172
D. Fam et al.
system. Utilising the campus as a living laboratory provided the context for students
to engage with the food waste system daily and to further investigate both the visible
and commonly invisible components of the system i.e. technologies, actors (cleaners,
facilities personnel) and practices.
Experiential, problem-focused learning, which is deeply rooted in local context,
has been theorised and practiced since the turn of the century (Dewey 1938). However
the specific concept of the “Living Lab” is more recent. The Living Lab concept,
which first appeared in academic literature in the 1990s, is often credited to William
Mitchell, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Dutilleul et al. 2010,
p. 63). Mitchell identified that contemporary information technology provided an
opportunity for monitoring human interaction with innovations outside of the typical
laboratory environment. His approach towards researching these innovations shifted
from “in vitro to in vivo settings” (Dutilleul et al. 2010, p. 63). This initial model of
the Living Lab was described as providing a space where designers and researchers
could observe users and test models through hypotheses. This concept later evolved
into utilising campus space specifically as a location for these innovation models to
be tested.
Dutilleul et al. (2010, p. 64) propose five distinct meanings to the term “Living
Labs”:
(1) “In vivo monitoring of a ‘living’ social setting.”
(2) An “innovation system” composed of multi-disciplinary networks working in
collaboration to solve a research problem.
(3) An approach in which users are engaged within a product development process.
(4) A term used to describe the organisations which facilitate and maintain a collaborative research network.
(5) A descriptor for the European movement which emerged in the mid-2000s
as a co-ordinated and common innovation system between European research
networks.
Of these meanings, “Living Labs” is now commonly understood to be a fusion of
the first three: a collaborative test of an innovative approach to a problem occurring
in a “living” social environment where end-users are involved (Daniel 2017, p. 2).
This fusion of the concepts is often still separated in the literature around Living
Labs. Curtis (2015, p. 4), for example, proposes that a split in the literature occurs
around the Living Lab as a “physical space where subjects are embedded into real-life
situations, examined and included in the co-creation of knowledge”; or, the Living
Lab as an “organisational arrangement involving multiple stakeholders that carry out
testing, research or knowledge-creation.” In order for the Living Lab process to be
best understood, it is vital to consider these elements as an integrated and cohesive
whole (Daniel 2017, p. 2).
The Living Lab concept is increasingly being used to explore the multidimensional and dynamic (or ‘wicked’) nature of sustainability-related problems
in a university setting, as a university community is inclined to nurture innovation.
The socially and geographically bounded context can help to rein in complexity (or
at the least, render it observable). This also ushers in a new approach to learning,
D. Fam et al.
system. Utilising the campus as a living laboratory provided the context for students
to engage with the food waste system daily and to further investigate both the visible
and commonly invisible components of the system i.e. technologies, actors (cleaners,
facilities personnel) and practices.
Experiential, problem-focused learning, which is deeply rooted in local context,
has been theorised and practiced since the turn of the century (Dewey 1938). However
the specific concept of the “Living Lab” is more recent. The Living Lab concept,
which first appeared in academic literature in the 1990s, is often credited to William
Mitchell, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Dutilleul et al. 2010,
p. 63). Mitchell identified that contemporary information technology provided an
opportunity for monitoring human interaction with innovations outside of the typical
laboratory environment. His approach towards researching these innovations shifted
from “in vitro to in vivo settings” (Dutilleul et al. 2010, p. 63). This initial model of
the Living Lab was described as providing a space where designers and researchers
could observe users and test models through hypotheses. This concept later evolved
into utilising campus space specifically as a location for these innovation models to
be tested.
Dutilleul et al. (2010, p. 64) propose five distinct meanings to the term “Living
Labs”:
(1) “In vivo monitoring of a ‘living’ social setting.”
(2) An “innovation system” composed of multi-disciplinary networks working in
collaboration to solve a research problem.
(3) An approach in which users are engaged within a product development process.
(4) A term used to describe the organisations which facilitate and maintain a collaborative research network.
(5) A descriptor for the European movement which emerged in the mid-2000s
as a co-ordinated and common innovation system between European research
networks.
Of these meanings, “Living Labs” is now commonly understood to be a fusion of
the first three: a collaborative test of an innovative approach to a problem occurring
in a “living” social environment where end-users are involved (Daniel 2017, p. 2).
This fusion of the concepts is often still separated in the literature around Living
Labs. Curtis (2015, p. 4), for example, proposes that a split in the literature occurs
around the Living Lab as a “physical space where subjects are embedded into real-life
situations, examined and included in the co-creation of knowledge”; or, the Living
Lab as an “organisational arrangement involving multiple stakeholders that carry out
testing, research or knowledge-creation.” In order for the Living Lab process to be
best understood, it is vital to consider these elements as an integrated and cohesive
whole (Daniel 2017, p. 2).
The Living Lab concept is increasingly being used to explore the multidimensional and dynamic (or ‘wicked’) nature of sustainability-related problems
in a university setting, as a university community is inclined to nurture innovation.
The socially and geographically bounded context can help to rein in complexity (or
at the least, render it observable). This also ushers in a new approach to learning,