Whilst makerspaces did not develop solely for the purpose of education or training, their potential to provide space for collaborative, creative making around technology and STEM has led to their existence in a range of educational settings around the world (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014; Vourikari et al., 2019). Makerspaces are generally seen to develop and enhance young people’s STEM skills by providing access to various technologies and tools such as 3D printers, programmable robots, and laser cutters, as well as low-tech construction equipment like cardboard, glue guns, and art materials (Hughes and Dobos, 2022). This making equipment is utilized in hands-on, inquiry-led, and project-based activities (sometimes referred to as ‘maker pedagogies’ – e.g., see Bullock and Sator, 2015), ranging from digital fabrication, electronics, and coding to traditional making and crafts (Peppler et al., 2016; Vossoughi and Bevan, 2014). Makerspace activities can include opportunities for problem solving, design thinking, tinkering, and exploring materials in practical ways - encouraging young people to iteratively experiment and collaborate with peers in a way that constructs knowledge, in addition to building identity as a maker/creator (Vossoughi and Bevan, 2014).

Both cognitive and social theories of learning are emphasized as important dimensions of education in makerspaces. At the core of maker learning is constructionism, which argues that learners develop deeper understanding when creating tangible artifacts that are shared within a community (Papert, 1980, 1991). Experiential learning, which describes iterative experimentation and reflection cycles (Kolb, 1984), is also seen as central to learning processes in makerspaces. Additionally, sociocultural theories of learning have frequently been applied to makerspace education, particularly the lens of communities of practice (CoP) (Lave and Wenger, 1991). This perspective highlights how learning can emerge through shared social and material practices, where recognition and social support shape meaningful participation and sense of belonging. Makerspaces have been shown to function as communities of practice, highlighting how shared making, group problem-solving, and distributed power can foster opportunities for developing maker identities (Sheridan et al., 2014). CoP theory also frames how inclusion and exclusion can be socially produced in makerspaces, as it foregrounds the relational and cultural dynamics that can move learners from peripheral to fully included members of a space. This helps to frame inclusion of (dis)abled learners beyond examinations of accessibility of tools and the physical environment.

Makerspaces can offer opportunities for formal, non-formal, as well as informal learning. Formal learning is defined as learning that takes place in compulsory education settings, led by teachers, and following linear curriculum objectives, assessment, and attainment (Johnson and Majewska, 2022). Where makerspaces operate within this framework (such as in a school or university), they may be considered to offer ‘formal’ learning. Some makerspaces operate outside formal compulsory education but still offer structured educational programming (particularly for young people) that may include guided activities (like design challenges or project briefs), setting of personal goals (to gain skills or knowledge) and working toward an intended outcome. These makerspaces may align with definitions of ‘non-formal’ education – organized learning outside formal institutions, with emphasis on experiences that are selfdirected and focused on learners needs and interests (Hannah, 2025). Makerspaces can also facilitate informal learning, which commonly refers to unplanned and incidental learning that is embedded in general everyday experiences (Coombs and Ahmed, 1974; La Belle, 1982). Informal makerspaces are those that operate as socially rich environments where participants can make, tinker, and explore without a set plan or structure; these makerspaces might be considered ‘third spaces’ (see Oldenburg, 1989) where informal learning naturally occurs (Burke and Crocker, 2020). In practice, non-school makerspaces offer a hybrid approach to informal and non-formal learning depending on how they are organized. Makerspaces in formal schooling contexts also have the potential to offer informal and non-formal learning opportunities to students, particularly where maker education disrupts traditional aspects of schooling (Konopasky and Sheridan, 2020) and offers an alternative pedagogical approach to STEM education (Becker and Jacobsen, 2020; Kay and Buxton, 2024). Furthermore, joint ventures between non-formal/informal makerspaces and schools occur with varying degrees of partnership, success, and value; further blurring boundaries between the types of learning in these spaces (see Archer et al., 2025b). The makerspace program examined in this study operates within a community after-school makerspace, with planned activities and guided making that typically follows a project brief. Thus, the author considers the activities of this makerspace as non-formal education but recognizes that informal learning opportunities are also likely to occur. For the purposes of this study, ‘non-formal education’ is the term used hereafter to denote out-of-school, intentionally carried out, educational experiences.

