“Forget about the learning”? Technology expertise and creativity as experiential habit in hacker-/makerspaces

Abstract This paper discusses to what extent hacker- and makerspaces (HMS) facilitate technology expertise. It draws on a combined qualitative interview and survey study of current/former community members. Study participants relate that HMS encourage learning-by-doing and self-directed creativity involving digital technology and crafts. Despite some being hesitant to label what they do as learning, a notion strongly associated with primary/secondary school, creativity itself is considered a learning ability and an experiential habit: a skill to be nurtured in practice. Members tend to expect that a self-directed approach to technological creativity is cultivated by new members too. As a “rite of passage”, this has implications for members’ in- and exclusion: notably creating challenges for individuals from already underrepresented groups and those perceiving themselves as comparatively low-skilled in technology. While learning and technology expertise are thus potentially facilitated in HMS, this is not equally the case for all members.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Annika Richterich is an assistant professor in Digital Culture at Maastricht University's Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences. The research presented in this article was conducted during a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship, funded by the European Commission from 2019 to 2021. Based at the Sussex Humanities Lab at the University of Sussex, the project explored experiential learning, digital innovation, and tech-political practices in hacker and maker communities. The article discusses interviews and qualitative survey data collected during the fellowship: it highlights how communally embedded learningby-doing and learning-by-making facilitate technological skills and creativity. More broadly, the research shed light on factors of in-and exclusion in hacker-and makerspaces, therefore also examining who is likely to benefit from the learning opportunities afforded by different types of communities, like feminist hackerspaces.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Information technology (IT) skills are not only crucial for innovation and economic growth: they are also decisive for people's ability to participate in and shape increasingly digital societies. Unfortunately IT skills are scarce, globally. To tackle IT skills shortages and a persistent gender gap, we need to gain a better understanding of learning practices relevant to IT expertise. Why, where, how, and by whom are IT skills trained? The importance of informal learning has been emphasised in this context, though not extensively empirically explored. Therefore, this article discusses "hackerspaces" and "makerspaces" as key examples for informal IT learning environments. Members of such communities engage in activities involving for example, coding and electronics. Misleadingly, "hacking" is predominantly associated with cybercrime, but hackerspaces are home to legal, innovative IT practices − just like makerspaces. Drawing on qualitative interviews and a survey, this article shows how hacker-/makerspaces informally facilitate learning-by-doing with and about IT. At the same time, it addresses factors of communal in-/ exclusion, especially regarding minoritized groups.

Introduction
Hackers and makers are curious individuals (Coleman, 2012;Davies, 2018;Kubitschko, 2015;Lindtner et al., 2014). Their curiosity about digital technology and crafts is said to make them keen learners in these domains (see, Bilandzic, 2016;Schrock, 2014). To share not only their curiosity and enthusiasm but also access to machines and tools, hackers and makers worldwide have formed communities called hack-/hackerspaces and makerspaces (HMS; Davies, 2017;Toupin, 2014). These are physical places where members engage in technological DIY activities, involving software and electronics, often combining these with craft materials like textiles or wood. Misleadingly, the terms "hacker" and "hacking" tend to be associated with cybercrime (Jordan, 2008). This is regrettable because hackerspaces are resourceful, perfectly legal civic communities of skilled technology and craft enthusiasts − just like makerspaces.
The type of skills that are held and cultivated by HMS members range from an expertise in electronics building, robotics, bioinformatics, programming and soldering to knitting, sewing, woodwork, and welding. Projects tend to merge elements requiring digital and more "traditional" craft expertise. Considering the relevance of technology expertise for increasingly digital societies (Kubitschko, 2018;Reisdorf & Groselj, 2017;Tanczer, 2016;Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011), this paper examines to what extent-and how-HMS facilitate learning in relation to technological skills and craftsmanship. To address this question, it draws on a qualitative interview and survey study.
