The workshop aims to understand how a living lab network structures contribute to system innovation. Living labs as system innovation initiatives can substantially alter established network structures. Moreover, structures can undergo alterations through subtle interventions, with impact on the overall outcomes of living labs. To understand how such change occurs, we develop a multilevel network perspective to study collaborations toward system innovation. We take this perspective to help understand living lab dynamics, drawing on innovative examples and taking into consideration the multilayered structures that the collaboration comprises.
MULTIFILE
Communal breeding, wherein multiple conspecifics live and reproduce together, may generate short-term benefits in terms of defence and reproduction. However, its carry-over effects remain unclear. We experimentally tested the effects of communal breeding on parental care and reproduction in burying beetles (Nicrophorus vespilloides), which use carcasses as breeding resources and provide parental care to offspring. We subjected individuals to communal or non-communal breeding (i.e. pair breeding) during their first breeding event and to non-communal breeding during their second breeding event. We measured the parental care of individuals and of groups and the reproductive success of groups during both breeding events. In communal groups, large individuals became dominant and largely monopolized the carcass, whereas small individuals (i.e. subordinates) had restricted access to the carcass. At the first breeding event, large males in communal groups spent more time providing care than large males in non-communal groups, whereas such an effect was not observed for large females and small individuals. Reproductive successes were similar in communal and non-communal groups, indicating no short-term benefits of communal breeding in terms of reproduction. Compared with males from non-communal groups, males originating from communal groups produced a larger size of brood during their second breeding event, whereas such an effect was not observed for females. Our results demonstrate the sex-specific effects of communal breeding experience on parenting performance and fitness.
LINK
Living labs are complex multi-stakeholder collaborations that often employ a usercentred and design-driven methodology to foster innovation. Conventional management tools fall short in evaluating them. However, some methods and tools dedicated to living labs' special characteristics and goals have already been developed. Most of them are still in their testing phase. Those tools are not easily accessible and can only be found in extensive research reports, which are difficult to dissect. Therefore, this paper reviews seven evaluation methods and tools specially developed for living labs. Each section of this paper is structured in the following manner: tool’s introduction (1), who uses the tool (2), and how it should be used (3). While the first set of tools, namely “ENoLL 20 Indicators”, “SISCODE Self-assessment”, and “SCIROCCO Exchange Tool” assess a living lab as an organisation and are diving deeper into the organisational activities and the complex context, the second set of methods and tools, “FormIT” and “Living Lab Markers”, evaluate living labs’ methodologies: the process they use to come to innovations. The paper's final section presents “CheRRIes Monitoring and Evaluation Tool” and “TALIA Indicator for Benchmarking Service for Regions”, which assess the regional impact made by living labs. As every living lab is different regarding its maturity (as an organisation and in its methodology) and the scope of impact it wants to make, the most crucial decision when evaluating is to determine the focus of the assessment. This overview allows for a first orientation on worked-out methods and on possible indicators to use. It also concludes that the existing tools are quite managerial in their method and aesthetics and calls for designers and social scientists to develop more playful, engaging and (possibly) learning-oriented tools to evaluate living labs in the future. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mari-genova-17a727196/?originalSubdomain=nl
DOCUMENT
Over the last decade, sport and physical activity have become increasingly recognised and implemented as tools to foster social cohesion in neighbourhoods, cities and communities around Europe. As a result, numerous programmes have emerged that attempt to enhance social cohesion through a variety of sport-based approaches (Moustakas, Sanders, Schlenker, & Robrade, 2021; Svensson & Woods, 2017). However, despite this boom in sport and social cohesion, current definitions and understandings of social cohesion rarely take into account the needs, expectations or views of practitioners, stakeholders and, especially, participants on the ground (Raw, Sherry, & Rowe, 2021). Yet, to truly foster broad social outcomes like social cohesion, there is increasing recognition that programmes must move beyond interventions that only focus on the individual level, and instead find ways to work with and engage a wide array of stakeholders and organisations (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Moustakas, 2022). In turn, this allows programmes to respond to community needs, foster engagement, deliver more sustainable outcomes, and work at both the individual and institutional levels. The Living Lab concept - which is distinguished by multi-stakeholder involvement, user engagement, innovation and co-creation within a real-life setting - provides an innovative approach to help achieve these goals. More formally, Living Labs have been defined as “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings” (European Network of Living Labs, 2021). Thus, this can be a powerful approach to engage a wide array of stakeholders, and create interventions that are responsive to community needs. As such, the Sport for Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) project was conceived to implement a Living Lab approach within five sport for social cohesion programmes in four different European countries. This approach was chosen to help programmes directly engage programme participants, generate understanding of the elements that promote social cohesion in a sport setting and to co-create activities and tools to explore, support and understand social cohesion within these communities. The following toolkit reflects our multi-national experiences designing and implementing Living Labs across these various contexts. Our partners represent a variety of settings, from schools to community-based organisations, and together these experiences can provide valuable insights to other sport (and non-sport) organisations wishing to implement a Living Lab approach within their contexts and programmes. Thus, practitioners and implementers of community-based programmes should be understood as the immediate target group of this toolkit, though the insights and reflections included here can be of relevance for any individual or organisation seeking to use more participatory approaches within their work. In particular, in the coming sections, this toolkit will define the Living Lab concept more precisely, suggest some steps to launch a Living Lab, and offer insights on how to implement the different components of a Living Lab.