Inclusion is seen as the active and meaningful participation of (dis)abled people in wider society and is often enacted through the removal of disabling (ableist) barriers. The inclusion of (dis)abled students in formal education is riddled with challenge (Allan, 2008) and many (dis)abled young people who attend mainstream schools face covert and overt forms of exclusion (Webster, 2022). Non-formal education offers a different landscape, away from measurements, curriculum, and standardization (Calabrese Barton et al., 2020; Ferrer-Fons et al., 2022). Several aspects of non-formal education lend themselves to inclusive practices, as discussed next.

An aspect of non-formal education that lends itself to inclusive practices is the flexibility afforded to learning that is less structured than formal settings (Romi and Schmida, 2009) which allows for young people’s personal needs to be prioritized and for asset-based approaches to be adopted (see García-Terceño et al., 2023). Adopting an asset-based approach to learning is claimed to produce greater gains in science understanding, by acknowledging “individual differences and the unique personal and context-specific nature of knowledge” (Falk et al., 2007, p. 455). Recognizing differences as capabilities and not deficits can disrupt the notion of a ‘typical successful learner’ who thrives in dominant modes of schooling (Connolly et al., 2023). This may have specific implications for (dis)abled young people who are often positioned as lacking in ability and knowledge. Makerspaces have the potential therefore to unsettle ideas of the typical STEM student by positioning young people as already capable, as opposed to being in knowledge ‘deficit’.

Previous research shows that the asset-based approach that is foregrounded in inclusive nonformal education allows for learning themes to be driven by what is important to young people (Ferrer-Fons et al., 2022; Ravenscroft et al., 2020). Chen et al. (2022) for example show that youth on the autistic spectrum attending a non-formal STEM club were able to express and integrate their specific interests² in activities openly where usually they would have been treated as irrelevant and detrimental to learning. When young people can engage with their own interests in creative and open ways, they can also engage their cultural background within learning processes (Ferrer-Fons et al., 2022). This is seen to be particularly important in the context of STEM education, where dominant practices and norms of the field persist in both formal and non-formal learning environments and work to reproduce and reflect white, male, and western stereotypes of STEM (Calabrese Barton et al., 2020).

An important distinction between formal and non-formal education is voluntary attendance. Research has shown that this encourages participants to be active within their own learning experiences (Ravenscroft et al., 2020) and have agency over their engagement and the subsequent choices they make (Bamberger and Tal, 2006; Connolly et al., 2023; Sheridan et al., 2014). Youth-led and autonomous approaches to activities and goal setting are seen to be important for developing the self-determination of young people and supporting continuous engagement (Chen et al., 2022; Hauseman, 2016). Increasing the agency of participants through choices of participation has been shown to reduce hierarchy between young people and staff, as those in the space can act as equal agents, producing an inclusive environment (Bamberger and Tal, 2006; Calabrese Barton et al., 2020; Ferrer-Fons et al., 2022). Whilst voluntary participation might result in increased agency and motivation for participants, it also means that spaces are likely to become populated with advantaged, motivated, young people who have the resources and support to be able to participate (Forrest-bank et al., 2016; García-Terceño et al., 2023). Research in non-formal science education settings has discussed, for example, how minoritized communities can be excluded from such environments in several ways (Dawson, 2014a; Shein et al., 2019). Makerspace participation thus needs to be continuously examined to ensure the inclusive and equitable engagement of young people with underserved backgrounds.

Evidence suggests that youth spaces (such as youth clubs, after-school activities and makerspaces) are important for young people to develop social relationships and sense of community (Brady et al., 2018; McArdle and Neill, 2023; Forrest-bank et al., 2016). Inclusive non-formal youth spaces are seen as opportunities for socialization across diverse backgrounds and cultures through shared interests and objectives (Ferrer-Fons et al., 2022). This includes mixing across age groups, areas, and schools: a “freedom of association […] not bounded by a classroom” (De St Croix and Doherty, 2023, p. 7). Many non-formal education spaces additionally encourage collaboration, teamwork, and peer-to-peer learning (Chen et al., 2022; Wood et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2006) which further fosters an inclusive environment through developing mutual support between participants as well as new friendships.

Like many non-formal education spaces, makerspaces have the potential to be inclusive environments by offering asset-based, agentic, social, and experience-driven learning opportunities. However, the makerspace context presents challenges for inclusion due to the conceptual roots of the ‘maker movement’, which has been criticized for being shaped by Western frameworks and corporate values (Manandhar, 2019; Vossoughi et al., 2016).