Despite the ongoing professionalization of computer science education (Smith & Phillips, 2015), researchers have stressed the importance of informal learning for technological DIY skills (Fadjo et al., 2015;Kannengießer, 2020;Schrock, 2014;Talja, 2007). In studying HMS, this paper explores communities' potential to facilitate such skills through informal, experiential practices (Dewey, 2005(Dewey, [1934(Dewey, ], 1938(Dewey, /1986(Dewey, , 1916(Dewey, /1966Ingold, 2018). While it is therefore relevant to educational and policy efforts aimed at fostering technology expertise and DIY innovation, it is also instructive for thinking about the implications of communal dynamics and matters of in-/exclusion. Most HMS are predominantly frequented by white, male members (Dunbar-Hester 2019;Fox et al., 2015;Reagle, 2017). Given this gender bias and lack of racial and ethnic diversity, HMS are not simply framed as possible "solution" for facilitating (digital) skills. Instead, being wary of technological solutionism and techno-fix mindsets (Huesemann & Huesemann, 2011;Jordan, 2008), communities' role as gatekeepers to skills acquisition is likewise considered: in particular, communal dynamics are shown to influence who may (not) benefit from potential learning opportunities. This is also reflected in the difficulties, discrimination, and harm experienced by minoritized groups in HMS and the emergence of feminist hackerspaces as counterproject (Rosner & Fox, 2016;Savic & Wuschitz, 2018;Toupin, 2014).
In the following sections, I will first provide an overview of literature on hacking/making in relation to learning and creativity. Afterwards, I will introduce relevant theory to be used in my analysis: I draw on Dewey's, 2005Dewey's, [1934, Dewey, 1938/1986, Dewey, 1916/1966 and Tim Ingold's (2018) work on education, experiential learning, and the notion of habit. Upon outlining my qualitative approach, I will elaborate on main themes and categories derived from my data. Lastly, I discuss implications of my observations-particularly for communal approaches and educational policy concerned with facilitating learning with/about digital technology and crafts.

Hacking as a mode of inquiry
My study was open to the possibility that HMS members may not see learning as essential to their practices. Having said that, the term "hacking" does hark back to a tradition of computational practices emphasising the importance of learning. Even though some literature still focuses on illegal "cracking" (Alleyne, 2018), Kubitschko observes that "recent writings all share the view that hackers hold a vast amount of timely and politically relevant expertise" (389; see also, Richterich 2020, Dunbar-Hester 2019; Davies, 2018;Dahm, 2017;Jordan 2016;Coleman, 2015Coleman, , 2012Lindtner, 2015,;Kubitschko, 2015.). This trend is also related to the rise of the maker movement and the popularisation of digital DIY activities (Davies, 2017). In this context, the terms hackerspace and makerspace tend to be used synonymously, though it is sometimes suggested that "making" is the more publicity-friendly term (Dougherty, 2014).
Practices of hacking are said to be rooted in an "itch" to understand how a problem may be solved and how a (technological) object works. Already in Levy's classic reflections on "hacker ethics", the author observed that "[h]ackers believe that essential lessons can be learned about the systems-about the world-from taking things apart [. . .]" (Levy, 1996(Levy, [1984(Levy, ]/1996. It is thus not surprising that, in his study of US hackerspaces, Schrock suggests that members of these communities are engaged in "education in disguise" (2014: 14; see also, Megelas, 2014). My paper takes this as (refutable) starting point for examining the potential educational value and modes of learning taking place in HMS.

Experiential learning and the notion of "habit"
Conceptually, this paper draws on and contributes to research arguing against a view of learning as an individualistic process of transmission and internalisation. In the early 1990s, Lave and Wenger proposed understanding "learning" as situated practice. The concept was meant to bridge "between a view according to which cognitive processes (and thus learning) are primary and a view according to which social practice is the primary, generative phenomenon, and learning is one of its characteristics" (Lave & Wenger, 1991, 34). The authors highlight that learning occurs in interaction with the social world. Consequentially, learning goes beyond socio-cognitive processes enabling individuals to internalize knowledge (see also, Sheridan et al., 2014;Toombs et al., 2015).
Lave and Wenger's work echoes John Dewey's early 20th century critique of education. Dewey opposed the (still persistent) idea of learning as process of internalisation and transmission. The author called for an understanding of learning as experiential practice, that is, resulting from an interplay between individuals and their social environment. Drawing on Dewey's philosophy of education, anthropologist Tim Ingold argues that "education is really about attending to things, and to the world". It "is a practice of attention, not of transmission-that it is through attention that knowledge is both generated and carried on" (Ingold, 2018, 2). Dewey and Ingold see experience as necessary condition for learning and suggest that, in every experience, moments of "doing" and "undergoing" are inextricably interwoven. Experiences are at the same time enacted and undergone-transforming the person and resulting in a different quality of future experiences. Thus, experience and experiential learning oscillate between moments of agency and patience.
