“Dit project/onderzoek/living lab/leer- en innovatienetwerk is medegefinancierd door het Centre of Expertise Preventie in Zorg en Welzijn” Een blauwdruk voor een living lab collectieve belangenbehartiging is enigszins paradoxaal. Het wekt al snel de indruk dat er een pasklaar antwoord ligt dat in elke situatie in praktijk gebracht kan worden en enkel uitgevoerd hoeft of dient te worden. Maar een living lab is, zoals het begrip al suggereert, levendig van aard. Het is inherent aan een living lab dat er ruimte blijft bestaan om te onderzoeken en nieuwe ideeën te vormen over de aard van het lab zelf, zonder vast te zitten in een blauwdruk. Daarom presenteren we hier een aantal uitgangspunten en ideeën die meegenomen kunnen worden om een living lab collectieve belangenbehartiging vorm en inhoud te geven.
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
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
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
Binnen het project Future-Proof Retail werden acht labformules ontworpen en getest. Het EHBR(etail) lab bleek een van de drie succesformules te zijn: alle betrokken stakeholders hebben deze vorm van samenwerking beoordeeld als heel positief. Tussen 2018 en 2020 vonden zes edities van het lab plaats in verschillende gemeenten in Zuid-Holland. Hierbij had De Haagse Hogeschool de leiding. Onder regie van de opleiding Ondernemerschap & Retail Management werden derde jaarsstudenten via een minor ingezet. De bedoeling van deze handleiding is om te zorgen voor een opschaling van het EHBR(etail) lab in meerdere Nederlandse regio’s en in samenwerking met andere hogescholen en mbo-onderwijsinstellingen. Hierbij is het belangrijk om te realiseren dat de regierol niet alleen specifieke expertise en ervaring in businessmanagement vraagt, maar ook een serieuze investering in tijd en geld. Bovendien is intensieve inzet van hbo-studenten nodig: twee dagen per week gedurende een semester, of minimaal een onderwijsblok van tien weken. Tijdens het living lab worden retailers geactiveerd en kan er een nieuw of aangepast businessmodel ontstaan. Zowel voor individuele retailers of een heel winkelgebied. De verschillende vragen die wor den opgepakt in een EHBR(etail) lab, zijn veel breder dan de vragen bij andere labs. Het inhoudelijke proces is compleet anders dan bij een Hype lab en Lab Circularity, namelijk iteratief - hierbij verwij zen wij graag naar de handleidingen van deze twee labs. Studenten doen met de eerste (hulp)vraag van de individuele retailer of van een heel winkelgebied als startpunt een empathisch onderzoek naar de omgeving. Ze gaan op zoek naar de vraag achter de vraag: wat is nu eigenlijk het probleem of de uitdaging van de ondernemer of het collectief? In het EHBR(etail) lab werken hbo-studenten, bij voorkeur samen met mbo-studenten, met onder zoekers en het bedrijfsleven aan innovatief onderzoek. Dat gebeurt in een zogenaamde quadruple helix-omgeving (zie figuur 1). In cocreatie ontwikkelen de verschillende partijen praktische tools. Gemiddeld nemen vijf tot twintig retailers deel aan een lab. Samen met de studenten doen ze bijvoorbeeld onderzoek naar de relevantie van de deelnemende retailers voor bestaande en nieuwe klanten. De studenten lichten bestaande businessmodellen inclusief ‘customer journey’ door. Het lab werkt in sprints van zes à tien weken, en de deelnemers hanteren de methode van design thinking. Het succes van het lab bleek namelijk in grote mate samen te hangen met de design-thinking skills van de betrokken studenten en docenten. Studenten die in labs het probleem van ondernemers en medewerkers konden herkaderen (het probleem áchter het probleem boven tafel wisten te krijgen), konden veel waarde toevoegen aan het leerproces van de ondernemer. Zeker omdat zij volgens design thinking verbeterplannen ook concreet konden toepassen en uittesten in experimenten.