Participation in these spaces is at risk of being dominated by those with economic resources, turning ‘making’ into an “adult, white, middle-class pursuit” (Calabrese Barton et al., 2017, p. 5). Makerspaces that uncritically adopt “branded versions of making” may reproduce STEM stereotypes and neglect the knowledge and skills of underserved youth (Vossoughi et al., 2016, p. 210). As inclusive non-formal education centers on young people’s own knowledge and experience (as explored above), these risks have direct implications for creating genuinely inclusive STEM education opportunities. Close attention to equity is essential if makerspaces are to benefit underserved communities, as opposed to furthering the interests of those already engaged in STEM (Ryoo and Calabrese Barton, 2018). To avoid reproducing STEM inequalities, makerspaces must intentionally leverage their unique affordances—such as interdisciplinary, design-rich learning and playful making—which have been shown to broaden participation and support diverse learners (e.g., see Halverson and Sheridan, 2014; Peppler et al., 2016; Vossoughi et al., 2016).

Interdisciplinary interaction has been argued to challenge the traditions of knowledge production (Moran, 2010) and makerspaces could disrupt dominant stereotypes in the STEM fields by integrating creativity and the arts with science and STEM. Mejias et al. (2021) suggest two purposes of integrating arts and STEM (or STEAM): first to support STEM learning, identities and broadening participation (see for example, Matias et al., 2020), and secondly to bring creativity and self-expression to questions in science (see for example, Walshe et al., 2020). Makerspaces have the potential to support both of these areas through their interdisciplinary approach. However, the way STEM and arts are balanced changes how the STEM fields are extended or transformed. When arts and STEM are treated equally, there is greater potential for innovative practices and understanding with emanicipatory and critical pedagogies (Mejias et al., 2021). This aligns with equitable makerspaces that aim to value the skills and knowledge of underserved youth. A multidisciplinary lens in makerspaces can create diverse and inclusive forms of learning (Vossoughi et al., 2016). For example, arts can provide opportunities for self-expression, experimentation, embodied experiences and creativity (Edgar and Elias, 2021; Gould, 2005) which can afford STEM education new ways of engaging with identity and community background. Makerspaces that value making processes as much as the final product (Sheridan et al., 2014) are well placed to value opportunities for self-expression through the arts.

Makerspaces provide opportunities for young people to engage with STEM and the arts in creative and playful ways (Barton et al., 2017) supporting inclusive learning. Rushton and King (2020) show that play in non-formal STEM settings supports free choice and flexibility in engagement. Choice of engagement can also be seen to link with the process of making as young people can use experimentation and problem solving to develop their own strategies of completing goals and tasks (Giusti and Bombieri, 2020). Further, the inquiry-based approach that making and play offers retains a personal relevance to learning, engaging young people who otherwise might struggle with traditional learning formats (Hughes and Robb, 2022). Making and play creates open-ended learning that values different ways of working, exposing makers to different abilities, project topics and approaches (Peppler et al., 2016), supporting inclusion. Making and play, however, are not neutral. Scholars such as Barajas-López and Bang (2018) and Vossoughi et al. (2016) have shown that materials and making practices carry socio-political values. There is potential to marginalize forms of making such as historical, indigenous, or everyday making which are de-valued against the technology typically associated with STEM and makerspaces (Barajas-López and Bang, 2018). Making and play are often shaped by gendered stereotypes, such as ‘crafting’ being seen as feminine, and electronics as masculine (Buchholz et al., 2014). A multidisciplinary approach to making is therefore important to be able to value making across different tools and artifacts (Sheridan et al., 2014) in addition to disrupting stereotypes.