What Dewey calls the "undergoing phase of experience" is not characterised by passivity. Doing and undergoing are moreover not to be understood in terms of an alternating sequence: instead, doing is always part of the undergoing, with energy to respond being actively summoned up and spent to act upon experience (see, Ingold, 2018, 22ff.). Learning is thus not a change that is produced from the outside of the learner, but a transformation carried out from within. Importantly, and possibly sounding somewhat counter-intuitive at first, Dewey treated education and learning as matters of habit. According to Dewey, individuals are always in the midst of processes that are shaped by habits and are shaping habits alike. As a concept, habits refer "at once to what makes people do things, and what is formed in them in consequence" (Ingold, 2018, 21). From this, Dewey inferred too that a main aim and outcome of education is individuals' learning ability, also called "educability" (Dewey, 1916(Dewey, /1966. Considering the link between educability, education, and learning it has been argued that the discourse of learning has in fact come to dominate that of education. Biesta (2012) writes " [T]hat education is about education, not learning, is to remind ourselves of the fact that education is in some way always "framed" and perhaps we could even say constituted by ends, and that this is one of the key ways in which education is different from learning, in that learning can occur without (the specification of) any ends." (584) This narrow definition of education collides with Dewey's and Ingold's perspective. However, also the latter stress that education theory is still faced with persistent assumptions about learning as mode of transmission. As also indicated in the above quote, education, and learning alike are widely thought of as goal-oriented practice-an observation reflected in some of the responses by participants in my study too.

Data collection: Qualitative interviews and survey
This paper is based on a combined qualitative interview and survey study. The data collection started in November 2019 and ended in October 2020. I ended the data collection when main concepts and categories were mainly reappearing rather than new ones emerging: that is, upon finding that theoretical saturation was reached (Low, 2019;Glaser & Strauss 2017[1967). Ethics approval for the research was provided by the University of Sussex' Social Sciences & Arts Cross-Schools Research Ethics Committee (reference no. ER/AR645/1). I conducted semi-structured interviews, following a non-probability sampling technique (Uprichard, 2013), with an initial focus on hackerspaces in the UK. Specifically, I drew on purposive sampling, which relies on the "identification and selection of individuals or groups of individuals that are proficient and wellinformed with a phenomenon of interest" (Etikan et al., 2016, 2). The main criterion for participants was that these are or were members of at least one HMS.I did not focus on more specific demographics, because I considered it relevant to first get a better idea of approaches to learning across different demographics-also considering that learning in HMS has been rarely foregrounded. With that said, it does mean that my researchhas some limitations in that it barely allows for conclusions concerning specific demographics-which would be interesting and notably relevant with regards to groups underrepresented in HMS (see below). In addition, while HMS are a global phenomenon, it would also be insightful to collect data allowing for comparative insights considering specific geographic and cultural factors.
Initially, I talked to interviewees in person. Due the COVID-19 pandemic, however, all interviews after March 2020 were conducted via video call software. Out of 23 interviews, 10 were face-toface encounters. Some of these took place in hacker-and makerspaces, others in public spaces. While my sample size is too small to draw clear conclusions about this particular point, participants might have felt more comfortable when being interviewed remotely, that is, while being at home themselves: answers appeared more extensive and open, with me having to ask even less for specific information (see also, Oates, 2015). Moreover, a main difference between interviews at HMS and in public spaces was that the latter did not serve as conversation starters like HMS did: meeting me at HMS, interviewees would comment on certain equipment around them, to explain how they may work or learn with it.
All interviews took between 40 to 70 minutes. In addition, I distributed a survey with openended questions, reflecting those asked during the interviews, and received 24 responses. 1 In contrast to the interviews, these were from respondents from outside of the UK too: however, a majority was still based in Western contexts (Europe and US), with few exceptions from South America. The conversational interview setting facilitated more detailed answers and in addition to the predefined questions, I was able to ask follow-up questions and engage in more informal conversations with participants. Nevertheless, I also received information-rich responses to the survey. In addition, I received some email and forum responses when asking members of communities whether they would be willing to participate in my study. While some declined to fill in the survey or participate in a talk, they commented in writing on my study. These comments provided informal contextualisation.
