## 4 Discussion
Examining MQ4, Table 2 shows us the activity offering distribution, which is relatively linear, without big jumps in popularity between sequential activities. That \"Workshops\" is the most popular activity could be a sign of interest in hands-on, creative activities (versus \"Seminars\", for example), which bodes well for the CreaSTEAM project and its interest in creating makerspaces to deliver STEAM curriculums. Comparing this to the academic side, a preponderance of the studied works focused on developing creativity, and the authors encourage future studies to do the same [20]. In responding to MQ5, Tables 3 and 4, respectively, show the prevalence of the five STEAM content areas and the number of content areas offered. By far the most common content area combination is STEM, and we see from the relative under-representation of STEAM (and from the overall lack of art offerings) that the adoption of art as a component in technical curricula is still new. The popularity of technology is clear: it is the most common of the five contents areas and represents 24 (83%) of the one-area initiatives (almost all of which focus on programming). Comparing again to the academic side, we see mostly similarities. Tab 10 in the comparison article presents the principal research themes in the dataset, classified by the time in which each is prevalent (2006-2015, 2016-2018, 2019-2020) [20]. In agreement with this work's data, \"STEAM\", \"STEM education\", and \"STEM teachers training\" appear, respectively, in the three time ranges, \"Arts\" appears only in 2019-2020, and \"Technology\" appears from 2006-2015. Technology is the most easily implemented STEAM area via programming, but given the evolution seen, we forecast that art and initiatives that include art will become more popular over time. Finally, we consider MQ6. Table 5 gives the prevalence of each diversity target area. The data presented there raises interesting discussions on two different tracks: gender and race. Gender-focused initiatives are by far the most dominant, with 102 (82%) having \"gender\" as a focus area (although, it should be noted that initiatives can work in multiple diversity target areas, so not all those 102 initiatives solely target gender). Figure 4 sheds more light on the source of these initiatives--the explosion in new initiatives since approximately 2010 is due almost entirely to gender-focused programs. It appears that the academic side echoes this emphasis, and Tab 10 [20] displays this evolution, with \"Women\" a principal research theme in 2006-2015, the more inclusive \"Gender\" and \"Gender differences\" principal themes in 2016-2018, and the most general of all, \"Broadening participation\", in 2019-2020. Given these trends, we conclude that a gender focus in STEAM education is both necessary and fruitful, and we forecast that future initiatives will continue to have gender components that are more and more open to widely defined gender groups. At the same time, the race-focused initiatives deserve special explanation: since the initiative search began in Europe, there was little need to tag race-focused initiatives because initiatives that catered to racial diversity could also be correctly defined as cateringto immigration diversity. \"Race\" was added to describe initiatives in the United States, where race is a major and unique diversity indicator; the tag has only been applied to initiatives based in the US. Additionally, of the 14 US initiatives, 10 (71%) focus on race. The academic side shows an increasing interest in race-based initiatives, reporting \"Race\" as a top theme in 2016-2018 and \"Segregation\" in 2019-2020 [20]. Finally, we turn to RQ1. The most notable trend in the selected initiatives is visible in Figure 3, which shows the rapid increase in initiative creation beginning in the last 10 years. The first assertion we can make is that there is significant and growing demand for STEAM diversity initiatives.