Despite the potential of makerspaces to provide inclusive non-formal education experiences for (dis)abled young people, little attention has been paid to how (dis)abled learners engage with and benefit from participation (Seo and Richard, 2021). A common focus of research engaging with disability and makerspaces (in Global North settings) are accessibility issues that consider the physical aspects of makerspaces, such as 3D printers, computers, and other tools that require adaptation for (dis)abled users (Buehler et al., 2014; Seo and Richard, 2021). Safety is also examined, as scholars discuss the additional considerations required to reduce risks from equipment for (dis)abled people (Love et al., 2020; Steele et al., 2018). While reviewing physical accessibility raises important questions who can safely use makerspaces, it leaves out an important part of the puzzle: culture and attitudes that are crucial to experiencing inclusion. For example, research by Allen et al. (2023) finds that while a reputation of inaccessibility can drive away potential participants, building accessible makerspaces alone does not ensure recruitment of (dis)abled participants. Furthermore, the (dis)abled community is non-homogenous, and accessibility are wide ranging, varied, and changeable, therefore accessibility is a complex issue (Allen et al., 2023; Seo, 2019; Steele et al., 2018). There is a need to normalize accessibility and adaptations, as opposed to making occasional or outlying considerations (Devine, 2021) to develop spaces that are both accessible and inclusive. This requires looking beyond physical access and turning attention to how people experience a space, not just use it.

The activities offered in makerspaces for (dis)abled people in the existing literature have a clear ‘disability’ axis, such as developing assistive technology (AT) products (Allen et al., 2023; Boccardi et al., 2022; Bosse and Pelka, 2020; Buehler et al., 2014; Higgins et al., 2023; Hurst and Kane, 2013), often offered separately from non-disabled peers. Activities described in the literature often have a ‘product’ focus, judging success through completion of a product, such as AT. This overlooks the value of exploratory processes involved in making (Sheridan et al., 2014) and sidelines personal outcomes that can come from being a part of makerspace community, such as opportunities for self-expression, improved wellbeing and social networks (see Bosse and Pelka, 2020). For example, significant shortcomings with respect to inclusivity can be identified in Boccardi et al. (2022, p. 11) study, as the participation of (dis)abled members was controlled by non-(dis)abled staff, whose perception of who “actually need[ed] something” overrode “those that meet the inclusion criteria”. This reflects the tendency of the maker movement to privilege products over people (Vossoughi et al., 2016) and highlights the need to think further than ‘what is made’ in makerspaces by (dis)abled people and acknowledge systemic structures that perpetuate exclusion. It can be additionally argued that engaging (dis)abled people in makerspaces for the sole purpose of producing AT assumes their interests as only pertaining to issues of disability. Where makerspaces fix aims on the creation of a specific product, relational processes and experiences of being in a makerspace are missing. Bosse and Pelka’s (2020) research in a makerspace run for and by (adult) (dis)abled people highlights the additional purpose as a place for socializing, leisure, and sharing interests. By centralizing social and personal needs of attendees, the importance of ‘what is made’ in the makerspace and the technology that is housed there is reduced. Bosse and Pelka’s (2020) study also highlights the importance of equal conditions and agency over making to serve personal and social needs of participants. However, makerspaces that offer differentiated programming for (dis)abled participants, irrespective of the activities being presented, can still be questioned, as inclusion seeks meaningful participation for all (Webster, 2022), and inclusive experiences may not be created by separating ability.

Current research that links disability and makerspaces often frames inclusion of (dis)abled people through the ‘social model’ of disability (Oliver, 1996) which positions disability as a social construct and seeks to identify and remove societal barriers that exclude (dis)abled people from taking part in everyday society (Allan, 2008). For example, as above, there has been a focus on assessing useability of makerspaces, maker tech and AT production to reduce barriers preventing equal access. Key to the social model of disability is the separation of the social oppression of disabled people from ‘impairment’ (Oliver, 1996), which suggests that the experience of disability depends on social or environmental factors. Therefore, examining makerspace practice through the lens of the social model of disability implies that challenging disabling (ableist) practices can improve inclusive experiences. However, a ‘barrier’ approach to social exclusion has been argued to oversimplify complex experiences (Dawson, 2014b) and some disability theorists have argued against the sharp distinction that the social model makes between impairment and disability (Hughes and Paterson, 1997; Sommo and Chaskes, 2013; Morris, 1991, 1996). This may be particularly salient to consider in the context of disabilities such as autism or neurodivergence, where disabling experiences are not necessarily physical but relational between the environment and the individual. Thus, makerspaces need to look further than exclusive barriers, and consider individual experiences of inclusion and exclusion. Therefore, this article takes a feminist approach to capture the subjective experience of disability, in addition to disabling societal barriers (Crow, 1996; Garland-Thomson, 2002; Morris, 1991). This approach centers personal experience in the construction of knowledge of disability (Fawcett, 2000) and enables exploration of (dis)abled people’s own theorization of inclusion in society. Therefore, attention can be paid to the experiences of (dis)abled young people in makerspaces, particularly in environments that mix abilities, which is unexplored in the existing literature base.