The interview and survey questions (see supplementary material) were drafted to accommodate two main observations that I made previously with regards to the scholarly literature on HMS: first, learning tends to be taken for granted as element of members' involvement in hacker-and makerspaces. Skills and knowledge acquisition are inevitably assumed to happen, but this assumption has been rarely examined in more detail (with some exceptions, see, e.g., Schrock, 2014;Sheridan et al., 2014). Simultaneously, research on feminist hackerspaces and discrimination in hackerspaces shows that the opportunities afforded by these communities will likely differ significantly depending on demographic factors, among other things. Therefore, the interviews and the survey (see supplementary material) likewise cover questions that facilitate an understanding if, why, and especially how learning is relevant to members' engagement in HMS. Practically, there were more survey questions than interview questions, as I could address topics more conversationally during the latter yet had to explicitly raise them in the survey. I related participants' answers to content questions to demographic information, as these are relevant to understand why some members may perceive the learning opportunities (not) afforded by HMS differently. With that said, the conclusions drawn from this are explorative rather than finite in nature, also due to the sampling approach and sample size. The latter points out key limitations of my study too: which aims to provide explanatory richness while being neither representative nor generalisable, instead offering a basis for further research on learning in HMS (see also my conclusion). Table 1 shows an overview of membership details and demographics. Most study participants were currently members of a HMS, some had been members of other spaces in the past. Most commonly, respondents had been members for 5-10 and 1-4 years. In addition to the membership information provided in the table, I asked participants about which communities they were part of. This information is not included in line with ethics and anonymisation requirements.
Most participants were between 21 and 50 years old. In terms of gender, most identified as male, only four as non-binary, and seven as female (N = 47). Within the interview sample, 21 out of 23 persons indicated British nationality. The survey sample is more diverse, with respondents indicating US, Central European, and Eastern-European citizenship. Professions across the samples are varied, although the most common professions are "engineer", "hardware/software developer", and "student". These were beta students, with one (gamma) exception. Concerning ethnicity, almost all respondents identified as white, with only one indicating "Black" and two "Asian". A more diverse sample, notably in terms of nationality, location, gender and ethnicity, would have certainly offered different insights and I will come back to this point in my analysis. However, the lack of diversity reflects the demographic heterogeneity in HMS. For this reason, some of the results presented in this paper will correspond with the perspectives of majority groups-despite my best efforts to highlight the perspectives of non-binary and women members that are largely underrepresented in HMS communities.

Data analysis: Grounded theory
"Grounded theory" is a methodology for qualitative data analysis. Strauss (1967/2017) proposed it originally as approach to develop (or as they put it: "discover") theory grounded in empirical, qualitative material. In their early publications, the authors mainly foresaw the method for analysing qualitative interviews. Since then, many variations of grounded theory have been developed (see Kenny and Fourie 2015).
Glaser is known for his rather "lenient" perspective, suggesting that "All is data" (Glaser & Holton, 2004) and thus may be analysed using grounded theory (Bryant 2003; in comparison see e.g., Strauss and Corbin 1997). I followed the approach outlined by Glaser and Holton (2004). Accordingly, I analysed the interviews and survey responses by coding the data with the help of two main units: concepts and categories. Concepts summarise what is said, e.g., in a sentence or Other ("geek", "bricoleur", "hobo") 0 3 3

Ethnicity-nationality
Asian-British 1 2 3 Starting with open coding, I first created new concepts tagging and describing certain statements, sentences, or sections. When these concepts were recurring in other parts of the material, I indicated links between these and grouped the material together. Once initial concepts had been highlighted, I also selectively coded the data, that is, I paid attention to whether similar or contrastive concepts could be found in other parts. Coding and categorization have been done exclusively by me, due to conditions of the ethics approval: therefore, reliability could not be assessed using inter-rater reliability measures (see also, Morse et al., 2002). Instead, I put reliability measures in place relying on "consistency and test-retest reliability" (Yu et al., 2011: 738). In terms of consistency, I used a coding protocol to ensure that I approached all interview and survey in structurally the same way. In terms of test-retest reliability, I randomly re-selected interviews and survey results after having coded the entire corpus, and re-coded these again. In comparing and contrasting, and switching back-and-forth between open and selective coding, I thereby identified categories connecting different concepts and examined how these were interrelated: four of these are discussed in this article.

