Dobre, C C and Faldi, G (2025) Researchers' shifting roles in living labs for knowledge co-production. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 934-951. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
This study provides a reflective and empirically grounded exploration of the evolving roles of researchers within living labs. The research investigates how researchers adapt to shifting roles in the context of knowledge co-production, and what drivers influence these roles. A conceptual framework was developed by integrating existing models on knowledge co-production and researchers' roles. This framework was tested drawing on extensive literature review; participant observations of the authors in two living labs in Brussels during a six-year period; semi-structured interviews with researchers; and collective discussions during focus groups. Findings reveal that researchers assume hybrid roles, from facilitators and intermediaries to technical experts, issue advocates and honest brokers, and that these roles were shaped by contextual factors, internal dynamics of the co-production process, individual capabilities and expected outcomes. This multiplicity of roles enhances responsiveness to local challenges but also creates tensions related to role ambiguity and academic and societal expectations. Adaptability and reflexivity are key researcher competencies for navigating these complexities. This underscores the need to maintain knowledge co-production as a core objective for innovations in living labs. Further research is needed on the mechanisms for researchers to steer co-production processes and the implications of their positionality within hybrid research environments.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | action research; knowledge co-production; living lab; open innovation; sustainability transitions; transdisciplinary research |
| Index terms: | literature review, focus group, facilitator, drawing, conceptual framework, action research, complexity, intermediary, adaptability, exploration, dynamics, co-production, reflexivity, observation, interview, broker |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, data collection methods, business, theoretical framing, practitioner, profession, innovation studies, systems engineering, research paradigm research concept, user focus, data analysis and analytics, environmental resource management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here