable 3.2 Center for Social Innovation (ZSI) Author(s) Teresa Schaefer (ZSI), Barbara Kieslinger (ZSI), Claudia M. Fabian (ZSI) Contributor(s) All partners with their input during the Kick-Off Meeting Reviewer(s) Olha Truten (UMA) Cristina Biella (OD) Table of Content Table of Content......................................................................................................................... 3 Revision of History......................................................................................................................4 List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................6 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................7 2. The expectations and visions.............................................................................................. 8 2.1. Consortium vision and expectations......................................................................... 8 2.2. The expectations of pilot libraries........................................................................... 11 3. Project success criteria and indicator framework........................................................ 12 4. Evaluation Instruments....................................................................................................... 18 Internal documentation and reporting...........................................................................18 String map............................................................................................................................ 19 Participants’ feedback cards........................................................................................... 20 Participants’ questionnaires............................................................................................. 21 Participants’ target evaluation.........................................................................................22 Participants’ graffiti wall/table........................................................................................23 Impact interviews...............................................................................................................24 Focus group discussions...................................................................................................25 Societal readiness level.................................................................................................... 26 Organisational readiness levels.......................................................................................28 5. Ethics......................................................................................................................................30 6. Timeline..................................................................................................................................30 7. Summary and outlook..........................................................................................................31 References................................................................................................................................. 32 Annex...........................................................................................................................................33 3 Revision of History Revision Date Author Organisation Description 0.1 01.9.2025 Teresa Schaefer ZSI Initial structure 0.2 30.9.2025 Teresa Schaefer, Barbara Kieslinger, Claudia M. Fabian ZSI Second version 0.3 10.10.2025 Teresa Schaefer, Barbara Kieslinger, Claudia M. Fabian ZSI Third version 0.4 20.10.2025 Olha Truten Christina Biella UMA OD Reviewers’ comments 0.5 28.10.2025 Teresa Schaefer ZSI Integration of reviewers’ comments 1.0 31.10.2025 Barbara Kieslinger ZSI Final formatting & pdf submission List of Figures Figure 01 Expectations and visions 8 Figure 02 Summary of expectations and visions of the consortium partners 11 Figure 03 Motivation and expected outcomes of pilot libraries 11 Figure 04 Pilot libraries most relevant expectations & visions matched 12 Figure 05 Overview of the logic model, adapted from Kurz and Kubek (2016) 14 Figure 06 String map template to be used during community activation 19 Figure 07 String map in use 20 Figure 08 Feedback card template to be used for event evaluation 21 Figure 09 Target evaluation template to be used for event evaluation 23 Figure 10 Graffiti table during community engagement in Barcelona 24 Figure 11 make-a-thek project phases 31 4 List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Description GDPR General Data Protection Regulation KPI Key Performance Indicator MAT make-a-thek NEB New European Bauhaus Festival No Number of OD OpenDot OER Open Educational Resources ORL Organisational Readiness Level SRL Societal Readiness Level TRL Technological Readiness Level UMA Ukrainian Makerspace Association WP Work Package WS Workshop ZSI Center for Social Innovation 5 Executive Summary This Impact Assessment Plan (Deliverable D3.2) presents the evaluation and impact assessment strategy for make-a-thek, a Horizon Europe Innovation Action (Grant Agreement No. 101177660) titled “Modular Library Makerspaces for Heritage Crafts Innovation and Digitization.” The Impact Assessment Plan provides a comprehensive framework to evaluate the project’s outputs, outcomes and long-term societal impact. It pursues two main objectives: 1. Formative evaluation – ensuring that project activities, infrastructures, and networks develop effectively and align with the overall objectives; and 2. Summative evaluation – demonstrating the project’s tangible impact on individuals, organisations, and communities. The plan introduces a logic-model-based indicator