Creating a rehabilitation living lab to optimize participation and inclusion for persons with physical disabilities

Kehayia, Eva; Swaine, Bonnie; Longo, Cristina; Ahmed, Sara; Archambault, Philippe; Fung, Joyce; Kairy, Dahlia; Lamontagne, Anouk; Dorze, Guylaine Le; Lefebvre, Hélène; Overbury, Olga; Poldma, Tiiu

doi:10.1016/j.alter.2014.03.006

Cited by 20 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there are differences between Living labs in this complexity and that is one of the selection criteria for the case studies. In all case studies, the main data source is an ex-post evaluation by the organization involved and by external evaluators, except for Case study 4, which is in a preliminary evaluation stage (Kop, 2011;Ruff and Jakobson, 2012;Amsterdam Region Care & ICT, 2013;Van der Vloed and Sadowski, 2013;Kehayia et al, 2014). The results are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors

Geenhuizen¹

2016

J. Contemp. East. Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors

Geenhuizen¹

2016

J. Contemp. East. Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Four data sources have been used in the design and exploration of these lists: (1) a systematic literature review concerning living labs' performance and key factors; (2) qualitative analysis of six case studies selected on the basis of different organizational complexity, using their websites and (two cases) evaluation reports; these were living labs on ambient assisted living of elderly, refurbishment of a shopping mall and of a hospital, and university campuses as living labs; (3) sharpening of results in two workshops and an international conference (in particular, application of the results to urban living labs); (4) interaction and interviews with experts at Delft University of Technology (NL) and Manchester University (UK) (see acknowledgement). Inspiration was also drawn from participant observation in Alexis Nihon Shopping Mall in Montreal (Canada), aimed at increasing social integration of disabled persons [29,44,45]. Accordingly, the methodology in previous parts of the study has focused on qualitative case-studies, the results of which have been tested and adapted in various rounds [46,47].…”

Section: Data Sources and Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Outcomes which are intended mainly refer to creation of new solutions, in particular, a better user-quality of them, eventually bringing more sustainability innovation quicker to market [30,59]. A deeper understanding of the learning processes and collaborations themselves is also often seen as part of intended outcomes of living labs [29,59,67,68]. The perspective on intended outcomes of urban living labs is broadened more recently by adding the identification of wider sustainability (transition) impacts [32].…”

Section: Urban Living Labs Learningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In urban practice today, however, the methodology has often been adopted only in part, with emphasis on early stages like ideation, experimental design, demonstration and testing [8,9,22,[25][26][27][28].Despite urban living labs having become a popular tool in modern urban development and transition, assessments of their performance and required learning have lagged behind. While there are many studies of individual projects [29,30] there is a lack of systematic studies on the meta-level, meaning that factors influencing outcomes of urban living labs have remained largely unknown. Exceptions are mostly (very) recent in time using (small) sets of case studies, among others published in handbooks on methodology and recent journal papers [22][23][24][25][26][27][28]31,32].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance

Geenhuizen

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban living labs is a practical methodology in improving sustainability in cities by facilitating collaborative learning and innovation in a real-life environment, thereby mainly responding to the needs of users (citizens). The paper aims to filter a list of key learnings on urban living labs through the lens of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). One of the motivations is that key learnings on urban living labs are mainly derived from means-goal effectiveness (MGE) thinking while the urban setting calls for a broader perspective due to complexity and tension from the multi-actor, multifunctional, and multi-scalar character of cities. The filtering reveals almost 40 learnings as 'overlap' and 'exclusive for MGE'. Importantly, five learnings are identified as specific for RRI and potentially enriching living lab methodology: ethical and normative principles like health, safety, security, and equality between societal groups, and a wider distribution of benefits and risks of living lab outcomes, in particular, contradictory sustainability issues. The RRI filtering causes three practical implications: coping with uneven power distribution between stakeholders, limited feasibility of applying the comprehensive learning framework, and challenges of overarching platform structures enabling to better incorporate RRI concerns in living lab methodology. The findings as presented in an adapted list are new, as RRI values and concerns have seldom been applied to practical innovation and have never been explicitly applied to urban living labs' performance beyond the borders of effectiveness thinking. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3833 2 of 16ICT-based innovations [17]. Since then, ENoLL membership has been granted to 440 historically recognized living labs (Appendix A).Application of living labs methodology is by no means everywhere the same. To date, the methodology has been used in practice with different emphasis on users' roles in finding solutions, prior definition of structure and processes and focus on exploration or exploitation of opportunities [1,18,19]. Furthermore, we mention differences in spatial and organizational scale: living lab methodology has been applied as small-scale physical experimentation spaces but also as networked spaces at regional scale that act as platforms for sets of experimentations using some sort of open innovation [20][21][22]. The common core of the methodology, however, has remained. This paper deals with urban living labs within a 'larger category' of living labs. What urban living labs distinguish, is indicated in the literature as follows: being localized or place-based; involvement of local government and local citizens; acting as locally involved public-private partnership; applying coproduction/co-creation with local actors; and typically dealing with urban sustainability problems [23][24][25][26][27][28]. Urban living labs may include various stages in innovation, running from ideation and experimentation to upscaling and application in practice/market. In urban practice toda...

show abstract

“…Even though LL literature in the healthcare context is increasing, there are still few studies on the subject. Among them, some scholars have attempted to identify a list of factors that can be used to build and manage an LL in healthcare [14,[32][33][34][35][36]. Van Geenhuizen, for example, dedicated particular attention to the challenges related to the management of stakeholders' networks and multi-stakeholder cooperation [35,36], and Callari and colleagues investigated the needs and requirements of the involvement of end-users as participants in LL initiatives [37].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Italian Case of Lecco Innovation Living Lab: Stakeholders’ Needs and Activities to Contribute to the Technological Innovation Process in Healthcare

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthcare technological innovation is a very complex process in which different actors interact with each other, creating a large number of interconnections and synergies in the design of technological innovations. Despite the increasing number of living labs (LLs) in healthcare, building and maintaining LLs for technological innovation in healthcare is challenging. Collaboration with stakeholders remains an issue of major concern in healthcare. The purpose of this paper is to identify stakeholders’ needs in building an LL in healthcare and to plan activities to foster the innovation process. The paper is based on an exploratory single case study investigating an Italian LL. Eight stakeholders’ needs were identified and validated. Specific activities were identified as improving the innovation process in terms of the stakeholders’ needs. The study contributes to the development of domain-specific knowledge and, as such, to the fostering of studies on and the implementation of LLs in healthcare.

show abstract

Creating a rehabilitation living lab to optimize participation and inclusion for persons with physical disabilities

Cited by 20 publications

References 4 publications

Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors

Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors

Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance

The Italian Case of Lecco Innovation Living Lab: Stakeholders’ Needs and Activities to Contribute to the Technological Innovation Process in Healthcare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About