This research project has relied on several different tools and techniques common in the qualitative research paradigm for collecting and analyzing data. For example, for the ethnographic side of the research, I use reflexive participant observation, including keeping research journals, engaging in informal conversations, and conducting semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders.
My research journals contain the ethnographic observations from both case studies, and became generators of research in their own right. To contextualize the gathered data about the researched sites and their participants, I gathered further background information, such as founding documents, released videos, internal policies and rules from the communities in question. Much of the documentation has come from the organizations’ websites, wikis, minutes from regular meetings, and IRC logs, blog posts, wiki pages. I also draw on my own documentation of over twenty events hosted by the two researched communities. In addition, I have participated as an active member (hacker, workshop organizer and facilitator) in both of these groups while maintaining an analytical or observational position which has helped me to describe and interpret the subject of the study in detail (See on this point (DeWalt and DeWalt). The body of data thus produced consists of notes, photos, slides, and flipchart records taken during formal and informal local meetings, workshops, and members discussions. The goal here is to observe the informal culture, the relationships, the unwritten rules, and all such tangible and intangible particularities that are related to the participant-observer’s role. The analysis consists of a search for patterns, relationships, and contexts relevant to the social settings studied, as well as common
66 features that contribute to a bigger picture of the hacker communities’ social conditions and how they constitute space through practices and activities.
Finally, I have conducted 20 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the main participants, including founding members, participants in workshops and other events, as well as former members of both communities between 2014 and 2016.39 I held 12
additional shorter informal interviews with various other stakeholders - first-time visitors of the spaces, former members, and workshop participants. The goal of these interviews was to gather first-person information about participants’ views and experiences with respect to my research questions. Some of these interviews took place with members who, despite being there from the beginning, had at the moment of the interview left the hackerspace in question. Two of these interviews included hackerspace participants who, in the end, never became full members of the Lab. Apart from these interviews of regular participants, I also held one with the film producer Alexandre Sheldon, whose movie HAK_MTL40 came out in May 2019, documenting the current state of hacking in Montreal.
The range of opinions my interviews revealed in terms of belonging or non-belonging proved valuable in collecting data on experiences of inclusion and exclusion related to the emergence of each of the spaces I examined closely as a part of these two case studies. Most interviews lasted from 45 to 60 minutes each and were conducted either in-person or via online Internet tools (Jitsi, Skype). All interviews were recorded and transcribed for later analysis. Follow-up emails and meetings were used to keep in touch with the participants for the purposes of updating and clarifying the information thus gathered and organized throughout the remainder of the project. While the bulk of this research was done between 2010 and 2016, I have continued to talk with members of both Foulab and femhack to the present moment, and indeed, several members have read and commented upon this thesis.
39 For more information about the themes covered during these interviews, please see Annex A: Contextual
Interview Guide.
40 For more information and a preview of the documentary, visit: http://www.rapideblanc.ca/#/HAK or
67 Sample, Selection Process and Research Ethics
To gather a representative sample of participants, I sent out a general email inviting participants from each researched site to participate in an interview. Some founders and key members (including former members) were contacted in person and invited to participate in the research. The two communities I studied were quite small (Femhack has had about 6 to 8 very active members, and Foulab at their highest point had under 20 official members, out of which 8 were founding members). For this reason, I interviewed 100 % of Femhack participants and about 50 % of Foulab members, including most founding members (some of whom had since left).
The selection procedure took into account the following prerequisites: ● how long the participant had been involved with the organization;
● what position they had in the decision-making process and how active they were in the respective space;
● maximum possible gender balance among participants;
● in the case of dual membership, a line of questioning targeting their relationship to the space benefiting from their most active involvement, but not excluding their global hackerspace experience.
Interviews were scheduled with interested participants at a time and a place that was convenient for both parties. Interviews were conducted at Foulab, my office at Concordia University in Montreal, or another private location as requested by the participants, including their homes, offices, or coffee shops. All potential participants were asked if they wished to refer someone to the research project and were encouraged to provide their contact information (a research strategy called the snowball effect)41.
The participants signed consent forms42 and accepted my recording of the interviews and
some formal discussions, which are usually ruled by consensus among the members. Work
41 For example, two of the participants referred their (female) partners and said that they, as visitors of Foulab,
had thoughts and impressions that would be useful to my research.
68 in progress was sent to participants, to give them the chance to comment on the project’s details and findings within an appropriate time window. One of the ethical challenges of this dissertation was the work in small communities, where most people know each other and even a small piece of information can reveal the identity of the participant. To ensure some anonymity, I mixed up the replies, often not mentioning names or giving identifying information. At the request of my academic readers, I added some of the demographic data (such as age or gender) of the interviewees in order for the reader to situate the person in the hacker community (for example: Alice, 33, female, Foulab visitor).