easst - living labs and democratisation

Leiden University. The university to discover.

Wouter Mensink, Benoît Dutilleul and Frans A.J. Birrer

Democratising technology and innovation: the role of the “participant” in Living Labs


Outline of presentation


Three roles of participantsThree functions of Living Labs may be identified1,

which constitute different participant roles for citizens:

(i) Member of innovation system and its governance

(ii) Object of study in in vivo experimental settings(iii) Partner in product development platforms

__________________________

1 Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F. A. J., & Mensink, W. H. (2010). Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation's Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4 (1), 60-85.


Step 1. Scrutinising Living Lab rolesWe suggest that in each of these roles,

participants are likely to encounter barriers in their attempts to realise their interests (Birrer, 1999; 2001; 2004):

- Motivational barriers: citizens may experience a discrepancy between their interests and those of other stakeholders

- Cognitive barriers: citizens may experience difficulties in communicating with stakeholders with different backgrounds


Member of innovation system governance

Hardly, or no citizen representation in:

- 212 local governing bodies- The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)

www.openlivinglabs.eu


Object of study- In vivo research in real-life settings:

apartments, workspaces, or public spaces monitored with a digital device

- Not about participants as “guinea pigs”, but about ‘getting access to their ideas and knowledge’ (Eriksson et al., 2005, p. 3)

Barriers:- Do “better products” outweigh intrusion in

daily life (motivational)?- Informed consent (motivational/cognitive)- One-way data-gathering (cognitive)


Partner in product development

- Intrinsic motivation to make what you use

Barriers- Living Labs for ‘the co-production of

technologies between developers and users, and the production of users by technologies’ (Tan et al., 2006, p. 13) (motivational/cognitive)

- User-centred and user-driven innovation (motivational/cognitive)


Step 2. Alternative participants & roles

As the current roles of citizen-participants in Living Labs seem insufficient, we considered alternative participants and participant roles; we take inspiration from different approaches to democratising technology and innovation:

- Von Hippel’s Democratizing innovation (2005)- Ideas on democratisation in the Scandinavian

participatory design tradition - Feenberg’s Democratizing technology (1999)


Von Hippel’s lead userOne of the main theoretical bases for Living Labs

(Følstad, 2008), but not involved in practice (Schuurman & De Marez, 2009)

Characteristics:

- ‘at the leading edge of market trend(s)’- ‘currently experiencing needs that will later be

experienced by many users in that market’- ‘high benefits from obtaining a solution to their

needs’- ‘willingness to pay’


The “emancipating worker”

Democratic deficit of Living Labs is mostly pointed out by proponents of the Scandinavian participatory design tradition

Characteristics:

- Influence on innovation system development- Emancipation by being involved in making

better designs- Workers supported by trade unions or other

action groups


Andrew Feenberg’s “subjugated activist”

Feenberg claims that democratisation cannot occur without certain types of “counter-tendencies”

Characteristics:- Activism of those whose “participant

interests” are subjugated by societal developments


Relations to other stakeholdersLead users- Converging interests with manufacturers

Emancipating worker- Conflicting interests with managers

Subjugated activist- Conflicting interests with technocrats


Participants and non-participantsLead users- Lead users’ interests differ from interests of others- Willingness to pay as a basis for democracy?

Emancipating worker- ‘[W]hat if the democratic procedure results in [..] the

increasing invisibility of a small group of employees?’ (Berg, 1998, p. 480).

Subjugated activist- ‘majority of people choose affluence over autonomy’- ‘cost in terms of time and money’ (Veak, 2006, p. xix)- ‘[M]any of the subjugated cannot even step up to the table

and make their voices heard’ (Veak, 2000, p. 232)


The “horizon”Von Hippel - User-based innovation can ‘supplant manufacturer-based

innovation systems under some conditions and complement them under most’ (2005, p. 121)

- ‘social welfare is likely to be higher in a world in which both users and manufacturers innovate’ (2005, p. 107)

Scandinavian tradition- Global actions for working-life democracy: regulation and

infrastructure projects

Feenberg - Societal impact of the changes in “technical codes”- Resisting technocracy


Step 3. Alternative participants and Living Labs

Member of innovation

system governance

Object of study

Partner in product

development

Lead user +/- - +Emancipated worker + - +

Subjugated activist + - -


Conclusion

If Living Labs are to foster democratisation, they may need to make space for new participants and roles


Thank you your attention

For any questions, or remarks: do not hesitate to approach any of us, now or after the conference:

Wouter Mensink: [email protected] Benoît Dutilleul: [email protected] Birrer: [email protected]

easst - living labs and democratisation

Technology

european living labs

roles of participants

functions of living

alternative participants

labs flstad

scrutinising living

different participant

motivational barriers