In addition to interviews, I conducted extensive participant observation of the organizational spaces of Occupy listed in Table 1. Employing the method of participant observation was important to answering my research question because I wanted to know, observe, and participate in the spatialities of Occupy, establish relationships based on trust and mutual sharing of responsibilities and ultimately to offer my time and talents to contribute to feeding, housing, and transporting traveling Occupiers and other participants. In some cases I would passively observe the daily organizing in the designated convergence space located in the Ceramak Warehouse, noting how actors interacted with each other, settled disagreements, made decisions, engaged new folks, and the like. In other cases I would actively participate in the on-‐going activities like cooking meals in the kitchen and helping coordinate
transportation to and from the various direct actions locations during the week. In addition to volunteering I offered various supplies that were listed in a ‘needs’ list like markers, snacks, and blankets, in exchange for being allowed to conduct my research. Participant observation allowed me significant access for observing the quotidian dynamics of the organizational spaces of Occupy. In order to record and structure my observations, I kept a journal, where I recorded quotes and moments that stood out in addition to summarizing the events of the day and jotting down any questions that arose. A key component of the observation data was paying close attention to decision making practices,
particularly during the General Assembly and working groups, the distribution and negation of
resources, and the ways in which conflicts among occupiers were addressed and handled. To facilitate my nightly journaling, I kept a small pocket notebook in which I kept a record of any counting I
conducted in the field. In order to analyze specific spatial and social dynamics observed in the field I frequently counted observable characteristics of participants for example the ratio of women to men in a particular setting, ethnicity (if it can be known), relative age (documented in broad categories such as
teenagers and young adults, middle aged adults, and the elderly), how many people are served food, shelter, transportation, etc. Counting is used to give a context to the observational data (Hay 2010).
3.4.3 Analysis and Coding
As I have explained thus far, my research asks questions about the relationship between space and politics. Specifically, the empirical question that structures this thesis is what were the specific spatial practices and strategies utilized by participants both in the highly visible occupation of public parks and direct actions and less visible organizations spaces? After the interviews were completed I transcribed them. I then coded the data in order to organize the data into categories or themes (Cope 2008). It is important to make clear that I did not set out with pre-‐determined codes, rather they emerged through my analysis of the data collected. I did, however, pay close attention to certain themes, particularly how decisions were made, difference negotiated and conflicts resolved.
To structure my coding, I paid attention to four key themes: conditions, interactions among actors, strategies and tactics, and consequences was a fruitful system in which to develop my analysis (Strauss and Corbin 1990; Cope 2008). For the theme conditions, I paid attention to the contexts for participation in occupy. For example, some participants expressed that they were unemployed or underemployed when explaining why they were motivated to participate in Occupy. Another participant who had traveled to several Occupy encampments found that Chicago was the most receptive and accommodating to her disability and thus she felt more compelled to continue working with Occupy Chicago but was not interested in working with Occupy Cincinnati. The second theme interactions
among actors is where I coded my observational data and interview data according to how participants
interacted with each other. I coded interactions in which conflict was observable, difference was negotiated, and I noted where the engagement took place, with whom, and how it occurred. The third theme Strategies and Tactics is how I coded the reasons participants gave for their participation in certain actions and activities. The last theme, consequences is used to organize the data in which a result
or outcome of an interaction or action was articulated by participants. From these broad themes, two large subthemes emerged. Again, my research question asks what are the spatial and political strategies utilized in the Occupy Wall Street movement? The first subtheme highlighted data in which the
spatialities of Occupy were articulated or observed. The spatialities that emerged are networking,
mobility, and place. Each time I encountered evidence of these spatialities I coded them accordingly.
Finally, the last subtheme highlighted data in which the evidence of “proper politics” (Ranciere 2001). Here, I coded data that expressed evidence of the ways in which injustice was articulated and contested and equality was expressed and demonstrated by my participants in terms of the ways in which
decisions were made and collective living arrangements were enacted and challenged.
In the following chapters I present the analytical discussion of these relations, how these relations constitute the spaces and spatialities of Occupy and how these relations in turn posed a challenge to the present political order. Chapter four focuses on these spatialities and Occupy as convergence space (Routledge and Cumbers 2009). Chapter five expands the discussion to include how the spatialities of occupy challenge the post-‐political condition and presented an opening for “proper politics” (Ranciere 2001) to emerge.