One of the reasons I really hate paywalls is that it allows academics to do things behind closed doors that they would be able to get away with out in the open. Here we have a case in point. Popping into my RSS feed today was a paper titled "The craftivists: Pushing for affective, materially informed pedagogy" - you can view the paywall here, but of course you can't read it. The authors write as though they were inventing the word and the discipline: "the idea of making as a form of activism or, as we refer to it in this paper, craftivism, underpins our ambition to transform pedagogical environments into spaces of possibility through sensory and affective making practices." But the pedagogy is well-understood by many people actually doing the work, and even the term 'craftivism' is in wide use online: there's a book by Sarah Corbett that you can find on the Craftivist Collective home page. Rob Hopkins in 2017 wrote a profile. Betsy Greer wrote about craftivism in 2014. Craftivism also has its critics - see this post from Julia Feliz. There's tons more. Now maybe the paywalled article credits all this prior work. But you don't get that impression from the abstract.