The makerspace in this study is part of a wider community organization situated in a historically deprived area of a city in the South West of England. The organization offers a variety of free programs for young people in the local area, including a weekly afterschool STEM program for makers aged 10–17 years based in their makerspace. This program supports an exploration of digital technology and product design, often with a social action or community focus. Activities are wide ranging and work on building STEM skills (utilizing the maker tech on offer), creative skills (design and arts) as well as skills like teamwork, communication and problem solving. The collage workshop conducted for this research was not part of the usual program but still aligned with the makerspaces creative, non-STEM activities. The makerspace program is delivered by adult facilitators many of whom have a youth work background. Therefore, young people also have support with emotional, social, or mental health issues during their time at the makerspace. The participants taking part in this research were active members of the makerspace at the time of the study.

All the young people attending the makerspace program were invited to take part in the collage workshop. Twelve young people of mixed ability subsequently attended the workshop, and whilst data was collected from all participants, this article focuses on the responses of four young people who identified as (dis)abled to center their experiences and theorizations of inclusion in their makerspace. Whilst all young people’s experiences of inclusion and exclusion are important to consider, the intention of omitting the non-disabled young people’s data in this article is to foreground and highlight the voices and perspectives of the young people who self-identified as (dis)abled. See Table 1 for participant information, noting names are pseudonyms.

The data analyzed in this article was generated during the collage workshop (four collages (see Figures 1–4) and one workshop audio recording) and in two follow-up interviews conducted online. The collage workshop was an optional activity in one session of the makerspace program at the end of the term, run by the author of this article. To participate, young people and parents/guardians signed the research consent form and information sheet. Young people who did not take part were engaged in a separate activity in the makerspace.

The group worked on one large table with a collection of magazines, pens, pencils, and other art materials spread across the table to share, and each place with a large piece of white A2 paper, a glue stick, and scissors. Two makerspace practitioners known well to the group were present during the workshop to help facilitation. Magazines (sourced to cover a variety of topics including gardening, home, lifestyle, film, science, fashion, local news, and education) were screened for age-appropriateness. The practitioners and researcher present were briefed with some starter questions to prompt the young people if needed when making their collage:

Young people were given post-it notes to write their ideas down before collaging if they desired and many included these notes in their collage. Participants were free to use the materials how they wished, and their collage responses are a mix of images, drawings, and text. Conversations with participants were audio recorded throughout the workshop, resulting in the workshop audio. At the end of the workshop, young people were provided space to share/ present their work to the group, which is also recorded on the workshop audio.

Whilst the collage workshop formed the main method of data production, participants were also invited to an optional online interview to provide space for further articulation and expression, a common practice in arts-based research (Mannay, 2016). The interviews were semi-structured with questions that allowed participants to express the meaning of their collage from their own perspective and add any additional thoughts about their perspectives and experiences of inclusion and exclusion at the makerspace.

The analysis of the data set could be considered complex due to the mix of visual and narrative data collected; visual data is challenging, due to the existence of multiple interpretations and meanings that artwork can have for different individuals (Kara, 2015). To work across the complete dataset, inductive thematic analysis was employed, where patterns were identified directly from the data as opposed to being shaped by an existing framework or theory (Braun and Clarke, 2013). A feminist perspective of disability and inclusion guided the interpretation of young peoples experiences, attending to both the subjective experience of disability in addition to disabling societal barriers. The narrative/audio data produced was first transcribed by the author and then loaded into a coding software. Codes were first identified by grouping together similar ideas and expressions from across the interviews, collages and workshop audio. Themes thus emerged from the data and were further grouped and analyzed. This process was iterative, with a level of analysis completed after the collage workshop and before the participant interviews, allowing emerging themes to guide discussion topics. Once the ‘strongest’ themes became apparent, the data was sifted again, to ensure that all relevant data was analyzed. Whilst the data collection methods allowed for participants to present their own perspectives and interpretations, the data was additionally interpreted by the researcher, and resulting in a “double hermeneutic” of interpretation (Clark et al., 2021, p. 24).

