212
H. Kanning et al.
in consideration of characteristics such as resource potentials and stakeholder
constellations. These neighbourhoods are
• A central, inner-city area, characterised by a combination of brownfield and industrial areas (neighbourhood type—inner-city brownfield in a central location: “Am
Plan” urban laboratory)
• A detached housing estate, including listed buildings, that faces extensive changes
in ownership structure (neighbourhood type—existing housing estate with a
garden city character: “Gartenstadt” urban laboratory)
• A new housing estate with detached houses and multiple dwellings on an urban
open space (neighbourhood type—new residential area: “Krondorfer Wiesen”
urban laboratory)
• A multiple dwelling demolition area characterised by industrial housing construction as well as demographic and socio-economic challenges (neighbourhood
type—industrial prefabricated large housing estate: “Wohnkomplex 4/4” urban
laboratory).
11.3 A Comparison of Core Characteristics
As outlined in the introduction, there is as yet no uniform theoretical and detailed
methodological concept of real-world laboratories (Grunwald 2016: 204f), and therefore no uniform definition either. However, several scientific institutions are currently
performing further groundwork, especially also in the context of research in support
of the real-world laboratories (BaWü Labs) funded in Baden-Württemberg.
4 On the
international arena, there are also a multitude of other approaches that are similar
to the real-world laboratory format or that were used as its basis. These include
living labs, sustainable living labs and urban transition/living labs (for a comparative overview, see Schäpke et al. 2017: 28ff; Schäpke et al. 2018b). Furthermore, an
almost inflationary (and simultaneously unspecific) use is currently being made of
the term “lab” in other fields.
According to a definition originally introduced by Schneidewind (2014), a realworld laboratory generally describes “… a societal context in which researchers carry
out interventions in the sense of ‘real-life experiments’ in order to learn about social
dynamics and processes” [own translation] (Schneidewind 2014: 3). Real-life experiments are considered to be the core of the real-world laboratory approach (Schäpke
et al. 2017: 3 with reference to WBGU 2014, 2016; Schneidewind 2014; De Flander
et al. 2014; MWK 2013; Wagner and Grunwald 2015). The idea is to transfer the
term “laboratory”, as used in the natural sciences context, to the analysis of social and
4 These include, in particular, the Wuppertal Institute (WI), the Institute for Technology Assessment
and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), the Institute for
Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), as well as Leuphana University and the University of Basel,
especially in the context of research in support of BaWü Labs. BaWü Labs are supported by two
teams of researchers: (1) the “ForReal” team (WI, ISOE, Leuphana University), (2) BF-Uni Basel
(University of Basel).
H. Kanning et al.
in consideration of characteristics such as resource potentials and stakeholder
constellations. These neighbourhoods are
• A central, inner-city area, characterised by a combination of brownfield and industrial areas (neighbourhood type—inner-city brownfield in a central location: “Am
Plan” urban laboratory)
• A detached housing estate, including listed buildings, that faces extensive changes
in ownership structure (neighbourhood type—existing housing estate with a
garden city character: “Gartenstadt” urban laboratory)
• A new housing estate with detached houses and multiple dwellings on an urban
open space (neighbourhood type—new residential area: “Krondorfer Wiesen”
urban laboratory)
• A multiple dwelling demolition area characterised by industrial housing construction as well as demographic and socio-economic challenges (neighbourhood
type—industrial prefabricated large housing estate: “Wohnkomplex 4/4” urban
laboratory).
11.3 A Comparison of Core Characteristics
As outlined in the introduction, there is as yet no uniform theoretical and detailed
methodological concept of real-world laboratories (Grunwald 2016: 204f), and therefore no uniform definition either. However, several scientific institutions are currently
performing further groundwork, especially also in the context of research in support
of the real-world laboratories (BaWü Labs) funded in Baden-Württemberg.
4 On the
international arena, there are also a multitude of other approaches that are similar
to the real-world laboratory format or that were used as its basis. These include
living labs, sustainable living labs and urban transition/living labs (for a comparative overview, see Schäpke et al. 2017: 28ff; Schäpke et al. 2018b). Furthermore, an
almost inflationary (and simultaneously unspecific) use is currently being made of
the term “lab” in other fields.
According to a definition originally introduced by Schneidewind (2014), a realworld laboratory generally describes “… a societal context in which researchers carry
out interventions in the sense of ‘real-life experiments’ in order to learn about social
dynamics and processes” [own translation] (Schneidewind 2014: 3). Real-life experiments are considered to be the core of the real-world laboratory approach (Schäpke
et al. 2017: 3 with reference to WBGU 2014, 2016; Schneidewind 2014; De Flander
et al. 2014; MWK 2013; Wagner and Grunwald 2015). The idea is to transfer the
term “laboratory”, as used in the natural sciences context, to the analysis of social and
4 These include, in particular, the Wuppertal Institute (WI), the Institute for Technology Assessment
and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), the Institute for
Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), as well as Leuphana University and the University of Basel,
especially in the context of research in support of BaWü Labs. BaWü Labs are supported by two
teams of researchers: (1) the “ForReal” team (WI, ISOE, Leuphana University), (2) BF-Uni Basel
(University of Basel).