framework linking project activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. It connects quantitative and qualitative evidence across all work packages to assess the uptake and societal relevance of the make-a-thek approach, where public libraries become a place for circular economy experience and co-creation focused on fashion and crafts. Based on this plan, effects on awareness, knowledge, skills and behaviour of the involved stakeholders are investigated. Indicators are tailored to the needs of participating libraries, makers, crafters, fashion and circularity experts, and citizens, with regular reflection and adaptation throughout the project lifecycle. Evaluation tools include feedback cards, questionnaires, target evaluations, graffiti walls, semi-structured impact interviews, focus group discussions, and internal reporting. The data from these evaluation instruments are collected, translated, analysed and collaboratively reflected within the project team. Together, these instruments capture both measurable results and personal experiences of learning, collaboration, and behavioural change. Complementary to these, the project applies Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) and Organisational Readiness Levels (ORL) to track the social adoption of the make-a-thek approach and the preparedness of pilot libraries for long-term integration. The expected progression is from SRL 2–3 to SRL 5–6 and from ORL 2–3 to ORL 5–6 by project end. Ethical and data-protection principles are embedded throughout. All data collection follows informed consent and GDPR-compliant procedures, with anonymised and securely stored records. The evaluation follows three phases: ● Co-creation phase (Year 1): Defining stakeholder expectations and impact metrics. 6 ● Implementation phase (Year 2): Gathering evidence from pilot libraries and the mobile make-a-thek bus. ● Scale-up and reflection phase (Year 3): Assessing scalability and policy relevance in Europe and beyond. This plan ensures that make-a-thek meets its internal project objectives, creates inclusive and innovative circular practices in public libraries, and contributes to a sustainable, inclusive, and creative European circular economy. It sets the foundation for continuous learning, adaptive management, and long-term replication of the make-a-thek model in public libraries worldwide. 1. Introduction This Impact and Assessment Plan document presents the project’s evaluation and impact assessment framework. This document is the basis for the project’s evaluation activities, and contains the following chapters: ● Chapter 1: Introduction ● Chapter 2: The expectations and visions Presents the results from the working session at the Kick-Off Meeting in February 2025, where the whole consortium was invited to reconsider the main project objectives. Also presents the motivations and expectations of the pilot libraries, collected during the library Kick-Off Meeting in May 2025. ● Chapter 3: Project success criteria and indicators Introduces an overarching logic model for the make-a-thek project, showing the connection between outputs (KPIs), outcomes and expected impact. ● Chapter 4: Evaluation instruments Presents the main quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments make-a-thek aims to apply to collect the data required to populate the indicator framework. ● Chapter 5: Ethics Discusses ethical considerations of evaluation and impact assessment in make-a-thek. ● Chapter 6: Timeline Provides a short overview of evaluation activities along the three project phases. ● Chapter 7: Summary and outlook Presents the upcoming activities of the evaluation and impact assessment work package. ● References 7 2. The expectations and visions 2.1. Consortium vision and expectations The starting point: During the Kick-Off Meeting that was convened face-to-face in February 2025 in Brussels, all make-a-the consortium members were actively involved in the discussion of project motivations, expectations, and visions. Pictures from the session are presented in Fig 01. Figure 01: Expectations and visions of the make-a-thek consortium, collected during the kick-off meeting in February 2025 2.1.1 Expectations for the make-a-thek Project The make-a-thek project envisions a collaborative, inclusive, and inspiring ecosystem that supports circular economy practices within the realms of fashion and craft, anchored in public libraries with makerspaces. Key expectations include: Strong Collaboration & Communication: Emphasis on mutual collaboration across work packages (WPs), open and honest communication, and clear strategic planning. Partners aim to inspire one another and foster a culture of transparency and shared purpose. 8 Community & Network Building: A central goal is to transform pilot initiatives into a sustainable network of fashionand craft-oriented libraries, while also creating connections with craftspersons, makers, and relevant stakeholders at local, national, and international levels, including beyond European borders. Inclusivity & Accessibility: The project seeks to ensure meaningful participation by embedding inclusivity and accessibility from the outset. This includes developing inclusive pilots, strategies for inclusive spaces, and making content and tools usable for a wide variety of audiences, including those typically underrepresented. Circular Economy & Sustainability: There is a strong commitment to co-creating positive experiments and tangible business cases in the regional circular economy. The project will showcase successful pilots, support evidence-based impact, and encourage civic engagement at the local level to promote