Analysis: Learning − really?, maybe, definitely!
In this section, I elaborate on the four categories outlined and illustrated in Table 2, in relation to two previously introduced concepts: the role of learning-by-doing, that is, experiential learning in HMS, and the relevance of creativity as habit. All participants described their activities in HMS as "hands-on", "practical", and "project-led", also using phrases like "learning-by-doing", "trial-anderror", and "learning-by-making". However, despite all participants describing how they are/were involved in applying, expanding, and sharing their knowledge and skills, not all agreed that learning was relevant to HMS. Especially to those participants in category one, it appeared meaningful that what they do is in fact neither framed as learning nor education [ Table 2: 1-4]. They were sceptical and critical of the focus on learning, and disagreed with the idea that HMS were "education in disguise". The term "learning" as such was associated with utilitarian motives rather than creative exploration. Participants in category two were to some extent reflecting this sentiment, though they were not as drastic in their inferences. While not considering it a main motive for why people found and participate in communities, they acknowledged that learning inevitably' takes place in HMS [5][6][7]. An "organic" and "natural" flow of activities was considered crucial for why such learning appeared more effective and enjoyable than in environments like schools.
In category three, participants related that they were hoping to learn new skills upon joining HMS yet found this more challenging and the communal environment less facilitative than they had wished for. While they agreed that learning was relevant to HMS, they submitted that structural issues make it more difficult for some members to access and use potential learning opportunities. To some, existing skills differences were a key factor: with those considering themselves comparatively less skilled in a certain area struggling more with learning from peers. Participants also noted, however, that access to communal benefits was even more unpredictably affected by factors beyond members' control, such as gender and ethnicity. In category four, participants emphatically agreed that there is constant learning taking place, while stressing that such learning tends to be informal. To them, learning in HMS is a type of learning-by-doing, embedded in projectled practices. By realising certain projects, 2 members acquire or improve their skills and knowledge.
Despite not being formally asked, most participants (across all categories) talked at least shortly about their views on and experiences with traditional schooling. All of these were critical of primary and secondary education, indicating that they either felt personally left behind and unrecognised in their learning requirements or that they witnessed this affecting friends and peers [17]. This was linked to inflexible, theoretical, and exam-oriented teaching approaches, rooted in assumptions of learning as passive knowledge transmission. While likewise critical of traditional schooling, participants in category three also brought up the matter that learning opportunities in HMS, compared to more formalised, regulated settings, are rather unpredictable and contingent upon community dynamics. Partly, these participants considered themselves as comparatively low-skilled in terms of technology and crafts upon entering HMS. They were critical towards the educational value of HMS-but for very different reasons than those participants in category one-two [8][9][10][11][12]. They joined HMS notably because they were hoping to improve their technology and craft skills. Some had certain technologies or fields of interest in mind: for example, they had wanted to work with Arduino microcontrollers or to become involved in digital, visual art. Often, they were not quite sure yet though what exactly they would want to make. These participants described feeling "overwhelmed" and "vulnerable" upon joining HMS. While they were hoping to learn from more skilled members, facing those members also created insecurities and discouraging situations. Especially when members with significant skills differences met, communication and learning seemed more difficult-as participants felt they had to bridge (also linguistically) too significant a skills gap. Tasks would then be taken over rather than explained, resulting in participants feeling that they did not in fact learn for themselves.
In contrast to participants in category one-three, those in category four stronly affirmed the relevance of learning for HMS. Most agreed with the notion of HMS as "education in disguise", with those disagreeing merely qualifying that it was made explicit rather than being disguised: for example, mentioned on websites and in mission statements [18][19]. They, too, stressed that learning happening in HMS were different from approaches dominating primary/secondary schools. However, this did not deter them from claiming the terms "learning" and "education" to describe the activities of HMS members [13][14][15][16]. They notably used terms such as "learning-by-doing", "project-led learning", and "trial-and-error", describing that members tend to figure out what/how to learn while working on projects. Within these processes, members are said to benefit from each other's expertise: with communities consisting of individuals versed in a broad range of skills, others are considered likely to benefit from this. For example, members might get interested in someone else's project that is relevant to their own area of expertise, hence offering advice; or members needing help might specifically approach those with communally renowned expertise in a field.