DOCUMENT
Our society faces many challenges, necessitating collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders. Our students learn this in living labs. This paper explores preliminary research on introducing co-design to novices. We introduce a case study exploring how design educators can support students in developing co-design competencies. Central to this study is our Co-Design Canvas, introduced as a pivotal tool for fostering open dialogue among diverse stakeholders. This stimulates collaboration through effective teamwork and empathic formation. The research questions aim to discover effective methods for introducing the Co-Design Canvas to living lab students, and to identify the necessary prior knowledge and expertise for both novices and educators to effectively engage with and teach the Co-Design Canvas. The paper advocates for a pedagogical shift to effectively engage students in multi-stakeholder challenges. Through a series of workshops, the Co-Design Canvas was introduced to novices. We found that this required a significant cognitive stretch for staff and students. The paper concludes by presenting a, for now, final workshop format consisting of assignments that supports introducing the Canvas and thereby co design to societal impact design novices. This program better prepares students and coaches for multi stakeholder challenges within living labs.
MULTIFILE
This report presents research on success factors of learning communities with a case study of the Innovation Lab Hanze International Business Office (further – Innovation Lab HIBO) at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, the Netherlands. The research project is a part of the broader research programme on innovation of education and the success factors of learning communities carried on by a number of researchers at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen (further – Hanze University AS).In answering the main research question on success factors of learning communities and, specifically, the Innovation Lab HIBO, two sub-questions were formulated: the first deals with school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO, whereas the second explores what are the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs at Hanze University AS. The research focus is on formalised expectations about the goals and outcomes of living labs, as attaining the established goals and outcomes would testimony a successful activity of a living lab. The factors that facilitate or determine whether the goalsand outcomes of living labs are achieved are therefore the success factors.The analysis of both school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO and the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs reveals a number of success factors, conditions, and preconditions. As these do not coincide, it is argued that finding the right balance between local, school level, expectations and the institutional goals is crucial for the successful performance of living labs. Another important factor for successful performance of the living lab and, specifically the Innovation Lab HIBO, is development of a learning community. This process would require strengthening of an open organisationalculture and facilitation of exchange of ideas and learning process.The research project was carried on in the period from February 1, 2020, till August 30, 2020. From September 2020 the follow up research is planned into operationalization of success factors, definition of performance criteria, performance evaluation, development of suggestions for improvement of performance, and development of a blueprint for the establishment of innovation labs.
DOCUMENT
Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments, such as Living Labs, Field Labs, and Urban Innovation Labs, are increasingly used to connect multi-stakeholders in envisioning, creating, experimenting, learning, and trying out novel responses to diverse societal challenges. With designers facilitating the co-creation processes that take place in these labs, the design discipline plays an important role in these experimental environments. Applied Design Research in Living Labs and other Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments combines a focus on Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments (or Living Labs) with a focus on Applied Design Research. It offers an interdisciplinary perspective by bringing together diverse stakeholders from different disciplines. The book will adopt an interdisciplinary perspective, integrating insights from design, innovation, sociology, technology, and other relevant fields. It showcases real-world examples and case studies of successful Applied Design Research in Living Labs and focuses on design dilemmas that emerge while working in these Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments. The book explores the role of various stakeholders, including the roles that may play out during the development of Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments, and goes on to discuss the balance between fixed or fluid roles of these stakeholders and the polarity between working within one specific discipline versus working with various expertise or disciplines. Designers, government representatives, and researchers who apply a living lab approach to solve multi-stakeholder challenges in various fields by applying Urban Innovation Labs, Energy Living Labs, Mobility Living Labs, Health Living Labs, Education Living Labs, or Social Living Labs will find this book of interest.
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
Hoofdstuk 2 uit Position paper Learning Communities van Netwerk learning Communities Grote maatschappelijke uitdagingen op het gebied van vergrijzing, duurzaamheid, digitalisering, segregatie en onderwijskwaliteit vragen om nieuwe manieren van werken, leren en innoveren. In toenemende mate wordt daarom ingezet op het bundelen van kennis en expertise van zowel publieke als private organisaties, die elkaar nodig hebben om te innoveren en complexe vraagstukken aan te pakken. Het concept ‘learning communities’ wordt gezien als dé oplossing om leren, werken en innoveren anders met elkaar te verbinden: collaboratief, co-creërend en contextrijk. Vanuit het Netwerk Learning Communities is een groep onafhankelijk onderzoekers van een groot aantal Nederlandse kennisinstellingen aan de slag gegaan met een kennissynthese rondom het concept ‘Learning Community’. Het Position paper is een eerste aanzet tot kennisbundeling. Een ‘levend document’ dat in de komende tijd verder aangevuld en verrijkt kan worden door onderzoekers, praktijkprofessionals en beleidsmakers.
DOCUMENT