fairer fashion and sustainable practices. Education & Empowerment: A key output will be joyful and adaptable learning materials, for online and offline experiences, to inspire makers, designers, and prosumers. The project will serve as a source of inspiration for entrepreneurs and creatives, helping participants transform their passion into sustainable ventures. Visibility & Impact: The project expects to deliver meaningful internal and external communication, including impactful marketing and storytelling around pilot successes. It will leverage its strong network and communication expertise to expand reach and support long-term adoption of project outcomes. Tools & Resources: Deliverables such as a modular kit and a publicly accessible repository of circular practices will help ensure that knowledge and tools are widely applicable, scalable, and valuable across different settings and communities. Sustainability & Funding: Raising additional funding through external partnerships (e.g., local library networks) is seen as a pathway to long-term sustainability and scaling of the initiative after the project funding. In essence, make-a-thek aims to be more than a project: it aspires to be a movement that blends creativity, sustainability, and inclusiveness through hands-on learning, shared knowledge, and community empowerment. 9 both, citizens and fashion and crafts experts. ● Increased knowledge on how to set up makerspaces for crafts and fashion amongst librarians Impact: ● Bringing circular practices to the broader creative industries ● Establishing libraries as vibrant hubs for knowledge exchange, prototyping, testing, and peer learning, as places for circular practices Prepare and implement the pilots Librarians Citizens Experts in fashion and crafts ● Empowerment of citizens to become prosumers partaking in the circular society. ● Better access for citizens to innovative digital and maker technologies ● New groups in local communities attracted to libraries for circular practices Impact: ● More inclusive avenues for repair and upcycling ● Transforming consumers into active contributors to sustainable fashion and crafts. ● Public libraries as vibrant, inclusive community spaces ● 9 + 3 public libraries trained and equipped through pilots ● > 200 people engaged per pilot ● 12 prototyped ideas ● 12 trialled circular craft and fashion ecosystems topic deep dives ● > 150 standardised feedback from pilot participants ● > 6 success stories of MAT small business’s impact ● 500 Feedback forms collected from pilot participants ● > 100 new visitors to participating libraries ● 300 libraries reached globally ● SRL will have been raised from 2 to 5-6 ● Internal documentation ● Interviews with engaged actors (librarians, fashion and crafts experts, makers) ● Feedback cards ● Evaluation grids (on site) 16 and catalysts for circular innovation in fashion, crafts, and other creative sectors. Bustour and international rollout Libraries Citizens Makers Experts in fashion and crafts ● Empowerment of citizens to become prosumers partaking in the circular society. ● Access for citizens to innovative digital and maker technologies ● New groups in local communities attracted to libraries for circular practices ● International rollout in 3 cities in the global south ● Organisation of the mobile pilot bus tour ● 300 libraries reached globally ● Internal documentation ● Interviews with engaged actors (librarians, fashion and crafts experts, makers) ● Feedback cards ● Evaluation grids (on site) Communica tion, disseminati on and sustainability Librarians Citizens Makers Experts in fashion and crafts Political decision makers ● Broad awareness for circular practices in fashion and the role of public libraries as community places amongst citizens. ● Awareness for circular practices and the role of libraries amongst policy makers ● Supporting a shift towards a new prosumer mindset ● Fostering a sense of belonging through a continuous community engagement ● > 12 community meetups with at least 400 people participating in networking activities ● > 12 promotional events including press conferences and launch events for pilots ● > 6 press releases and at least 30 press articles with media coverage across all project activities ● > 50 organisations using Communication campaign toolkit and assets ● City-level dialogs in 9 pilot cities (1 policy paper with 12 localised versions, 6 city-level dialogues with policy makers and craftspeople ● Internal documentation ● Access and social media statistics Table 01: Key activities, stakeholder groups, outputs, outcomes and evaluation instruments 17 The logic model will be regularly revisited by the whole consortium. During these reflection meetings, we will review the outputs and outcomes, discuss potential means of collecting evidence and adapt the evaluation approach if needed. Capturing and reacting to unintended consequences and challenges of make-a-thek While the above framework looks into the expected outputs, outcomes and impacts, there might be unintended positive and negative consequences of our activities. In make-a-thek we think that it’s important that evaluation also captures these unintended consequences and potential challenges. Thus the logic model will evolve throughout the project with new indicators and will be adapted accordingly. The open and reflective discussion of challenges is an important source for learning and improving the make-a-thek activities, adapting them to new contexts or circumstances that have not been identified throughout the co-design process. The mixture of evaluation instruments, that have both closed and open questions to the portfolio of involved stakeholder groups, will purposefully capturing these unintended consequences and challenges. 