While keeping in mind that this is a qualitative study, it appears still relevant to consider the distribution across categories. As shown in Table 2, it is N = 5 for category one, N = 8 for two, and N = 7 for three. Category four is numerically dominant, with N = 27. Despite category three being formed by merely 7 participants, it seems important for reasons related to sampling. Three out of these seven participants identify as female, two as non-binary, two as male. In total, only 7 out of 47 participants identify as female, 4 as non-binary, 30 as male (see, Table 1). As the sample includes predominantly current and past male members, further input from members part of a group underrepresented in HMS (and those having decided against joining) might have increased input on category three. This would have also further strengthened insight into potential shortcomings and structural biases of communally embedded learning-which is a point to be considered in future research.
It should moreover be considered that more critical reflections on the learning opportunities afforded by HMS were raised by participants in category four too: notably, they described the relevance of strategies for making the most out of communal environments. Participants related that they would frequent physical spaces at certain times, depending on the task they had to complete. If they reckoned that a task requires focus and no distraction, they would visit spaces in, for example, the early hours. When they wished to explore an issue with the help of others, more busy times or social hours would be sought out. While more experienced members have learned to avoid pitfalls of communally embedded learning, new members are in the process of settling in and making the communal environment work well for them. Still, the problem remains that not all new members will find it as easy or difficult to navigate such community dynamics-partly because of factors beyond their control. This is also illustrated in their reflections on feeling vulnerable and insecure upon joining, especially when it comes to dealing with (perceived) skills differences between members and trying to figure out "where to start". I will explore this point in more detail in the next section, by framing creativity as "experiential habit".

Creativity as experiential habit
HMS accommodate a broad range of technical and craft interests, ranging from coding and programming, digital art, electronics, e-textiles, and robotics to woodwork and welding-to recap just a few of those mentioned by participants. Across these interests and related expertise, a key skill that is encouraged, fostered, and cultivated is creativity as such. Participants framed and experienced creativity as crucial for settling into community cultures and as a habit that is encouraged upon joining. A main criterion/challenge for settling into respective communities, appeared to be not mainly/only an interest or preformed expertise in crafts and technology: but a self-directed approach to creative exploration. This emphasis on creativity as a skill and approach reflects Dewey's and Ingold's notion of experiential habits. Both highlight that a major skill developed in learning, as a practice of attention rather than a process of transmission, is the learner's learning ability. In HMS, creativity and a self-directed exploration of ideas are a fundamental experiential habit encouraged in (and to some extent even required from) members.
While I do argue that creativity as habit appears to be just as important for settling into HMS as strictly technical or crafts skills, I do not mean to assign responsibility for communal inclusion simply to individual members. There are certainly other factors, beyond members' control, that contribute to community acceptance. Already expecting and encouraging creativity comes with pitfalls of excluding (potential) members that may experience these expectations as intimidating. Especially those participants in category three, but also in category two and four, described feeling or observing a sense of vulnerability and having to "prove one's worth" upon entering communities.
This strikingly came into play with regards to the very common question among HMS members "What do you (want to) make?". Participants in category three related that, in joining HMS, they were also hoping for a space to help them find inspiration for what they could make-and what they could learn by doing so. However, a widespread, tacit assumption concerning new members is that people join because they have a certain project in mind and require the space and tools for this. The above question, often heard during open evenings and when greeting prospective members, starts from the assumption that new members know what they want to make. And conveys a sense of "you should know what you want to make (why else would you be here?)".
The issue of "newbies" feeling particularly insecure and having to settle into communities was also considered by respondents in category four: they conceded that finding your way in communities can be tougher for those not accustomed to hackers' and makers' self-starting, explorative approach to creativity. In addition, they used phrases such as "putting yourself out there", when talking about how projects are shown to and informally appraised by peers. Especially those involved in artistic practices, reflected that their peers' (dis-)approval of certain creations or also interests more generally can be challenging and feed into insecurities. However, also the exact opposite, that is, a sense of appreciation, was described.
Encouraging creativity and a self-starting approach to generating projects and ideas hence appears a crucial element of HMS community dynamics. It has noticeable ramifications for (new) members and those less familiar with hackers' and makers' "just do it" mindset (Dahm, 2017). Instilling this self-directed approach and cultivating creativity function as an, only seemingly benign, rite of passage: the capacity for engaging in self-directed, creative practices was explicitly and implicitly considered a decisive characteristic of those becoming successfully integrated in HMS. Based on this, I argue that it is not simply the level of technical or crafts skills, but an approach to creativity as experiential habit that eases people's community integration and enhances their likeliness to benefit from communal learning opportunities in HMS.

