Living Lab (LL) research should follow clear ethical guidelines and principles. While these exist in specific disciplinary contexts, there is a lack of tailored and specific ethical guidelines for the design, development, and implementation of LL projects. As well as the complexity of these dynamic and multi-faceted contexts, the engagement of older adults, and adults with reducing cognitive and physical capacity in LL research, poses additional ethical challenges. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 26 participants to understand multistakeholder experiences related to user engagement and related ethical issues in emerging LL research. The participants’ experiences and concerns are reported and translated into an ethical framework to guide future LL research initiatives.
AlmirallE.WarehamJ. (2008). Living Labs and open innovation: Roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10(3), 21-46.
2.
AlmirallE.WarehamJ. (2011). Living Labs: Arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23, 87-102. doi:10.1080/09537325.2011.537110
3.
BarcenillaJ.TijusC. (2012, August). Ethical issues raised by the new orientations in ergonomics and Living Labs. Work, 41(Supplement 1), 5259-5265.
4.
BazeleyP. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London, England: Sage.
5.
BeattieE.BuckwalterK. (2007). Informed consent and assent decisions by persons with dementia and their legally designated representatives. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2, 79-81.
6.
Bergvall-KårebornB.Ihlström ErikssonC.StåhlbröstA.SvenssonJ. (2009, December). A milieu for open innovation—Defining Living Labs. Paper presented at the 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium, New York City, NY.
7.
Bergvall-KårebornB.StåhlbröstA. (2009). Living Lab: An open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1, 356-370. doi:10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727
8.
BlaikieN. (2009). Designing social research. Malden, MA: John Wiley.
BuitendagA. A. K.van der WaltJ. S.MalebaneT.de JagerL. (2012). Addressing knowledge support services as part of a Living Lab environment. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 221-241. doi:10.28945/1618
11.
BurbridgeM. (2017). If Living Labs are the answer—What’s the question? A review of the literature. Procedia Engineering, 180, 1725-1732. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.335
12.
CallariT. C.MoodyL.SaundersJ.WardG.HollidayN.WoodleyJ. (2019). Exploring participation needs and motivational requirements when engaging older adults in an emerging Living Lab. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9, 38-49.
13.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humansPrepared by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved from https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf
14.
Dell’EraC.LandoniP. (2014). Living Lab: A methodology between user-centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23, 137-154. doi:10.1111/caim.12061
15.
DewingJ. (2007). Participatory research: A method for process consent with persons who have dementia. Dementia, 6, 11-25.
16.
DraettaL.LabartheF. (2010, June). The Living Labs at the test of user-centered innovation—Proposal of a methodological framework. In 2010 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE) (pp. 1–7). Lugano, Switzerland: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICE.2010.7477034
17.
DunnL. B.AliciY.RobertsL. W. (2015). Ethical challenges in the treatment of cognitive impairment in aging. Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports, 2, 226-233. doi:10.1007/s40473-015-0055-0
18.
DutilleulB.BirrerF.MensinkW. (2010). Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4, 60–85.
European Network of Living Labs. (Ed.). (2018b). Research and Innovation Conference proceedings 2018. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
22.
FieldsL. M.CalvertJ. D. (2015). Informed consent procedures with cognitively impaired patients: A review of ethics and best practices. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 69, 462-471. doi:10.1111/pcn.12289
23.
FinlayL. (1998). Reflexivity: An essential component for all research?British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 453-456. doi:10.1177/030802269806101005
24.
FølstadA. (2008). Living Labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: A literature review. Electronic Journal of Organizational Virtualness, 10, 99-131.
25.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
26.
GeorgesA.SchuurmanD.VervoortK. (2016). Factors affecting the attrition of test users during Living Lab field trials. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6, 35-44.
27.
GualandiE.LeonardiL. (2018, August). Models for Living Lab’s sustainability: Evidences from Italy and the Netherlands. Paper presented at the OLLD18—OpenLivingLabs Days Research and Innovation Conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
28.
GuilleminM.GillamL. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 261-280. doi:10.1177/1077800403262360
29.
HabibipourA. (2018, August). Living Lab research: A state-of-the-art review and steps towards a research agenda. Paper presented at the OLLD18—OpenLivingLabs Days Research and Innovation Conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
30.
HabibipourA.Bergvall-KårebornB. (2016, December). Towards a user engagement process model in open innovation. Paper presented at the International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM) Innovation Summit: Moving the Innovation Horizon, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
31.
