IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/213002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing future societies? Developing a framework for test beds and living labs as instruments of innovation governance

Author

Listed:
  • Engels, Franziska
  • Wentland, Alexander
  • Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M.

Abstract

Test beds and living labs have emerged as a prominent approach to foster innovation across geographical regions and technical domains. They feed on the popular “grand societal challenges” discourse and the growing insight that adequate policy responses to these challenges will require drastic transformations of technology and society alike. Test beds and living labs represent an experimental, co-creative approach to innovation policy that aims to test, demonstrate, and advance new sociotechnical arrangements and associated modes of governance in a model environment under real-world conditions. In this paper, we develop an analytic framework for this distinctive approach to innovation. Our research draws on theories from Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Innovation Studies, as well as in-depth empirical analysis from two case studies – an urban smart energy campus and a rural renewable energy network. Our analysis reveals three characteristic frictions that test beds face: (1) the limits of controlled experimentation due to messy social responses and co-creation activity; (2) a tension between lab-like open-ended experimentation and pressures to demonstrate success; (3) the opposing needs of local socio-cultural specificity and scalability, i.e. the inherent promise of test bed outcomes being generalizable or transferrable because the tested “model society” is presumed to represent a future society at large. These tensions suggest that thinking of test beds as mere technology tests under real-world conditions is insufficient. Rather, test beds both test and re-configure society around a new set of technologies, envisioned futures, and associated modes of governance – occasionally against considerable resistance. By making social order explicitly available for experimentation, test beds tentatively stabilize new socio-technical orders on a local scale in an “as-if” mode of adoption and diffusion. Symmetric attention to the simultaneous co-production of new technical and social orders points to new opportunities and challenges for innovation governance in test-bed settings: Rather than mere enablers of technology, test beds could serve as true societal tests for the desirability of certain transformations. This will require rethinking notions of success and failure, planning with a view towards reversibility, and greater scrutiny of how power is distributed within such settings. Likewise, rather than envisioning test beds as low-regulation zones to drive innovation, they could be strategically deployed to co-develop socially desirable governance frameworks in tandem with emerging technologies in real-time.

