Don’ts
Many of the dos can be inverted to provide a corresponding list of ‘don’ts’. To avoid undue repetition, this exercise is not repeated here.
However, a few additional elements are worth noting since they highlight other aspects not readily captured by inverting the ‘dos’.
Use confusing or abstract language
Language is an important framing device and requires careful attention. Be aware that the term Living Lab may have very limited appeal and can be confusing to non-academic audiences. It can be off-putting – who wants to live in a lab? – and in some cases may be interpreted as condescending where a person’s working life is reduced to the basis of experiment or described as a ‘lab’. Avoiding jargon and being ‘in tune’ with stakeholders’ language will help communication and trust.
Fear mistakes or changing focus
Do not be afraid to make mistakes or of changing the aim and focus of the Living Lab. Stakeholders will leave/arrive as the focus emerges and their priorities dictate. Being open about mistakes or changes and developing a learning culture can help build trust and good relationships.
Be afraid to take control/guide the process
As Living Labs are open processes, there is always the risk that they lose direction and enthusiasm if they pursue certain pathways leading to dead ends. The facilitator and monitor are able to act to bring the Living Lab back on track with guidance and take control as needed. However, this must be done with transparency to the stakeholders.
Do it alone
Based on the above, Living Labs are best suited to more complex situations where there is a problem situation and some stakeholder enthusiasm for progressing improvement. These conditions alone convey the significant task of convening and running a Living Lab. Adding in a monitoring and evaluation process adds to the workload. While it is possible to run a ‘small’ or ‘light’ Living Lab as an individual person, the experience for all involved will be improved and insights are likely to be significantly greater if a Living Lab is run and assessed by a team. Extending this, a group of Living Labs can learn a great deal from each other.
Assume Living Labs are always the answer
Living Labs can be effective in the right context and conditions, but like any process of more open inquiry and decision-making, it is not a panacea or an easy way to resolve a situation. Deciding to use a Living Lab requires some form of mandate from possible participants, awareness of the method and its application as well as insights into the types of situations in which it can be deployed effectively with the skills and resources available. It may be appropriate not to embark on a Living Lab or to end it early.
Reflective Activity 15
What did you find most surprising from this list of dos and don’ts? Write your answer in the box below.
Answer
I did not find any of the dos surprising, but in contrast the most surprising don’t for me was don’t talk about Living Labs to the stakeholders!
Having spent so much time putting this course on Living Labs together and writing out Living Lab so many times, I initially felt disheartened by that finding.
But the message from the AgriLink Living Labs was wider than that. Researchers and others devise approaches and use terms which make sense within that context, but the language being used needs to be modified or translated when used in other contexts to make it more relevant and understandable to other practitioners, unless or until that original language becomes more widely accepted.
It also highlights that the facilitation (and monitoring roles) are also one of knowledge brokering, of taking findings from elsewhere and synthesising them for the end users(s) in exactly the way that agricultural advisors do all the time. What may be different are the processes involved in that synthesis.