418
P. J. Wolff, III
1 Introduction
Cultivating the transactions that occur between diverse stakeholders involved in living
lab research can maximize novel innovations and potential impacts. Yet the intensity
and depth with which higher education institutions consider these interactions and
the tools developed to facilitate the co-production of knowledge differ significantly.
This work examines the journey of grappling with the common challenges of facilitating campus-based research (i.e., “living labs”) within the uncontrollable dynamics
of real-world environments at MIT. I have conducted a two-year immersion study of
living labs and recorded observations obtained from the unique vantage point as one
of the first-known individuals to hold a full-time appointment dedicated to cultivating living-lab-related research within the context of the US higher education system.
Front-line observations were recorded (in a series of lists, drawings, sketches, survey results, and interview transcriptions), analyzed, and combined with equal parts
imagination and fantasy to create new engagement tools that intentionally wander
across the disciplines of the arts, sciences, engineering, and humanities, as well as
integrate elements of popular culture.
I share perspectives based on real-world experiences gleaned from the struggle
to answer common questions such as, What is a living lab? How does it work? and
How can this innovation platform be cultivated to maximize impacts? In response to
the observed problems and barriers that can thwart agility, a suite of tools have been
developed to meet universal challenges related to project management, communication, data collection, team building, and the desire to maximize outcomes.
2 Context
Although scores of faculty, students, and staff have been conducting place-based
research during the past 30 years throughout the world, evidence suggests that living
labs have, until recently, been a predominantly European phenomenon. Besides geographical diversity, there is also a recent increase in the scope of sectors involved,
the topics covered, and approaches taken in practice and research (Schuurman et al.
2017).
There is a considerable amount of research on living labs regarding definitions
(Dutilleul et al. 2010), methods (Callaghan and Herselman 2015; Ståhlbröst 2008),
the concept of agile design (Almirall et al. 2012), the use of living labs as a collaborative or transdisciplinary environment (Farley et al. 2010; Van der Walt et al. 2009;
Weinstein 2010), and with regard to history (Bajgier et al. 1991; Moffat 1990; Tarricone 1990). There are also guidebooks (Schumacher 2010) and manuals (Ståhlbröst
2013) that share best practices, precedents, and strategies. Review of this literature
confirms that there are numerous interpretations of the “living lab” and its defining
characteristics (Leminen et al. 2015).
P. J. Wolff, III
1 Introduction
Cultivating the transactions that occur between diverse stakeholders involved in living
lab research can maximize novel innovations and potential impacts. Yet the intensity
and depth with which higher education institutions consider these interactions and
the tools developed to facilitate the co-production of knowledge differ significantly.
This work examines the journey of grappling with the common challenges of facilitating campus-based research (i.e., “living labs”) within the uncontrollable dynamics
of real-world environments at MIT. I have conducted a two-year immersion study of
living labs and recorded observations obtained from the unique vantage point as one
of the first-known individuals to hold a full-time appointment dedicated to cultivating living-lab-related research within the context of the US higher education system.
Front-line observations were recorded (in a series of lists, drawings, sketches, survey results, and interview transcriptions), analyzed, and combined with equal parts
imagination and fantasy to create new engagement tools that intentionally wander
across the disciplines of the arts, sciences, engineering, and humanities, as well as
integrate elements of popular culture.
I share perspectives based on real-world experiences gleaned from the struggle
to answer common questions such as, What is a living lab? How does it work? and
How can this innovation platform be cultivated to maximize impacts? In response to
the observed problems and barriers that can thwart agility, a suite of tools have been
developed to meet universal challenges related to project management, communication, data collection, team building, and the desire to maximize outcomes.
2 Context
Although scores of faculty, students, and staff have been conducting place-based
research during the past 30 years throughout the world, evidence suggests that living
labs have, until recently, been a predominantly European phenomenon. Besides geographical diversity, there is also a recent increase in the scope of sectors involved,
the topics covered, and approaches taken in practice and research (Schuurman et al.
2017).
There is a considerable amount of research on living labs regarding definitions
(Dutilleul et al. 2010), methods (Callaghan and Herselman 2015; Ståhlbröst 2008),
the concept of agile design (Almirall et al. 2012), the use of living labs as a collaborative or transdisciplinary environment (Farley et al. 2010; Van der Walt et al. 2009;
Weinstein 2010), and with regard to history (Bajgier et al. 1991; Moffat 1990; Tarricone 1990). There are also guidebooks (Schumacher 2010) and manuals (Ståhlbröst
2013) that share best practices, precedents, and strategies. Review of this literature
confirms that there are numerous interpretations of the “living lab” and its defining
characteristics (Leminen et al. 2015).