Suggested Citation

  • Engels, Franziska & Wentland, Alexander & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2019. "Testing future societies? Developing a framework for test beds and living labs as instruments of innovation governance," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(9), pages 1-11.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:213002
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.103826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/213002/1/Full-text-article-Engels-et-al-Testing-future-societies.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103826?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Archibugi, Daniele & Lundvall, Bengt-Ake (ed.), 2001. "The Globalizing Learning Economy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199241095.
    2. Mariana Mazzucato, 2018. "Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 803-815.
    3. Lezaun, Javier & Porter, Natalie, 2015. "Containment and competition: Transgenic animals in the One Health agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 96-105.
    4. Madeleine Akrich & Michel Callon & Bruno Latour & Adrian Monaghan, 2002. "The Key To Success In Innovation Part Ii: The Art Of Choosing Good Spokespersons," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 207-225.
    5. Späth, Philipp & Rohracher, Harald, 2010. "'Energy regions': The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 449-458, May.
    6. Turnheim, Bruno & Geels, Frank W., 2013. "The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry (1913–1967)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1749-1767.
    7. Haley, Brendan, 2018. "Integrating structural tensions into technological innovation systems analysis: Application to the case of transmission interconnections and renewable electricity in Nova Scotia, Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1147-1160.
    8. Madeleine Akrich & Michel Callon & Bruno Latour & Adrian Monaghan, 2002. "The Key To Success In Innovation Part I: The Art Of Interessement," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 187-206.
    9. James Evans & Andrew Karvonen, 2014. "‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!’ — Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 413-430, March.
    10. Pinkse, Jonatan & Vernay, Anne-Lorène & D’Ippolito, Beatrice, 2018. "An organisational perspective on the cluster paradox: Exploring how members of a cluster manage the tension between continuity and renewal," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 674-685.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Undheim, Trond Arne, 2024. "In search of better methods for the longitudinal assessment of tech-derived X-risks: How five leading scenario planning efforts can help," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M. & Wentland, Alexander & Ruge, Luise, 2023. "Understanding regional innovation cultures: Narratives, directionality, and conservative innovation in Bavaria," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    3. Anil Engez & Seppo Leminen & Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, 2021. "Urban Living Lab as a Circular Economy Ecosystem: Advancing Environmental Sustainability through Economic Value, Material, and Knowledge Flows," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Pel, Bonno & Haxeltine, Alex & Avelino, Flor & Dumitru, Adina & Kemp, René & Bauler, Tom & Kunze, Iris & Dorland, Jens & Wittmayer, Julia & Jørgensen, Michael Søgaard, 2020. "Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: A relational framework and 12 propositions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    5. Toffolini, Quentin & Hannachi, Mourad & Capitaine, Mathieu & Cerf, Marianne, 2023. "Ideal-types of experimentation practices in agricultural Living Labs: Various appropriations of an open innovation model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Chris Tennant & Susan Howard & Sally Stares, 2021. "Building the UK vision of a driverless future: A Parliamentary Inquiry case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Hannes Thees & Harald Pechlaner & Natalie Olbrich & Arne Schuhbert, 2020. "The Living Lab as a Tool to Promote Residents’ Participation in Destination Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-27, February.
    8. Inés Aquilué & Angélica Caicedo & Joan Moreno & Miquel Estrada & Laia Pagès, 2021. "A Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Living Labs on Urban Design: The Case of the Furnish Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-29, April.
    9. Laima Gerlitz & Christopher Meyer & Lawrence Henesey, 2024. "Sourcing Sustainability Transition in Small and Medium-Sized Ports of the Baltic Sea Region: A Case of Sustainable Futuring with Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-38, May.
    10. Hlahla, S. & Ngidi, M. & Duma, S. E. & Sobratee-Fajurally, N. & Modi, A. T. & Slotow, R. & Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe, 2023. "Policy gaps and food systems optimization: a review of agriculture, environment, and health policies in South Africa," Papers published in Journals (Open Access), International Water Management Institute, pages 1-7:867481..
    11. Vassallo, Jarrod P. & Banerjee, Sourindra & Zaman, Hasanuzzaman & Prabhu, Jaideep C., 2023. "Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    12. Ran Sun & James Nolan & Suren Kulshreshtha, 2022. "Agent-based modeling of policy induced agri-environmental technology adoption," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(8), pages 1-26, August.
    13. José Miguel Aguilera & Felipe Larraín, 2021. "Natural laboratories in emerging countries and comparative advantages in science: Evidence from Chile," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(6), pages 732-753, November.
    14. Quentin Toffolini & Mathieu Capitaine & Mourad Hannachi & Marianne Cerf, 2021. "Implementing agricultural living labs that renew actors’ roles within existing innovation systems: A case study in France [La mise en œuvre de living labs qui renouvellent les rôles des acteurs au ," Post-Print hal-03412682, HAL.
    15. Nguyen, Huong Thu & Marques, Pilar & Benneworth, Paul, 2022. "Living labs: Challenging and changing the smart city power relations?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    16. Guridi, Jose A. & Pertuze, Julio A. & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2020. "Natural laboratories as policy instruments for technological learning and institutional capacity building: The case of Chile's astronomy cluster," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    17. Ola Michalec & Cian O’Donovan & Mehdi Sobhani, 2021. "What is robotics made of? The interdisciplinary politics of robotics research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Abi Saad, Elie & Tremblay, Nathalie & Agogué, Marine, 2024. "A multi-level perspective on innovation intermediaries: The case of the diffusion of digital technologies in healthcare," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    19. Katharina Greve & Riccardo De Vita & Seppo Leminen & Mika Westerlund, 2021. "Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Engels, Franziska & Wentland, Alexander & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2019. "Testing future societies? Developing a framework for test beds and living labs as instruments of innovation governance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    2. Schulte-Römer, Nona, 2015. "Innovating in public. The introduction of LED lighting in Berlin and Lyon," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 232019, June.
    3. Monique Bolli, 2020. "Innovators in Urban China: Makerspaces and Marginality with Impact," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 68-77.
    4. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    5. Omrane, Amina, 2022. "The main determinants and effects of product innovation: An exploratory study on the pastry companies of the region of Sfax (in Tunisia)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    6. Hart O. Awa & Ojiabo Ukoha & Best C. Eke, 2016. "Adoption of emerging ICTs: The role of actors in a social network," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1259879-125, December.
    7. Gasselin, Pierre & Lardon, Sylvie & Cerdan, Claire & Loudiyi, Salma & Sautier, Denis, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), July.
    8. Pierre Gasselin & Sylvie Lardon & Claire Cerdan & Salma Loudiyi & Denis Sautier, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 339-361, December.
    9. Magali Malherbe & Fanny Simon-Lee, 2015. "Learning and knowledge accumulation as sources of influence for actors during path constitution: the example of the emergence of NFC technology," Post-Print hal-01597620, HAL.
    10. Waqas Ahmed & Sharafat Ali & Muhammad Asghar & Alisher Ismailov, 2023. "Assessment and Analysis of the Complexities in Sustainability of the Transport Projects Under CPEC: A Grounded Theory Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, November.
    11. Laure Cabantous & Gilbert Laporte, 2015. "ASP, The Art and Science of Practice: Academia-Industry Interfacing in Operations Research in Montréal," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 45(6), pages 554-566, December.
    12. Frédéric Goulet & Gabriela Giordano, 2017. "Searching for family farming in Argentina: chronicles of a technological innovation between two worlds," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(4), pages 233-253, December.
    13. Pierre Gasselin & Sylvie Lardon & Claire Cerdan & Salma Loudiyi & Denis Sautier, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 339-361.
    14. Styhre, Alexander, 2011. "Institutionalizing technoscience: Post-genomic technologies and the case of systems biology," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 375-388.
    15. Kurt Berlo & Oliver Wagner & Marisa Heenen, 2016. "The Incumbents’ Conservation Strategies in the German Energy Regime as an Impediment to Re-Municipalization—An Analysis Guided by the Multi-Level Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Heiko Wieland & Nathaniel N. Hartmann & Stephen L. Vargo, 2017. "Business models as service strategy," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 925-943, November.
    17. Müller, Felix C. & Brinks, Verena & Ibert, Oliver & Schmidt, Suntje, 2015. "Open Region: Leitbild für eine regionale Innovationspolitik der Schaffung und Nutzung von Gelegenheiten," IRS Working Papers 53, Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS).
    18. Mélanie De Winter, 2019. "Towards Integrated Care for Chronic Patients in Belgium: The Pilot Project, an Instrument Supporting the Emergence of Collaborative Networks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, April.
    19. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems — An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 298-312.
    20. Norma M. Rantisi & Deborah Leslie, 2015. "Circus in Action: Exploring the Role of a Translation Zone in the Cirque du Soleil's Creative Practices," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 91(2), pages 147-164, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:213002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.