{"id":3060,"date":"2014-09-10T05:14:46","date_gmt":"2014-09-10T05:14:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/?page_id=3060"},"modified":"2014-10-29T09:48:52","modified_gmt":"2014-10-29T09:48:52","slug":"sharing-is-sparing-open-knowledge-sharing-in-fab-labs","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-5-shared-machine-shops\/peer-reviewed-articles\/sharing-is-sparing-open-knowledge-sharing-in-fab-labs\/","title":{"rendered":"Sharing is Sparing: Open Knowledge Sharing in Fab Labs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Patricia Wolf*, Peter Troxler**, Pierre-Yves Kocher*, Julie Harboe* and Urs Gaudenz[1]<\/a>*<\/strong><\/p>\n

* Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts
\n** Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences<\/p>\n

The movement towards open design (Abel et al. 2011) is a core driver of digital maker communities, i.e. groups of \u201chigh-tech do-it-yourselfers who are democratizing access to the modern means to make things\u201d (Gershenfeld 2012, 48). Fab Labs (fabrication laboratories) are one example of digital maker communities. They offer open access to a range of low-cost fabricators and many of them operate based on a commons-based peer production approach (Benkler 2004; Troxler 2010; Troxler and Wolf 2010). The granting of access to high-tech prototyping machines for \u201ceveryone\u201d is a cornerstone of Fab Lab. Since 2003, this vision spurred the creation of over 250 physical meeting places for specialists and enthusiasts to engage with technology bottom-up.<\/p>\n

Beyond providing local points of access to digital production devices, Fab Labs have the ambition to share digital fabrication blueprints as well as operating instructions for using the machines in the worldwide community. They hold altruistic values of open and reciprocal knowledge sharing and implicitly understand knowledge as a public asset, as a commons (Hess and Ostrom 2007a; Verschraegen and Schiltz 2007). The term knowledge refers in this context to \u201call types of understanding gained through experience or study\u201d (Hess and Ostrom 2007b, 8). Hess (2008, 8) observes that the groups building a commons [2]<\/strong><\/a> share \u201ca persistent type of commons-like thinking: a belief in the common good and working toward shared outcomes based on voluntary participation and reciprocity.\u201d<\/p>\n

The commitment of the Fab Lab community to participate in processes of commons-based knowledge production thus also includes global knowledge sharing. From a theoretical standpoint, this is challenging because it raises the questions on whether and how the knowledge transformed by makers in Fab Labs as local public spaces can be shared in virtual environments like online platforms. Assuming that other than data, knowledge cannot be transferred but has to be transformed for becoming altered (Wolf and Hilse 2014), learning in the Fab Labs is part of making things, of crafting. For sharing back into the global commons, new knowledge needs however to be documented in a way that allows to share it by the means of information and communication technologies. Although Sennett (2008, 37) underlines the usefulness of these technologies for the development of craftsmanship because they allow for dynamic feedback, it seems as if there is a set of challenges that potentially does not favour global knowledge sharing in the Fab Lab community. Global knowledge sharing relies on documentation, and particularly tacit knowledge that is important for making things might be difficult to represent in formal documentation (Polanyi 1967). Moreover, our review of extant literature below suggests that there might be further motivational, social, technological and legal barriers to the participation of the Fab Labs into global processes of commons-based knowledge production.<\/p>\n

So far, there are no empirical studies that provide insights into the question whether and how knowledge is indeed shared globally in the Fab Lab community, and how the above mentioned challenges are experienced and dealt with by the Fab Lab members. This paper reports an empirical study that aimed at closing this gap based on qualitative interviews with 16 Fab Lab users. In these interviews, the respondents reported 17 projects that we analysed as case studies. The case studies are meant to provide insights into the questions whether and how knowledge was shared, what supportive and restraining conditions were and how the latter were experienced and dealt with by the interviewees.<\/p>\n

The article will proceed as follows: After a literature review, the methods section will present the sample as well as methods for data gathering and data analysis. The subsequent findings section will provide a descriptive overview on the thematic areas that respondents talked about in the interviews. The final section discusses the findings and concludes on the insights gained from this study.<\/p>\n