Young people are often avoided as research subjects because of ethical concerns; therefore, it was crucial to fully consider any repercussions of working with this vulnerable community by following the British Education Research Association (2018) ethical guidelines. The arts-based method of collage was selected as a participatory method that positions young people at the center of, and as experts in, their own worlds (Leitch, 2008) allowing participants to be active in data production. This enabled participants to control the ideas and experiences they presented, with the interview offering additional space for contextualization.

Participants and parents were provided with differentiated and appropriate information sheets to obtain informed consent from both parties. This helps mitigate against the potential power imbalance that might have made it difficult for the participants to decline to take part in the research or withdraw consent during the study (Beresford, 1997). Confidential and anonymous treatment of the participants data is a typical conduct of research (British Education Research Association, 2018), and steps were taken to respect privacy of the makerspace institution (by not referring to it by name) and the participants (by using pseudonyms). However, as two staff members from the makerspace were present during the collage workshop, participants anonymity was limited, as staff members could identify which collage belonged to each participant. Participants were aware of this, and those who took part in interviews were reminded that their contributions may be identifiable by staff. Whilst involving young people in research is crucial for understanding their perspectives (Beresford, 1997), it was also critical to prioritize participant wellbeing. The support of the makerspace practitioners was therefore necessary to provide pastoral care and ensure the group was supported throughout the research.

It is recognized that makerspaces are diverse in their contexts and offer different types of programming and activities for a wide range of participants. Therefore, the makerspace in this research is not representative of all makerspaces, and results may be limited to settings with similar attributes. Furthermore, the data are from a small number of young people with similar (dis)abilities, so caution is required if translating these findings to other groups. Access and inclusion needs of (dis)abled people are wide-ranging and personal, and therefore the experiences and views of the young people in this study should not be considered representative of the wider population of (dis)abled youth attending makerspaces.

Participants expressed inclusion as experienced through relationships with others and feeling welcomed, in addition to their relationship with the physical environment. Friendship is a key theme of Lucas’ collage, illustrating the value of social relationships to feeling included in the makerspace. He draws two characters, Billy and Steve (Figure 5), and explains they are friends in workshop audio: “here’s Steve’s friend, Billy.” Whilst Lucas makes a relatively small collage, Billy and Steve are the dominant features: two friends carefully constructed from a mixture of pen and found image. Relatedly, Arthur uses images of children to represent ideas of working with others (Figure 6), explaining the image is “to do with the included part and like teamwork.” This highlights that the opportunities the makerspace provides for group work is an important aspect for Arthur’s inclusion. However, whilst the makerspace provides space for developing social relationships, a tension between Arthur and another (non-disabled) participant was also observed during the collaging workshop. The pair were seen struggling with sharing materials and attention of practitioners, and the other participant got upset and stayed behind to talk with a practitioner after the workshop. Whilst the practitioner was able to mitigate any long-lasting tensions, the scenario highlights how relationships with others enable both inclusive and exclusive feelings.

Being welcomed by others in the makerspace was important for Kirsty, writing on a note “people welcoming me” as something that makes her feel included. She further illustrates this in her collage, labeling pictures of people as “welcoming me” and including an image of women exercising, which she captions as “the kids welcoming me” (Figure 7). Whilst this suggests Kirsty feels accepted as part of the group, she also writes on a post-it note in relation to feeling excluded that “sometimes I’m a bit different.” Kirsty’s expression illustrates that it’s possible to feel included and welcomed by others, but also intrinsically different to the group. As she sees herself in the image of the women exercising (as suggested by her captioning), which reflects a feeling of ability and strength, it can be inferred that Kirsty finds power in expressing her differences in the makerspace and feels included as her differences are welcomed and valued by others. This is further iterated in Kirsty’s interview, as she discussed that she felt the makerspace was inclusive because it was not just welcoming of her, but welcoming of young people of different gender identities:

This further highlights the importance of creating inclusive cultures in makerspaces that respect and value all participants’ identities and differences, from gender identity to (dis)ability.