4. Evaluation Instruments In the project we will use a mixture of qualitative and quantitative evaluation instruments to bring evidence for the expected outputs and outcomes listed in the previous chapter. These instruments are carefully selected, some focusing more on the collection of outputs and intermediate outcomes, while others investigate the longer term effects and transformative potential of make-a-thek. Internal documentation and reporting Feeds into: Outputs (numbers and formative feedback for key activities), intermediate outcomes (visibility, awareness, knowledge) Internal reporting is a key source of evaluation data. It is linked to all key activities in the make-a-thek project, and helps to: 1) keep track of the output indicators for all key activities, e.g. number of events, workshops, involved participants, developed prototypes etc. 2) collect the experiences of the make-a-thek consortium members involved in the project activities. This can, for instance, be formative feedback on the developed recommendations, guidelines, OERs, events etc. (what worked and what did not), as well as inputs on the perceived benefits (the key impacts for the project and for participants) With these aims, we foresee the following internal reporting activities: 18 ● Internal documentations sheets: summarising key facts about a make-a-thek activity and the main lessons: e.g. Who was participating in the event? What was the programme? What worked well/not so well? What questions and issues came up? What can we learn related to the MAT approach? These sheets are used for internal reporting of consortium members about e.g. the community activation events and trainings. But also by the pilot libraries to document their make-a-thek events and workshops. ● A spreadsheet for the internal reporting on dissemination and outreach was elaborated by WP9. String map Feed into: Outputs (description of involved stakeholder groups) The string map (see Figure 06 and 07) is an instrument that helps to playfully understand the background of the involved stakeholders during the community activation events. It provides the project with insights on who is interested and participating mostly in our activities. It is used across pilot cities during community activation events. Figure 06: String map template to be used during community activation 19 Figure 07: String map in use Participants’ feedback cards Feed into: Outputs (formative feedback for make-a-thek events and workshops), intermediate outcomes (visibility, knowledge, awareness, networking) Feedback cards will be dedicated to evaluation of events in a very “lightweight” way (see Figure 08). Such cards will be designed for the events supported by make-a-thek, and will not demand a lot of time and effort for completion. The cards will aim to collect participants’ feedback on the potential impacts of their event participation. The questions on the cards will be kept at a general level, with the aim being to use this tool across a large diversity of events supported by make-a-thek, allowing for large numbers of feedback cards to be distributed and collected by the project consortium members and the pilot libraries. They will be provided in an online version to be translated into the different mother languages used in the pilots and to slightly adapt questions, if needed. 20 Figure 08: Feedback card template to be used for event evaluation Participants’ questionnaires Feeds into: Outputs (formative feedback for make-a-thek events, trainings and workshops), intermediate outcomes (increased interest, knowledge gains, networking) These questionnaires will aim to collect more detailed feedback from event, training, and workshop participants, including formative feedback and the benefits experienced by participants in make-a-thek events. As these two-pager questionnaires require two to three minutes of the respondent’s time, they are designed for events where make-a-thek has the opportunity to distribute them to 21 participants and then collect them again. Questionnaires are distributed directly at the end of an event, training, workshop - online or in paper-and-pen version - to collect immediate feedback from participants. This tool can also sometimes be applied for online events, training or workshops. These evaluations of events, trainings and workshops will collect: 1) formative input: such as the set-up, timing, speakers 2) input on the participants’ intermediate benefits: e.g. perceived usefulness and applicability of the content discussed during the event/training/workshop; increases in knowledge and skills; intention to apply the shared knowledge, materials, resources; interest in follow-up with additional activities; and perceived networking opportunities. As make-a-thek events, training, and workshops cover a broad range of topics, questions will be tailored to the activity in questionwhile at the same time trying to keep a certain homogeneity in key thematic areas of the questions, so as to allow for comparability between events. Participants’ target evaluation Feeds into: Outputs (formative feedback for material, trainings and workshops), intermediate outcomes (e.g. increased interest, knowledge gains, networking) The “target evaluation” (see Figure 09) serves to collect feedback of participants in a make-a-thek training, workshop or event. It consists of a prepared “dart board” design on a poster or flipchart, where each section stands for a specific evaluation item related to the event, workshop or training. Participants are asked to score the item, the best being closest to the bullseye, the worst being furthest away. This evaluation format can be used for online and offline events. It takes only very little time for participants and provides event organisers with the occasion to collect quick feedback, visible for all participants, also as a source for a collaborative final reflection exercise at the end of an event. 