1 Knowledge sharing in the global Fab Lab community: A literature review<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Open Design movement (Abel et al. 2011) can be understood as one of the recent approaches that strive for democratizing access to knowledge and production devices. These approaches share the basic values to \u201cempower people against specific threats to their freedom, and move us closer to a free society\u201d (Reinish 2013) with more open content creation and free software projects. Online mass collaborators<\/i> contribute to open content creation and information resources such as online encyclopaedias like Wikipedia, digital libraries such as arXiv.org, the Public Library of Science (plos.org) or the Digital Library of the Commons (dlc.dlib.indiana.edu) as well as bookmark sharing sites such as Delicious. They thereby build new knowledge commons (Hess 2008). The Free Software movement started in the 1980s as a reaction to restrictive licences of business software; Richard Stallman (Stallman 1985) and colleagues created licences based upon the principles of the four freedoms to use, study, share and fork the code – for example in the GNU project (gnu.org).<\/p>\n

Open design however differs from the above democratizing approaches because it additionally strives to qualify citizens to use digital fabrication technologies for participation in knowledge transformation processes for societal development and change. Moreover, the collective action for the creation of the commons that open design initiatives stimulate happens also in real world physical spaces. Digital maker communities who drive the open design movement are groups of \u201chigh-tech do-it-yourselfers, who are democratizing access to the modern means to make things\u201d (Gershenfeld 2012, 48). O\u2019Duinn (2012, 1) highlights three characteristics of the maker culture: First, there is a strong emphasis on learning through hands on creation. Second, due to the different backgrounds of the people involved, the maker community lives a trans-disciplinary approach. Third, sharing is a must: similar to open source communities, maker project details are made freely available online.<\/p>\n

Fab Labs (fabrication laboratories) are one example of maker communities. They can be described as \u201cplace[s] to make (almost) anything\u201d (Gershenfeld 2005) where everybody can design, fabricate, test and debug innovations (Mikhak et al. 2002). Fab Labs offer open access to a range of low-cost fabricators and they are based on a commons-based peer production approach (Troxler 2010; Troxler and Wolf 2010). Fab Labs strive to achieve more equal participation and inclusion of citizens in knowledge transformation processes for a future society by establishing integrative public spaces where citizens<\/p>\n

    \n
  • are provided with open access to information and knowledge, and are supposed to share new information and knowledge back into the commons,<\/li>\n
  • receive training on the usage and further development of digital technologies<\/li>\n
  • gain affordable or free access to the technologies and\/or methodologies for the production of the commons.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    In the recent version of their Charta (Center for Bits and Atoms 2012), the Fab Labs are characterized as \u201ca global network of local labs, enabling invention by providing access to tools for digital fabrication\u201d and claim to \u201cshare an evolving inventory of core capabilities to make (almost) anything, allowing people and projects to be shared\u201d. Accordingly, sharing knowledge \u2013 design blueprints and instructions or tutorials on how to use the tools and machines for certain purposes – not only in local Fab Labs but also globally is one of the core values and aims of the Fab Labs. Sharing newly created commons back globally and accessible to everybody however implies the use of online communication means and therefore previous documentation as conditio sine qua non. The Fab Charta (Center for Bits and Atoms 2012) consequently lists \u201ccontributing to documentation and instruction\u201d as one of the three most important responsibilities of Fab Lab users.<\/p>\n

    From our work with the Fab Lab community during the last seven years, we however had the impression that it is notoriously difficult to convince even altruistic users of local public spaces who are aware of and agree with the importance of contributing new knowledge back into the commons to invest time and effort into documentation and open knowledge sharing at online platforms. Extant literature on open knowledge sharing in online environments likewise suggests that there are several obstacles and barriers to collective action and global open knowledge sharing. The reasons for this can be found in four different aspects. For reference, we provide here a compressed overview of the main lines of arguments:<\/p>\n

    First, there are motivational barriers \u2013 individuals have to be willing to share experiences and insights openly in a virtual environment (Spaeth et al. 2008; Rangachari 2009). Chiu, Hsu and Wang (2006) show that personal outcome expectations engender knowledge sharing in virtual communities. Moreover, for sharing efficiently, users have to complete the usually difficult, sometimes mundane, and possibly arbitrary task of documenting what they have done (Barnes, Guggiari and M\u00e4rki 2013). This is particularly relevant for maker communities where knowledge is transformed in the interaction with the material, in processes of fabrication, and in the interaction with the physical world of hardware (Troxler and Zijp 2013). Here, particularly embodied practical skills – tacit knowledge that forms the basis for craftsmanship (Sennett 2012) – are important for making things. However, tacit knowledge per definition eschews formal documentation (Polanyi 1967).<\/p>\n