Discussion
From the above analysis, I derive two main points for further discussion: First, experiential learning happens in HMS and is a main approach for members to cultivate their technical and craft skills. However, it is neither exclusively what motivates members to join and participate, nor does it come without pitfalls. Hackers and makers do not merely form communities because they are eager to learn, but because they were "looking for my people" or wanting to "join forces' with 'fellow geeks'" [survey responses]. Yet, learning is still an integral part of the project-led creativity happening in HMS-and some members may well join communities because they are hoping to learn from/with others. In realising projects and engaging in (digital) DIY activities, they acquire and improve skills that are needed to complete tasks at hand. Their learning is rarely, if ever, exclusively theoretical, but practice-based and experiential as conceptualised by Dewey's, 2005Dewey's, [1934; Dewey, 1938Dewey, /1986 notion of learning-by-doing.
Second, becoming accustomed to this way of learning is itself a learning process and decisive for members' inclusion in respective communities. Despite technical and craft skills being important to HMS members practices, it is not just the level of technical or crafts skills that affects members' communal standing and the extent to which they will benefit from communal learning opportunities. Instead, it is a shared sense of creativity as experiential habit and as enjoyable, explorative process that facilitates people's community inclusion. Creativity and curiosity function at the same time as drivers of HMS members sociotechnical practices and are further cultivated and formed through these very practices. In this sense, creativity takes on a crucial role: as what Dewey (2005Dewey ( [1934/2005) and Ingold (2018, 20ff.) described in terms of experiential habits. The kind of creativity that motivates hackers and makers is likewise further developed in the practices it sparks. They "do" projects by drawing on their expertise, and they "undergo" changes of skills, knowledge, and interests in doing so.
Artists, for example, were described as "easily compatible" with HMS communities, since they are perceived to follow curiosity-and creativity-driven approaches-even if these have otherwise little to do with digital technology. At the same time, there are new and prospective members who feel overwhelmed by the expectation that they should already master a skill, that is, creativity, that they were (implicitly or explicitly) hoping to obtain by becoming a member. In theory, more established HMS members acknowledged that engaging in this process of cultivating and forming a habit of creativity is in fact a skill too: a skill that is already formed in most long-term members, comes easier to some newcomers, and is found difficult to acquire by others. In practice, however, new members seem to experience and struggle with the tacit assumption that acting creatively, for instance, by self-starting projects and knowing what they want to make, is a prerequisite for settling in as community member.
By no means do I suggest that new members simply need to get creative and turn creativity into an experiential habit. It is of course more complicated than that: Participants in category three also related that they felt that assumptions were made about their skills and expertise that were not always applicable. They perceived these assumptions, concerning, for example, an alleged lack of technical interests among women, as rightfully unjustified. Such misconceptions made them feel uncomfortable and under scrutiny with regards to what projects they would choose and what skills they had. Thus, not every member starts under the same conditions for developing their creativity. Instead, factors such as gender and ethnicity play into how they are supported by communities in their endeavours and how free they will feel to explore their actual interests. As so often, research on "non-users" and "non-members" is missing and would be an important next step to address why people in fact do not become a member after initial visits. It should be reiterated here too that HMS have been described as problematic, discriminatory, and even harmful environments (Richterich 2021;Rosner & Fox, 2016;Toupin, 2014)-despite signs of improvement since (O'Sullivan, 2018).
Issues such as discrimination against and harassment of, for example, women appear less dramatic in this study, though this is likely related to the purposive sampling approach focused on current and former HMS members. This point also re-highlights some of the limitations mentioned in above methodology section: first, the sample reflects the dominant demographics of HMS without, however, being representative or generalisable as such. My research therefore merely provides initial insights into learning in HMS, and may be used as basis for formulating more specific questions to be addressed in follow-up research. Notably, it would be insightful to conduct qualitative research focusing on HMS members from groups that tend to be underrepresented in these communities. Still, the responses of participants in this study flag that the potential (learning) benefits associated with HMS are contingent upon social dynamics that differ significantly between members and communities.

