IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03412682.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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 sein de systèmes d'innovation existants: un cas d'étude en France]

Author

Listed:
  • Quentin Toffolini

    (Agronomie - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Mathieu Capitaine

    (Territoires - Territoires - AgroParisTech - VAS - VetAgro Sup - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche en alimentation, santé animale, sciences agronomiques et de l'environnement - UCA [2017-2020] - Université Clermont Auvergne [2017-2020] - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Mourad Hannachi

    (SADAPT - Sciences pour l'Action et le Développement : Activités, Produits, Territoires - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Marianne Cerf

    (SADAPT - Sciences pour l'Action et le Développement : Activités, Produits, Territoires - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

Living Labs are developed in widely diverse innovation domains, based on principles of users involvement and experimentation in 'real-world' contexts, inviting to question the various actors' roles within innovation systems. In the agricultural sector, the implementation of Living Labs may face incumbent routines for experimentation, actors' relationships, and information circulation, as 'users' are mostly farmers already embedded in innovation systems. How, beyond adhesion to inclusiveness principles, the actual practices related to an agricultural Living Lab development make possible to renew or redistribute actors' roles in the innovation process? To address this issue, we realized a case study, following the development of an agricultural Living Lab in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Region (France) by one year long immersion and participant observation. Our theoretical approach was to consider the Living Lab as a boundary object supposed to allow actors from different social worlds to work together in a new way, and relying on infrastructures in order to do so. We thus studied the intertwining between various rationales about the innovation model or the territory, the infrastructures on which the innovation process relied, and actors' roles construction. Our findings underline the divergent rationales conserved among the LIT's steering actors, associated with undefined roles, especially for farmers. We further show how these divergent rationales participated in maintaining existing infrastructures of the innovation system, preventing from effectively renewing actors' arrangements and respective roles. Among these, we describe the farmers' workshops, and the information sharing paths, both limiting the ownership of the process by non-incumbent actors. Complementarily to the distinctions of various roles in literature, we contribute to relate potentially neglected aspects of the Living Lab management (because not judged strategical) to the room for manoeuvre and possibilities for enactment of expected actors' roles. We finally discuss the relevant skills and their distribution among actors that our findings suggest for the development of an agricultural Living Lab within an existing innovation system.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03412682
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.015
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03412682v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03412682v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.015?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. 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. 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.
    3. Susan Leigh Star & Karen Ruhleder, 1996. "Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 111-134, March.
    4. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    6. Beth Cullen & Josephine Tucker & Katherine Snyder & Zelalem Lema & Alan Duncan, 2014. "An analysis of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural resource management," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 259-275, October.
    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. Boulestreau, Yann & Casagrande, Marion & Navarrete, Mireille, 2023. "A method to design coupled innovations for the agroecological transition. Implementation for soil health management in Provencal sheltered vegetable systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Gardezi, Maaz & Abuayyash, Halimeh & Adler, Paul R. & Alvez, Juan P. & Anjum, Rubaina & Badireddy, Appala Raju & Brugler, Skye & Carcamo, Pablo & Clay, David & Dadkhah, Ali & Emery, Mary & Faulkner, J, 2024. "The role of living labs in cultivating inclusive and responsible innovation in precision agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    4. Grahmann, Kathrin & Reckling, Moritz & Hernández-Ochoa, Ixchel & Donat, Marco & Bellingrath-Kimura, Sonoko & Ewert, Frank, 2024. "Co-designing a landscape experiment to investigate diversified cropping systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).

    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. 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).
    2. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Wulandhari, Nur Baiti Ingga & Mishra, Nishikant & Dora, Manoj & Samuel, Fosso Wamba, 2021. "Understanding rural Do-It-Yourself science through social learning in communities of practice," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    9. Maru, Yiheyis & Sparrow, Ashley & Stirzaker, Richard & Davies, Jocelyn, 2018. "Integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) from a theory of change perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 310-320.
    10. 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).
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Dieuwke Lamers & Marc Schut & Laurens Klerkx & Piet van Asten, 2017. "Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 739-752.
    15. 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).
    16. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Lema, Zelalem & Lobry de Bruyn, Lisa A. & Marshall, Graham R. & Roschinsky, Romana & Duncan, Alan J., 2021. "Multilevel innovation platforms for development of smallholder livestock systems: How effective are they?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    20. Cook, Brian R. & Satizábal, Paula & Curnow, Jayne, 2021. "Humanising agricultural extension: A review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    living labs; stakeholderness; regional innovation system; infrastructures; role making processes; boundary object;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-03412682. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.