22 Figure 09: Target evaluation template to be used for event evaluation Participants’ graffiti wall/table Feeds into: Outputs (formative feedback for material, trainings and workshops), intermediate outcomes (e.g. awareness, knowledge gains, networking) This is a very open format of collecting participants' experiences, opinions, ideas and thoughts during or after a make-a-thek activity. It consists of a big paper, which is put on a wall or table, and is the place for participants to openly share their thoughts. Feedback can be steered into a specific direction by writing some key questions e.g.: What did you enjoy? What do you want to do next? This easy to use evaluation format can also be used as an online version. Miro or Padlet could be examples for collaborative tools that let people simply share their thoughts on a wall. 23 Figure 10: Graffiti table during community engagement in Barcelona Impact interviews Feeds into: Intermediate outcomes (e.g. knowledge gains, awareness for circular practices in fashion, perceived motivations) and expected long-term outcomes (e.g. changing to a prosumer behaviour, applying circular practices) One of the main evaluation data collection methods in make-a-thek will be semi-structured Impact interviews. The make-a-thek evaluation team will use this technique to investigate intermediate and long-term effects of the project on individuals, who are involved in the make-a-thek activities, to understand which circumstances and contexts influence the generated impact for these individual participants and how individual impacts can spill over to local communities and broader networks of people. These semi-structured Impact interviews will be guided by a set of question guidelines (an interview protocol) covering the main aspects under investigation. These guidelines support the interviewer's need to cover certain topics, and provide a framework of orientation to ensure comparability of interviews. The guidelines include ideas for questions guiding towards individual topics as well as pre formulated questions to start discussions. These initial questions are broadly formulated and function “like an empty page which is filled out by the interviewee in his or her own words, structured in his or her own way” (Witzel, 2000). Narrative elements of the interview allow the interviewee to determine what is relevant for them. Through this, initial concepts that are reflected in the question 24 guidelines are refined and enriched by the interviewee (in a form that generates empirical data for project evaluation purposes). The Impact interviews will be conducted online or face-to-face, and will be audio-recorded for later transcription (if agreed upon by the interviewee). If an interview is not recorded, interviewers will take notes and prepare detailed protocols to replace the transcript. Whether recording permission is granted or not, memory minutes will also be written by the interviewers directly after the interview, so as to keep a record of the topics discussed, of situative and non-verbal aspects of the interview, and topics and ideas which can inform data analysis and subsequent interviews later interpretations. For the transcription and translation of data-sources from the pilot languages to English, AI tools might be used. For analysis of the interview data, the evaluation team will conduct qualitative content analysis of the transcripts as proposed by Mayring (2000). The applied method is a technique of summarisation, whereby categories are created in an inductive procedure by reducing, paraphrasing and generalising relevant text passages using software such as MAXQDA1 or Nvivo2. The central aspect of the employed technique is to develop categories resembling the original data as closely as possible. Focus group discussions Feeds into: Outputs (formative feedback for material, trainings and workshops), intermediate outcomes (e.g. awareness, knowledge gains, networking) and expected long term outcomes (e.g. sustainable practices established in libraries, changing to a prosumer behaviour) Focus group discussions are moderated group discussions on a certain topic with several participants (Mayring, 2002). The method is widely applied in qualitative research and is considered as a sort of group interview, where a semi-structured approach guides the group discussion while also relying on the responses themselves to move the discussion along. The method is used for an explorative approach to reveal opinions, needs, and interests of the interviewed groups. This method can potentially serve as the principal data source for understanding the outputs and outcomes of mAkE from the perspective of various target groups. Focus group discussions can be supplemented with, or be supplementary to, other sources of data, such as the other sources outlined in this chapter. In comparison to one-on-one interviews, focus groups have the advantage of allowing the interviewers to observe interactions on a topic, and to experience similarities and differences in participants’ opinions directly, instead of deriving them from analyses of separate statements from individual interviewees (Morgan, 2011). 