DOCUMENT
Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.
LINK
This thesis has increased our knowledge of the needs of homeless people using shelter facilities in the Netherlands and of the needs and wishes of people living in persistent poverty. It provides guidance for policy and further professionalization and quality improvements to the services and support provided to homeless people and people living in persistent poverty. The results underscore the importance of broad and integrated policy measures to strengthen socioeconomic security, and emphasize the need for including the views of clients and experts by experience in the development of policy. Our research also stresses the need for services to employ peer workers to support homeless people and people living in persistent poverty and to apply a more human-to-human approach.
DOCUMENT
Purpose of this studyThis study aims to better understand the deliberate design of student learning in living labs.Theoretical backgroundThe intended purpose of living labs in higher education is to integrate education, research and professional practice and thereby integrate initial learning (of students) and innovation (Schipper, Vos & Wallner, 2022). Yet, the literature shows a divide between innovation focused labs and student focused labs. Innovation focused labs hardly include students (Kalinauskaite, Brankaert, et. al., 2021; Westerlund, Leminen, & Habib, 2018), while student focused labs are framed as sec pedagogical devices, with transferable innovation positioned as a mere by-product of education (Admiraal et al., 2019; McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019). A review of the international literature on higher education living labs calls for both practice and research to be developed to realize the intended integration between initial learning and innovation in living labs (Griffioen & van Heijningen, 2023).A way to follow up on that call is to better position students in living lab practices. Students’ learning experiences in living labs are so far rather weakly framed compared to their learning in traditional, transmissive educational settings such as lectures. One of the differences is that the relationships in living labs are more open to initiative and have shown to require more autonomy in students (Barnett & Coate, 2005, p. 34). This asks of students to take on other roles and of lecturers that they tailor their pedagogical practices to student learning in the lab setting (McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019). Moreover, students and lecturers collaborate with professional partners in labs, adding to the complexity of labs as learning environments.Following Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) can be said that living labs that include students bring together three discourses in their collaborative practices: a professional discourse linked to practice, a pedagogical discourse for learning structures and an accountability discourse for assessment. Each having their own artefacts and practices, and not all focused to student learning. In these situations, “[p]ractice is not always committed to more abstract student assignments […] and professionals do not always have time to work with students or feel lacking in capability to construct an assignment.”, and “[i]t is a challenge to create a shared interest besides the individual interests of the participants” (Huber et al. 2020, p. 5-6).This poster studies how student learning in living labs comes about in professional, pedagogical and assessment practices as perceived by students, lecturers and professionals.Research design, methodologySettingThis project takes place in the Social Professions Faculty of a single applied university in The Netherlands. Undergraduate students in different bachelor programs follow part of their education in labs. Seven social learning settings in two labs are analyzed in the project as a whole, this poster reports findings in the first lab with three social learning settings.The labs included in this multiple case study showed willing to improve their student learning through analysis and collaborative re-design. Labs were eligible when students had to collaborate with professionals and citizens to solve a real-life issue, as part of their education in the lab.SampleThe poster reports findings in the first case lab that consisted of three classes of 20 fourth year undergraduate students (N=60 in total) and their three lecturers (N=3). They collaborated with local community workers to improve the process of citizens making use of municipal public services, an assignment assigned by the regional ombudsman.MethodThe researcher participated in the lab team in the preparation and execution of the lab work and captured insights on reflective memo’s throughout the project. Based on evaluations of the previous year and ambitions for the coming year, adjustments were made to improve student learning and collaboration in the lab.Pre and post descriptions were captured of the professional, pedagogical and assessment practices in the lab, based on documents of educational and professional materials (e.g. study guide, assignments, meeting notes, flyer of national ombudsman), field notes and memo’s. Descriptions of the practices were checked with students, lecturers and professional partners.The perceptions of the practices of students, lecturers and professionals were collected after implementation through semi-structured interviews (N=3 lecturers; 