Conclusion
This paper highlights that HMS members engage in experiential learning practices, involving digital technology and crafts. Creativity is encouraged as a habit to be nurtured in practice − a dynamic taking on a decisive role for communal in-/exclusion. Rather than engaging in learning as an individualistic process, members of HMS engage in experiential learning by interacting with technology and their peers: they learn by trial-and-error, by collaborating, and by soliciting other members' advice-though the latter tends to be more willingly provided once learners gave it a try themselves first.
Activities and learning efforts in HMS were consistently framed as experiential (Dewey, 2005(Dewey, [1934(Dewey, ]/2005(Dewey, , 1938(Dewey, /1986(Dewey, , 1916(Dewey, /1966Ingold, 2018), with members acquiring skills and knowledge in project-led, hands-on endeavours involving (digital) technology and craft tools. They start from ideas for projects and in the process of realising these, explore what skills they need to employ, enhance, and develop. Some participants were yet hesitant to frame their practices as learning, and described it merely as a side-effect. Most, however, emphatically stressed the relevance of experiential learning and communities' educational value.
Participants' scepticism towards and criticism of learning happening in HMS is linked to two main factors. On the one hand, they associated learning with institutional environments, notably primary/secondary school. This type of learning appeared so fundamentally different from approaches taken in HMS, that some even refrained from using the term learning to describe the latter or emphasised the stark contrast. On the other hand, participants pointed out that learning opportunities were contingent upon members' skills level, community standing, and factors such as gender or ethnicity. While learning was seen as an important and desirable communal aspect, it was stressed that the extent to which one may benefit from this depends on communal dynamics: notably, how (new) members were welcomed and supported in settling into respective communities. HMS encourage and to some extent demand that members cultivate creativity as an experiential habit. Ingold (2018: 20ff.) explores this concept, originally suggested by Dewey (Dewey, 2005(Dewey, [1934(Dewey, ]/2005(Dewey, , 1938(Dewey, /1986, as the formation of learning ability through hands-on learning. HMS members form and cultivate creativity by engaging in the very same: that is, they develop ideas for DIY projects which they then create with the help of technology, tools, and their peers. Such a self-directed approach to projects and creativity is seen as crucial criterion for members to successfully integrate themselves within communities. A self-directed dedication to creativity takes on a decisive role for members settling into communities -as an, only seemingly benign, rite of passage. Between communities and members there are significant differences as to whether people assign responsibility for settling-in foremost to individuals (integration) or the group (inclusion). This issue also highlights that matters of in-/exclusion in HMS are not simply a question of members possessing or developing creativity as experiential habit. Instead, the support they receive varies from community to community. Communities that are less conscious of and concerned with supporting members in settling in, and expecting self-directed integration, are more likely to appear intimidating to those less familiar with hackers' and makers' "just-do-it" ethos. As O'Sullivan (2018) observes, there is fortunately "growing awareness of issues of diversity and accessibility in the global maker movement", with communities "actively taking steps to become more inclusive". Yet, such an awareness is not equally applicable to all communities and a lack of consideration for community dynamics relevant to inclusion notably affects individuals from already underrepresented groups: an issue that results in a vicious circle of the (learning) benefits of HMS becoming more readily available to people that are somewhat familiar with hackers'/makers' self-directed approach to creative exploration. While HMS therefore do yield significant benefits for the development of digital, technological skills and craft expertise, these benefits are not accessible to everyone in the same way across communities and contingent upon respective social dynamics.
What does this mean for communities, educationalists, and policymakers wanting to strengthen the opportunities of informal learning for technology and craft skills, as potentially fostered in HMS? When thinking about approaches to help individuals expand their technological skills and craftsmanship, we need to move beyond a focus on specific skills only. Instead, greater attention for strategies supporting individuals in cultivating a habit of experiential creativity, as a pathway to, for example, technological expertise, is needed. At the same time, the influence of social dynamics on individuals starting to form and cultivate creativity in practice needs to be considered. Here, responsibility should not be placed exclusively on community members, who voluntarily spend and invest their time at HMS. If we want to strengthen the learning opportunities of HMS with the help of relevant policy, we also need to look at more systemic and financial support for these communities − which are usually overlooked in public funding schemes. Policy and funding options should also aim at supporting HMS in matters of communal diversity and inclusion: allowing them to invest time and funds for providing their (new) members with the support needed to share and benefit from communal learning opportunities.