HabibipourA.GeorgesA.SchuurmanD.Bergvall-KårebornB. (2017, August). Drop-out in Living Lab field tests: A contribution to the definition and the taxonomy. Paper presented at the Research Day Conference proceedings 2017: OpenLivingLab Days 2017, Krakow, Poland.
32.
HabibipourA.PadyabA.Bergvall-KårebornB.StåhlbröstA. (2017, August). Exploring factors influencing participant drop-out behavior in a Living Lab environment. Paper presented at the Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 28-40), Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
33.
HabibipourA.StåhlbröstA.GeorgesA.Bergvall-KårebornB. (2018, June). Drop-out in Living Lab field test: Analysing consequences and some recommendations. Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Systems 2018, Portsmouth, UK.
34.
HoldenA.PoliakovI.OlivierP.WrightP.McNaneyR.VinesJ. (2016). Our year with the glass: Expectations, letdowns and ethical dilemmas of technology trials with vulnerable people. Interacting with Computers, 29, 27-44. doi:10.1093/iwc/iww017
35.
HossainM.LeminenS.WesterlundM. (2019). A systematic review of Living Lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976-988. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257
36.
KangS.-C. (2012). Initiation of the Suan-Lien Living Lab—A Living Lab with an elderly welfare focus. International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology, 2, 189-199. doi:10.5875/ausmt.v2i3.132
37.
KanstrupA. M. (2017). Living in the lab: An analysis of the work in eight living laboratories set up in care homes for technology innovation. CoDesign, 13, 49-64. doi:10.1080/15710882.2016.1146304
38.
KhangD. B.MoeT. L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A life-cycle-based framework. Project Management Journal, 39, 72-84. doi:10.1002/pmj.20034
39.
KormanM.WeissP. L.KizonyR. (2016). Living Labs: Overview of ecological approaches for health promotion and rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38, 613-619. doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1059494
40.
KröseB.VeenstraM.RobbenS.KanisM. (2012). Living Labs as educational tool for ambient intelligence. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
LeminenS.WesterlundM.RajahonkaM. (2017). Innovating with service robots in health and welfare Living Labs. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(8), Article 1740013. doi:10.1142/S1363919617400138
43.
LievensB.BaccarneB.VeeckmanC.LoggheS.SchuurmanD. (2014, February). Drivers for end-users’ collaboration in participatory innovation development and Living Lab processes. Paper presented at the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Baltimore, MA.
44.
MackinM. L.HerrK.Bergen-JacksonK.FineP.ForcucciC.SandersS. (2009). Research participation by older adults at end of life: Barriers and solutions. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 2, 162-171. doi:10.3928/19404921-20090421-05
45.
MayoA. M.WallhagenM. I. (2009). Considerations of informed consent and decision-making competence in older adults with cognitive impairment. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 2, 103-111. doi:10.3928/19404921-20090401-08
46.
McDonaldK. E.ConroyN. E.KimC. I.LoBraicoE. J.PratherE. M.OlickR. S. (2016). Is safety in the eye of the beholder? Safeguards in research with adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11, 424-438. doi:10.1177/1556264616651182
47.
McGuireJ. (2009). Ethical considerations when working with older adults in psychology. Ethics & Behavior, 19, 112-128. doi:10.1080/10508420902772702
MitchellA. J.ShuklaD.AjumalH. A.StubbsB.TahirT. A. (2014). The mini-mental state examination as a diagnostic and screening test for delirium: Systematic review and meta-analysis. General Hospital Psychiatry, 36, 627-633. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.09.003
50.
MulderI.FahyC.VelthausD.FeursteinK.GarciaM.SchaffersH.. . . StåhlbröstA. (2008, October). Towards harmonized methods and tools for Living Labs. Paper presented at the eChallenges e-2007 Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-32087
51.
MüllerS.SixsmithA. (2008). User requirements for ambient assisted living: Results of the SOPRANO project. Gerontechnology, 7(2), Article 168.
NovitzkyP.SmeatonA. F.ChenC.IrvingK.JacquemardT.O’BrolcháinF.. . . GordijnB. (2015). A review of contemporary work on the ethics of ambient assisted living technologies for people with dementia. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 707-765. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9552-x
54.
NyströmA.-G.LeminenS.WesterlundM.KortelainenM. (2014). Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in Living Labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 483-495. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.016
55.