    Second, there are certain barriers regarding the social aspect. Sharing of tacit knowledge \u2013 socialization in the terms of Nonaka and Takeuchi, (1995, 72) \u2013 plays an important role in making. Yet socialization is difficult to be effectively achieved by the means of online communication as they require some degree of externalisation. Hence, there is a trade-off between the usefulness of local versus global collaboration. Moreover, the willingness to share information, ideas and knowledge grows with the opportunity of establishing or leveraging social capital. This is usually possible in networks of mutual acquaintance, i.e. friendships or memberships of a university class (Nahapiet and Ghostal 1998, 243). Strangers in groups decrease this motivation \u2013 Camera, Casari and Bigoni (2013) recently showed that the willingness to cooperate with strangers declines when going from small to large groups, even if monitoring and payoffs from cooperation were invariant to group size.<\/p>\n

    Third, as in all virtual environments, there are technological barriers to communication, documentation and sharing (Riege 2005). The technology of a virtual community platform has to be designed in a way that ensures compatibility of programs and infrastructure, as well as accessibility to information (Gibson and Cohen 2003). When working in global virtual communities, there are various barriers to overcome \u2013 in addition to time and geographical differences, disparities in national, cultural and linguistic attributes have to be dealt with by technology (Zakaria, Amelinckx and Wilemon 2004). Suitable technology can help communities to share information and ideas in an efficient way (Wenger, White and Smith 2009). Ghani (2009, 34) lists four requirements that IT tools have to incorporate to support knowledge sharing: to facilitate information contextualization; to intelligently transfer information by taking into account the user, the content, and the time of transfer; to facilitate social interactions and networking; and to represent a customized, easy to use human-computer interface.<\/p>\n

    Fourth, there are legal issues related to sharing knowledge openly through the Internet, as some forms of knowledge receive preferred legal protection from copying. Recent discussions refer to the unprecedented access to knowledge online and at the same time to increasing intellectual property legislation, (over\u2011)patenting, licensing, and lack of preservation of the public domain (cf. Boyle 2003; 2004; Dussolier 2011). Fab Labs were created on the basis of open design (M\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4 and Troxler 2010) to generate new knowledge on making or (personal) manufacturing, and to share it throughout the making process and make it available to everyone within the community.<\/p>\n

    It is highly probable that the above challenges to open knowledge sharing also affect global knowledge sharing in the Fab Lab community. However, there are so far no insights into the question whether and how knowledge is indeed shared globally in this community, and how the challenges in the above-mentioned aspects are experienced and dealt with. This paper aims to address this research gap.<\/p>\n

    2 Methods<\/span><\/h2>\n

    A qualitative research approach seemed to be the most appropriate to investigate the open exploratory research question at hand. Qualitative research helps to study complex phenomena when there is no previous research, empirical or theoretical, available (Davies 2007).<\/p>\n

    2.1 Sample<\/h3>\n

    According to Davies (2007, 143), the core sample of a qualitative study is the people who make up the \u201cpivotal target group\u201d and are therefore able to provide the essential insights necessary to answer a project\u2019s research questions. The objective is to learn from the persons involved, to contrast their views and to take into account the deeper situational context (ibid, 148). In the setting of this study, the research question seeks to provide a deeper understanding of whether and how knowledge sharing takes place in the global Fab Lab community. Thus, the overall population to be explored are all Fab Lab users. However, conducting interviews with all Fab Lab users is neither feasible – considering time and resource constraints – nor is it necessary. Patton (1990, 169) suggests narrowing the population down to a purposive sample that allows the most appropriate participants to be selected. This should allow the exploration of different and comparative experiences relevant to the research question.<\/p>\n

