Date post: | 05-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | yrusac |
View: | 744 times |
Download: | 1 times |
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
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Outline of presentation
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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.
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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)
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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)
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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)
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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’
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Relations to other stakeholdersLead users- Converging interests with manufacturers
Emancipating worker- Conflicting interests with managers
Subjugated activist- Conflicting interests with technocrats
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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)
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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 + - -
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Conclusion
If Living Labs are to foster democratisation, they may need to make space for new participants and roles
Leiden University. The university to discover.
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]