How Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration

Hakkarainen, Louna; Hyysalo, Sampsa

doi:10.22215/timreview/749

Cited by 38 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The cases we draw from below have all adopted the biography of technologies and practices approach [8,11,13,17,32,33]. The approach means deploying long-term investigation into the development of technology, as well as the practices of both developers and users related to it, as well as the influences of other stakeholders insofar as they are relevant.…”

Section: Research Approach Methodology and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This allowed the health care side project workers to use a suite of informal and background skills to inform hardware developers: their professional experience, current workplace experience and informal discussions. The formal methods that were used included participatory observation, regular biweekly meetings in which user experience was elaborated and the use of a feedback notebook to gain ideas from the involved staff [8].…”

Section: Methods Mixes In Three Other Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From recipes to meals... and dietary regimes

Johnson

Hyysalo

Mäkinen

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many argue that a decade-long crisis is crippling methods research in human-centred design (HCD). A recent paper critiques the widespread methods-as-recipe approach and suggests studying methods as part of HCD work; like in cooking, nobody cooks recipes, but they are used to bridge ingredients and meals. This paper extends that metaphor to dietary regimes that govern what meals are pursued. This focus shift expands the scope of relevant issues for methods research, thus creating a demand for open-ended and detailed case studies. Here we conducted a meta-review of five longstanding case studies that highlighted a key topic deserving attention: practitioners' method mixes should be taken seriously. Single-method use by a project, professional, or company happens rarely (in this data, never). Considering method mixes affects discussions of method validity and reliability. Even more importantly, it opens for consideration how method use in real-life HCD work differs from recipe development and validation.

show abstract

Section: Research Approach Methodology and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods Mixes In Three Other Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From recipes to meals... and dietary regimes

Johnson

Hyysalo

Mäkinen

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, in co-creation's learning activity sufficient results need to be gained, and these results are to be integrated into the next rounds of learning [55,59,60]. To facilitate achieving sufficient learning results and feed-backs, trust and coherence need to be built and preserved, calling for respecting personal values within user-groups and between users and other stakeholders, eventually using intermediation if a divide tends to arise [60][61][62]. For example, in the context of elderly people as users in ICT projects (ambient assisted living), trust needs to be preserved through respecting the value of privacy and self-determination [23,24].…”

Section: Urban Living Labs Learningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unintended outcomes may happen, for example, where tension between stakeholders arises and conflict causes delay, or where lack of attention to key processes, like elaboration of user feed-back, causes suboptimal results. Attention for (anticipation on) problematic situations is somewhat exceptional in the practical (urban) living lab literature, but it is increasing more recently [61,69]. Overall, there is a permanent need for monitoring the environment and the living lab learning processes for influences that may render the reaching of intended outcomes doubtful and eventually call for reconsideration of means and goals.…”

Section: Urban Living Labs Learningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Despite the diversity in topics and approaches in this field, living labs in general provide scholars with ample research opportunities (Bergvall‐Kåreborn, Ihlström Eriksson, & Ståhlbröst, ; Brankaert & den Ouden, ; Dell'Era & Landoni, ; Guimont & Lapointe, ; Hakkarainen & Hyysalo, , ; Leminen, , ; Leminen & Westerlund, ; Leminen, Westerlund, & Nyström, ; Schuurman, De Marez, & Ballon, ; Ståhlbröst & Lassinantti, ; Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, & Westerlund, ). The literature on living labs documents numerous meanings and interpretations for innovation through living labs (Leminen, ) and reviews various living lab concepts (Dutilleul, Birrer, & Mensink, ; Følstad, ; Schuurman, Lievens, De Marez, & Ballon, ), methodologies (Fulgencio, Le Fever, & Katzy, ), research avenues (Leminen & Westerlund, ) and definitions (Leminen, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living labs: From scattered initiatives to a global movement

Leminen

Westerlund

2019

Creat Innov Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the emergence of the living labs movement based on a literature review and interviews with experts acquainted with early living labs. The study contributes to the growing literature on innovation through living labs by addressing a research gap on why and how this movement is evolving. So doing, the study discusses the emergence of living labs from the perspectives of: (i) early living lab pioneers; (ii) early living lab activities in Europe, especially at Nokia Corporation; (iii) EU funding that supported the creation of living labs; (iv) national living lab networks;and (v) the multinational European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Moreover, upon highlighting major events in the emergence of living labs, the study identifies three consecutive phases of the global living lab movement: (i) toward a new paradigm;(ii) learning from experience; and (iii) professional living labs.

show abstract

How Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

From recipes to meals... and dietary regimes

From recipes to meals... and dietary regimes

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

Living labs: From scattered initiatives to a global movement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About