    Extreme case sampling was therefore chosen as sampling strategy to identify interviewees and interesting cases. Extreme case sampling purposively uses extreme or deviant cases as sample for qualitative research (Flick 2009, 122). In order to gain access to potential interviewees, the two managers of a local Fab Lab in Switzerland were contacted first. They indicated relevant cases and supported the establishment of contact to members of the worldwide Fab Lab community who suited the requirements. These people were interviewed and asked to indicate at least one further person who was involved in the case(s) they talked about and who would be willing to participate in an interview. The idea behind holding several interviews on the same case was to look at the same case from different perspectives of people involved. This increases the validity of case study research (Flick 2009).<\/p>\n

    For this study, the requirement to ideal interviewees was that they should have been involved in projects (cases) within the global Fab Lab community where knowledge sharing was applied extensively. More precisely, the minimum requirements to the criterion \u201cextensive knowledge sharing\u201d were that interviewees had been part of project groups<\/p>\n

    a) that had successfully completed an open sharing project within the Fab Lab community which included some elements of reciprocity in sharing,<\/p>\n

    b) where the realization of the output was the result of a collaboration between different, not co-located Fab Lab users, and<\/p>\n

    c) where sufficient documentation on the process was recorded.<\/p>\n

    Finally, 16 members of the Fab Lab community were selected for the interviews who talked about 22 different cases (see table 1 below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Case
    \nNr.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Interviewee<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Role<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Country of Residence<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Case<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Knowledge
    \nsharing<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    locally<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    globally<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

    \n

    1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Manager
    \nof Fab Lab I<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    The
    \nNetherlands<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    University
    \ncourse<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    no<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    B<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Concept
    \ndeveloper at Fab Lab II<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    The
    \nNetherlands<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Graduation
    \nproject<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    C<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    PhD
    \nstudent at University<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    United
    \nStates of America<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Fab
    \nLab tutorials<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    B<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Concept
    \ndeveloper at Fab Lab II<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    The
    \nNetherlands<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Toys<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    no<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    D<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Intern
    \nat Fab Lab III<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Spain<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Video
    \nscreen<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    no<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    B<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Concept
    \ndeveloper at FabL ab II<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    The
    \nNetherlands<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Medical<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    no<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    E<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Backend
    \ndeveloper at Fab Lab II<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    The
    \nNetherlands<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Medical<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    no<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    E<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Backend
    \ndeveloper at Fab Lab II<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    The
    \nNetherlands<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Medical<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    no<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    PhD
    \nstudent at Fab Labs III and IV<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Spain<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Crockery<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    G<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Student
    \nassistant at Fab Lab IV<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Spain<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Crockery<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    G<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Student
    \nassistant at Fab Lab IV<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Spain<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Furniture<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    H<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Freelance
    \ndesigner<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Norway<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Furniture<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    H<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Freelance
    \ndesigner<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Norway<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Fashion<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    H<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Freelance
    \ndesigner<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Norway<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Medical<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    H<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Freelance
    \ndesigner<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Norway<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Communication<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    C<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    PhD
    \nstudent<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    United
    \nStates of America<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Retail<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    no<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    C<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    PhD
    \nstudent<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    United
    \nStates of America<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Installing
    \nFab Labs abroad<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    G<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Student
    \nassistant at Fab Lab IV<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Spain<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Setting
    \nup a Fab Lab abroad<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    I<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Hacker
    \nand lecturer<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Preparing
    \nto set up a Fab Lab abroad<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    J<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Hacker<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Scientific
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    I<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Hacker
    \nand lecturer<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Scientific
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    K<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    University
    \nstudent<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Scientific
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    L<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    University
    \nstudent<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Scientific
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    I<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Hacker
    \nand lecturer<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Biohacking
    \nequipment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    J<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Hacker<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Biohacking
    \nequipment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Chair
    \nof an Artists\u2019 Association<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Musical
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Manager
    \nof Fab Lab V<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Musical
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    O:<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    University
    \nstudent<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Musical
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    P<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Manager
    \nof Fab Lab V<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Musical
    \ninstrument<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    I<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Hacker
    \nand lecturer<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    3D
    \nprinter<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    P<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Manager
    \nof Fab Lab V<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    3D
    \nprinter<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n

    \n

    22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    P<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Manager
    \nof Fab Lab V<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Switzerland<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Audio
    \nequipment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Table 1: Sample<\/strong><\/p>\n

    As visible in table 1, not all cases completely matched the criteria \u2013 those that did not are marked in grey:<\/p>\n