2 https://www.nvivo.de/ 1 https://www.maxqda.com/de/ 25 of the involved stakeholders. Thus this impact assessment plan serves as a basis to document outputs, outcomes and impacts of make-a-thek. It consists of a number of clearly defined KPIs and expected outcome metrics that follow the logic-model approach and are the basis for regular reflection within the consortium. The plan also introduces a first set of quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments that help to collect data related to these impact metrics and a timeline when to apply these instruments throughout the project runtime. In the coming project months the collection of evaluation data will be at the focus of the evaluation team. With this aim, we will organise training sessions related to impact assessment for the involved pilot libraries and regular reflection sessions to discuss not only the evaluation process but also first outcomes that could inform an adaptive management. We will also collect data on the community structures and indicators for networking and community building effects and specifically focus on engagement strategies, degree of involvement, relevant support mechanisms and material, recognition of the approach by relevant stakeholders, and document benefits and possible negative effects of the suggested approach. The first lessons learned will be presented in D11.1 Interim Impact Assessment Report, due in project month 24 (31st of October 2026). References Bruno, I., Lobo, G., Covino, B. V., Donarelli, A., Marchetti, V., Panni, A. S., & Molinari, F. (2020, September). Technology readiness revisited: a proposal for extending the scope of impact assessment of European public services. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 369-380). Kurz, B., & Kubek, D. (2016). Social impact navigator. The practical guide for organizations targeting better results. PHINEO gAG, Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.phineo.org/uploads/Downloads/PHINEO_Social_Impact_Navigator.pdf Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204 Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. 5. Auflage. Weinheim, Basel. Morgan, D. (2011). Focus Groups As A Qualitative Method. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, p.8-17 Witzel, A. (2000). The Problem-centered Interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), 1438–5627. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1132/2521 32 Woodyatt, C. R., Finneran, C. A., & Stephenson, R. (2016). In-Person Versus Online Focus Group Discussions: A Comparative Analysis of Data Quality. Qualitative Health Research, 26(6), 741–749. Annex Informed Consent Form 33 Informed Consent Form This informed consent form is for participants in the innovation action titled: "make-a-thek " [make-a-thek partner: insert name of main contact person] [make-a-thek partner: insert the name of your organisation] This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101177660 This Informed Consent Form has two parts: ● Information Sheet (to share information about the study with you) ● Certificate of Consent (for signatures if you agree) You will be given a copy of the full Informed Consent Form Information Sheet Introduction I am ___________, and I work at __________ organisation in _________. I am working on some research and innovation actions which are setting up creative maker spaces in public libraries to explore circular fashion, traditional crafts, and local innovation. Purpose make-a-thek is an EU funded project that brings modular, easy-to-replicate makerspaces into public libraries. These spaces focus on fashion and crafts, offering open access to innovative and circular approaches to making and design. make-a-thek informed consent Through community co-creation, the project will develop a practical toolkit and open educational resources (OERs) to help libraries set up their own fashionand craft-focused makerspaces. The project will pilot these ideas in at least 12 libraries (9 in Europe, 3 internationally), where communities will explore how to combine traditional heritage crafts with modern digital tools like 3D printing and laser cutting. This approach supports sharing sustainable skills and cultural knowledge. A mobile makerspace in the form of a bus is also planned, enabling flexible workshops and activities in different regions, especially rural regions. The long term goals of the project are to ● Empower a new generation of prosumers—people who both create and use in sustainable ways. ● Position libraries as hubs for circular making and knowledge-sharing. ● Preserve heritage crafts through digital innovation. ● Foster circular and green innovation in fashion and crafts. Type of Intervention (please select) Questionnaire Focus group Co-design workshop Interview Selection of Participants make-a-thek aims to create meaningful connections between libraries, and local communities of makers, fashion and craftspeople, citizens and prosumers and will engage these stakeholders during the course of the project. All stakeholders participate actively in the project supporting research activities, such as surveys, interviews, and workshops. We ensure the values, rights, and interests of all. Voluntary Participation Your participation is completely voluntary and you stop your participation at any time. Procedure (chose from the examples, depending on what activity you involve the person in) 1) the following applies only to co-design sessions or workshops: make-a-thek informed consent You will take part in a co-design session/workshop with a mix of other participants. This design process will be guided by [give the name of moderator]. The whole co-design process will be documented and the documentation material will be shared amongst the make-a-thek partners. Personal information about you will not be shared in any form beyond the consortium partners unless explicitly agreed in advance. The co-design session/workshop will take place in [location of the group discussion]. 