Oscar expresses inclusion as feeling welcomed and invited, describing during the workshop: “I’ve put a DFS sofa, because I feel comfortable here. I’ve got a ‘you are invited’ thing to a free hearing test because I feel like I’m invited here” (Figure 8). Feeling welcomed was not only limited to relationships with others, but for Oscar, his relational experience of the physical aspects of the makerspace was important. Specifically, he mentioned the lift in the makerspace for feeling included as a (dis)abled young person:

Oscar additionally added a post-it note to his collage that explains that the makerspace is inclusive because “there is a lift” contrasting this to his school “my school is designed for disabled people and there is no lift” (Figure 9). Interestingly however, none of the young people in the makerspace program (including Oscar) use the lift at present but Oscar still considers it a symbolic feature of inclusion and signal of welcome, experiencing inclusion through the potential of access it could provide.

The young people expressed that they felt included through the different ways that they were afforded agency in the makerspace. Kirsty and Oscar linked feeling included to ‘being listened to’ (both writing this on post it notes), suggesting that having choices and needs respected was important for building sense of inclusion. Kirsty described in her interview how she feels comfortable expressing her needs to practitioners and advocating for changes in her engagement in the makerspace when she is feeling particularly tired:

Similarly, Lucas discussed in his interview that he felt the makerspace was inclusive because he has agency over decisions of participation, highlighting in his interview how young people are encouraged to join in by staff, but not forced to: “well they tend to, like, if someone does not seem to be talking to anyone, not making - but talking and asking if they want to join in.”

Further to young people having agency around engagement choices, Arthur expresses that being trusted with equipment is important for inclusive practice. He explained when showing his collage at the end of the workshop: “For included I put I’m allowed to use the equipment and I’m trusted to do it” which he illustrated with an image of “a ghostbuster” and explained “he’s got like a ghostbuster gun. And he’s got like stuff and he’s trusted with it” (Figure 10). Kirsty expressed a similar view in her interview, stating “everybody’s allowed to use like the equipment and stuff. So it’s all like equal and inclusive.” This highlights how important it is for young people to be trusted to be autonomous with the tools on offer to feel like a respected and valued member of the makerspace.

The participants highlighted how the interdisciplinary nature of the makerspace was something that made them feel included, as they were able to explore multiple and varied interests that span subject matter across STEM and the arts. For example, Oscar’s collage represents both scientific learning (“learning about climate change”) and the design work he does there utilizing computer software called Inkscape (“looks like something I would make on Inkscape”). Kirsty’s collage also shows the range of different activities she does at the makerspace from making jewelery (image of earrings) to making furniture and homeware items (image of the ‘IKEA’ logo). In her interview she also discusses all the different activities she can do in the makerspace, including socializing and meeting new people:

Furthermore, the interdisciplinary nature of the makerspace allowed Arthur to integrate his personal interests in football into the activities of the makerspace, illustrating this in his collage (Figure 11) and explaining:

For Arthur, being able to bring his interests to the activities in the makerspace appears to make his experience more interesting (“fascinating”) and enjoyable. Thus, Arthur feels included as his interests are validated and foregrounded in his learning.

Where the young people felt freed by the unraveling of often tightly bound subject disciplines, they express finding inclusion in creativity as Oscar, Kirsty Arthur all included the word “creativity” or “creative” on their collage. When discussing the idea of being creative in the makerspace as something that makes her feel included, Kirsty also highlighted how she gets frustrated if she gets restricted by topic-based work:

Kirsty was therefore irritated when she was not able to fully express herself and realize the ideas that she wanted to make. Thus, the young people express that inclusive activities in the makerspace were those that were interdisciplinary, where they could integrate personal interests, and be creative.

Oscar and Lucas both express that inclusion for them was being treated equally to other young people in the makerspace and not being singled out for being (dis)abled. In Lucas’ interview, he explained that he wants to be treated “the same” as others in the group and that he thinks it would be “weird” to focus ideas of inclusion on just (dis)abled young people:

Oscar additionally echoes Lucas’ sentiments of equal treatment in a conversation during the workshop, describing that he comes to the makerspace because he can, and does not want to be ‘helped’ by the makerspace:

Whilst Lucas and Oscar’s describe how (dis)abled young people wish to be engaged in a similar way to their peers, it should not be interpreted that (dis)abled young people want their disability to be disregarded or ignored. Kirsty for instance reflects that she finds it excluding when “people do not understand my disabilities.” Therefore, it is important for Kirsty her needs are respected for her to feel included, which might involve adjusting or adapting activities, as explored in the previous theme.