9 students, and 3 professional partners). The interview guide focused on interviewees experiences and perceptions of their lab work, their collaboration and student learning in the lab, triangulating their perceptions of the professional, pedagogical and assessment practices and artefacts in the lab (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017).Coding and analysisIn this study, thematic analysis of the interviews is conducted (Braun & Clarke, 2022). This analysis is informed by the conceptual lens of professional practices, pedagogical practices, assessment practices, and their corresponding artefacts, in professional higher education (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). Deductive coding for present and absent activities and artefacts and for the different actors’ perceptions of those activities and artefacts is complemented with inductive codes and themes.FindingsAt the time of submission, data collection in the first lab with three social learning settings is nearly finished, and implementation in a second set of four labs is work in progress. The data of the first lab will be analyzed in the period between submission and the CHER2024 conference.Practical/social implications:The proposed analysis will result in an understanding of the dynamics of practices and learning in the lab, from multiple perspectives. This understanding will be translated into design principles for balanced professional, pedagogical and assessment practices in this lab. Furthermore, this project has resulted in lab practices to improve student learning in three living labs.Originality/value of posterThis study offers a perspective on and understanding of practices and student learning in higher education living labs. It responds to a call for development of practice and research of higher education living labs, based on a review of international literature, so labs can realize the intended integration between initial learning and innovation in living labs (Griffioen & van Heijningen, 2023).Keywords: living labs, lab practices, design principles, collaboration
DOCUMENT
Increasing attention has been paid to the ‘voice’ of people living with mild cognitive impairment (or dementia, but there is a lack of clarity about how everyday life is perceived from this insiderinsider’s perspective. This study aimed to explore the everyday life experiences, challenges and facilitators of individuals with MC I and dementia living at home.
DOCUMENT
This literature review applies Wenger’s community of practice framework as a theoretical lens to generate insight about the complex collaborative processes of living labs. The authors explore this model with insights from the literature on labs and then set out to understand higher educational living labs. The findings show that current research on lab practices is limited, the field is scattered, and there is little common perspective across disciplines. The authors advocate for more research on the actual social processes. Only then can living labs hold their promise of integrating learning and innovation in higher education.
DOCUMENT
Introduction The provision of active parks/public open space is the key factor in promoting active living, because people and specially low-income and elderlies are being more interested in doing non-organized/informal, and no-cost sports/physical activities in outdoor spaces in recent decades (Borgers et al, 2013; Thiesen-Raaphorst, 2015; Sallis, Owen & Fisher, 2008; Humpel, Owen & Leslie, 2002). Giving the concern about low rate of physical activities among low-income minority, elderlies and over weighted people, the municipality of Groningen invested in renovation of parks/ open spaces, in order to encourage all people to become more physically active. To what degree park renovations accomplish this goal is unknown. Method We used the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC), to measure open space/park users and their physical activity levels after the renovation. We also surveyed parks users before and after renovation, and local residents about their use of the parks. Results All respondents were happy with the renovation that is increasing the social cohesion of the neighborhood. The users are mainly active young athletes and children, and the renovation significantly increased their park use. However, the improved parks/spaces do not attract inactive people. Weather condition and the different time of the day were not associated with using the park. Conclusion Park’s improvements can have a significant impact on increasing the frequency of park use, however, it is not enough to encourage inactive people to be physically active. Key words Physical activity, active living, open spaces, Groningen Reverences Borgers, J., Thibaut, E., Van der Meerschen, H., Van Reusel, B., Vos, S., & Scheerder, J. (2015). Sports participation styles revisited: A time-trend study in Belgium from the 1970s to the 2000s. International review for the sociology of sport, 50(1), 45-63. Bouckaert, G. (2006). Prestaties en prestatiemanagement in de publieke sector. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, 51(3), 237. Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. American journal of preventive medicine, 22(3), 188-199. Sallis, J. F., Cerin, E., Conway, T. L., Adams, M. A., Frank, L. D., Pratt, M., ... & Davey, R. (2016). Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet. Tiessen-Raaporst, A. (2015). Rapportage sport 2014. The Hague, SCP.
DOCUMENT