2) the following applies only to interviews: You will participate in an interview with [name of interviewer] The interview is conducted with the following aim: _____________________ If you do not wish to answer any of the questions during the interview, you may say so and we will move on to the next question. The information recorded is confidential, and no one else except [name of person(s) with access to the information] will have access to the information documented during your interview.) [The recordings will be destroyed after ________period of time.] 3) the following applies only to questionnaire surveys and should be added as a header: You will fill out a questionnaire which will be provided by [name of a distributor of blank questionnaires] and collected by [name of a collector of completed questionnaires]. If you do not wish to answer some of the questions included in the questionnaire, you may skip them and move on to the next question. The information recorded is confidential, and no one else except [name of person(s) with access to the information] will have access to her questionnaire. [The questionnaires will be destroyed after _____period of time.] Reimbursements You will not be provided with any payment to take part in the project activities. Material for the make-a-thek activities will be provided by the project as far as this is within our budgetary limits. If material is needed that cannot be covered by the project budget, we will inform you beforehand. Snacks are also provided by the project. Confidentiality We will not be sharing information about you outside of the project team. The information that we collect from this project will be kept confidential. Information about you that will be collected from the research will be put away and no-one but the researchers will be able to see it. Any information about you will be stored make-a-thek informed consent anonymously. Non-personal data extracted from the different activities you will be involved in will be shared with the make-a-thek consortium in an anonymous manner and stored on a secure server. Any research results resulting from the analysis of your data will be presented in an aggregated form and cannot be traced back to you. (The following text may apply for co-design sessions & workshops discussions): We will ask you and others in the group not to talk to people outside the group about what was said within the group. We will, in other words, ask each participant to keep what was said in the group confidential. Benefits of Participation You may benefit from your participation in make-a-thek in various ways, depending on your personal interests and role as a participant. Overall, make-a-thek strengthens the local infrastructure for circular economy, crafts and sustainable fashion by offering new spaces and activities in public libraries and beyond. Sharing of Research Findings We will be sharing what we have learned with the participants and with the community. We will do this by providing a written report, which will not include your personal data. Rather, the findings will be reported in a general and aggregated form to ensure that you personally cannot be identified. Nothing that you will tell us today will be shared with anybody outside the research team and nothing will be attributed to you by name. We might also publish the results in academic outlets in order that other interested people may learn from our research. Data will only be included in these publications in aggregated and anonymized form. Right to refuse or withdraw You may choose to opt-out and stop your participation at any time. Whom to Contact If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the participation. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact any of the following: [name, address/telephone number/e-mail] This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the European Union’s research and innovation programme Horizon Europe, including an ethical screening to make sure that participants are protected from harm and their privacy is respected at all times. make-a-thek informed consent Certificate of Consent I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I hereby give consent for my data to be conveyed and documented for the purpose stated above. I confirm that I have been informed of the nature of make-a-thek and that my participation is voluntary. I am aware that I may withdraw my consent at any time. Print Name of Participant __________________ Signature of Participant___________________ Date ___________________________ Day/month/year Statement by the project team member/person taking consent I have accurately read out the information sheet to the participant, and to the best of my ability made sure that the person understands the process. I confirm that the participant was given an opportunity to ask questions about the study, and all the questions asked by him/her have been answered correctly and to the best of my ability. I confirm that the individual has not been coerced into giving consent, and the consent has been given freely and voluntarily. Print Name of project team member/person taking the consent ________________________ Signature of project team member/person taking the consent ________________________ Date ___________________________ Day/month/year make-a-thek informed consent A copy of this Informed Consent Form has been provided to the participant