PallotM.TrousseB.SenachB.ScapinD. (2010, August). Living Lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. Paper presented at the First European Summer School “Living Labs,” Paris, France.
56.
PerraultE. K.NazioneS. A. (2016). Informed consent—Uninformed participants: Shortcomings of online social science consent forms and recommendations for improvement. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11, 274-280. doi:10.1177/1556264616654610
57.
PinoM.BenvenisteS.KerhervéH.PicardR.LegouverneurG.Cristancho-LacroixV.. . . RigaudA.-S. (2014). Contribution of the Living Lab approach to the development, assessment and provision of assistive technologies for supporting older adults with cognitive disorders. Studia Informatica Universalis, 11, 34-62.
58.
PintoJ. K.SlevinD. P. (1988). Critical success factors across the project life cycle: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 19, 67-75.
59.
RamcharanP.CutcliffeJ. R. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research: Considering the “ethics as process” model. Health & Social Care in the Community, 9, 358-366.
60.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04
61.
RitchieJ.LewisJ.NichollsM. C.OrmstonR. (Eds.). (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, England: Sage.
62.
SainzF. J. (2012). Emerging ethical issues in Living Labs. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 3, 47-62.
63.
SaldanaJ. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
SchreierM. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London, England: Sage.
65.
SchuurmanD.De MarezL.BallonP. (2015, August). Living Labs: A systematic literature review. Paper presented at the Open Living Lab Days 2015, Istanbul, Turkey.
66.
SchuurmanD.MahrD.De MarezL.BallonP. (2013, June). A fourfold typology of Living Labs: An empirical investigation amongst the ENoLL community. Paper presented at the 2013 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) & IEEE International Technology Management Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands.
67.
SharpD.SalterR. (2017). Direct impacts of an urban Living Lab from the participants’ perspective: Livewell Yarra. Sustainability, 9(10), Article 1699. doi:10.3390/su9101699
68.
StåhlbröstA. (2012). A set of key principles to assess the impact of Living Labs. International Journal of Product Development, 17, 60-75. doi:10.1504/IJPD.2012.051154
69.
StåhlbröstA.Bergvall-KårebornB. (2011). Exploring users motivation in innovation communities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14, 298-314.
70.
StåhlbröstA.Bergvall-KårebornB. (2013). Voluntary contributors in open innovation processes. In LundströmJ. S. Z. ErikssonWibergM.HrastinskiS.EdeniusM.ÅgerfalkP. J. (Eds.), Managing open innovation technologies (pp. 133-149). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
71.
StirmanS. W. (2018). Future directions for practice-based research. In CoddR. T. (Ed.), Practice-based research: A guide for clinicians (pp. 242-249). London, England: Routledge.
72.
TinkerA. (2003). Older people and ethics. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 22, 206-210. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6612.2003.tb00499.x
73.
UkamakaM. O. (2009). Research with cognitively impaired participants. Journal of Nursing Law, 13(3), Article 73227162.
74.
van GeenhuizenM. (2014, September). Living Labs: Concepts and critical factors, with case studies from health care. Paper presented at the 14th ICTPI Conference-Building Sustainable R&D Centers in Emerging Technology Regions, Brno, Czech Republic.
75.
van GeenhuizenM. (2018). A framework for the evaluation of Living Labs as boundary spanners in innovation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36, 1280-1298. doi:10.1177/2399654417753623
76.
van WynsbergheA.RobbinsS. (2014). Ethicist as designer: A pragmatic approach to ethics in the lab. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 947-961. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9498-4
77.
VoytenkoY.McCormickK.EvansJ.SchliwaG. (2016). Urban Living Labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45-54. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053
78.
WaycottJ.MorgansA.PedellS.OzanneE.VetereF.KulikL.DavisH. (2015). Ethics in evaluating a sociotechnical intervention with socially isolated older adults. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 1518-1528. doi:10.1177/1049732315570136
79.
WengerE.McDermottR. A.SnyderW. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
80.
WestE.StuckelbergerA.PautexS.StaaksJ.GyselsM. (2017). Operationalising ethical challenges in dementia research—A systematic review of current evidence. Age and Ageing, 46, 678-687. doi:10.1093/ageing/afw250
81.
WesterlundM.LeminenS.HabibC. (2018). Key constructs and a definition of Living Labs as innovation platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8, 51-62.
