Surprises

Surprises is perhaps an unusual heading, but is entirely appropriate to the open-ended, learning-based nature of Living. Documenting surprises offered further insights into the expectations of the AgriLink researchers, how events developed, and both the positive and negative aspects of the Living Lab approach.

Perhaps the most revealing surprise to us is that ‘being in control’ of the Living Lab was not always necessary or desirable. In several Living Labs, the early stages were experienced by the researchers as ‘unfocused’ and ‘unprofessional’ compared to the usual and expected format of meetings and planning processes. However, once the instinctive desire to control and guide was reduced, and the researchers really began to listen, they were able to learn from the stakeholders and understand the meaning of co-creation, leading to an improved output of the Living Lab. Similar surprises were noted regarding unexpected learning about the complexity of the situation and the contested nature of the issues and diversity of views about possible innovation strategies.

The question of who controls interventions and advisory processes also led to an assumption by researchers in one Living Lab that the Living Lab itself would be perceived as a threat by the main advisors in the area. However, this assumption proved to be unfounded. Even so, other Living Labs did experience surprise at resistance by stakeholders who were not interested in co-developing ideas and prototypes.