Editorial: Living Labs

• Published in: Technology innovation management review 2021-01, Vol.11 (9/10), p.3-5
• Main Authors: Leminen, Seppo, Schuurman, Dimitri
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bibliometrics; Collaboration; Education; Educational objectives; Higher education; Industrial markets; Innovations; Learning; Literature reviews; Marketing; Public sector
• ISSN: 1927-0321; 1927-0321
• DOI: 10.22215/TIMREVIEW/1460

There are growing interests and needs from extant research to further understand and conceptualize what living labs include, but not limited to, typologies (Leminen et al. 2012), research avenues (Leminen & Westerlund, 2016), bibliometric research (Greve et al., 2020; Greve, Vita, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2021), topic modelling (Westerlund et al., 2018), systematic research (Ballon et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2019; Dekker et al., 2020), and impact (Schuurman et al., 2016; Ballon et al., 2018). [...]a lot of other collaborative innovation types and labs that operate in parallel with living labs have emerged such as Fab Labs, makerspaces, innovation labs, innovation spaces, and policy labs, etc. In the third article, van den Heuvel et al. present a literature review by focusing on how to understand learning environments and living labs. To put it differently, the study provides a scoping review of higher education in the context of living labs. Their results encourage involving higher education for analyzing learning activities in living lab contexts to improve learning outcomes. The final article by Hong Huang and Thomas conducts a bibliometric literature review of user involvement methods during innovation processes in living labs. This conceptual paper analyses and contributes to the living lab literature by discovering eight categories of user involvement methods, which support further theory-building, as well as practitioners looking for practical guidelines.