Expanding the framework of urban living labs using grassroots methods

Ahmed, T; Delsante, I and Migliavacca, L (2025) Expanding the framework of urban living labs using grassroots methods. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 1081-1098. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

Urban living labs (ULLs) have been widely adopted as collaborative experiments for tackling urban challenges, yet are critiqued for privileging institutional leadership, technocentrism and limited grassroots engagement. An alternative approach is introduced where ULLs are informed and guided by grassroots perspectives. Experiences are presented from the co-production of the Commoning Kirklees (CK) toolkit in West Yorkshire, UK, involving participatory workshops and feedback cycles with active citizens and activist groups. What processes and forms of knowledge emerge through this co-production, and how do they reframe the methods of living labs? Grassroots knowledge and embedded research inform living lab practices, generating situated knowledge and practical tools that embed grassroots epistemologies, redistribute authorship and sustain collective agency. In contrast to toolkits made by professionals or institutional actors for community use, the CK toolkit embeds grassroots actors in the centre of the co-production process from inception, honing in on their lived experience as the main source of situated knowledge. This approach challenges the dominant institutionalised conceptualisation by highlighting the potential of locally embedded, bottom-up experimentation. A collaborative action between citizens and researchers can produce resources that are not only situated and practical but also innovative in their emphasis on spatial and social justice.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: agency; bottom-up; co-production; grassroots; social equity; toolkit; urban living labs
Index terms: social justice, embedded research, experiment, co-production, toolkit, agency, workshop, epistemology
Subjects: knowledge theory, data collection methods, sociology, software systems, construction type, innovation studies, research methods
Topics: Ethics, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Construction Technology
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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