University campuses as living laboratories

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34680/urbis-2024-4(2)-183-200

Nika Sedikova

Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, Tomsk, Russia [email protected] 

ORCID: 0009-0002-0249-0499

Ekaterina Inozemtseva

Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, Tomsk, Russia [email protected] 

ORCID: 0009-0002-1735-0413

Natalia Kakhaeva

Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, Tomsk, Russia [email protected] 

ORCID: 0009-0007-4765-6874

Daria Chernikova

National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia [email protected]
ORCID: 0009-0007-2811-7736

ABSTRACT

The study explicates the methodology of living laboratories as open experiment spaces in a real urban environment, which provides the development and testing of technological and social innovations in the city, contributes to the development of technological entrepreneurship and interdisciplinary communication, as well as strengthens the emotional connection with the place of making efforts. The application of the methodology of living laboratories is especially effective in cities where universities are the driving force of development, which forms a link between basic science, applied research, and their implementation in real life and the social sphere. The creation of live laboratories on university campuses helps to reveal the potential of the academic community. It forms the prerequisites for a joint search for solutions to complex socially significant issues. The article analyzes the experience of creating and operating live laboratories in Tomsk, where in 2017, for the first time in Russia, this world practice was adapted and applied to promote urban development. Today, Tomsk has a network of living laboratories, including seven sections of university campuses integrated into the urban environment with different focuses of experiments. The authors present the concept of a living laboratory and its basic principles. The article describes the full cycle of experiments in a real urban environment, from the key prerequisites, stages of analysis, experiment design, and team formation to the direct implementation of innovative solutions in the urban area, a new paradigm of flexible management and methods for measuring the effects of experiments. In addition, the authors suggest an adapted approach to participatory planning and a methodology for involving users and stakeholders at all stages of the process: from identifying needs to implementing and scaling new solutions. The article also contains examples of experiments carried out on the territory of the Tomsk live laboratory. The research allows us to form an idea of the methodology of living laboratories, and the experience and effects of its application in urban environments on university campuses.

KEYWORDS: living laboratories, experiment, innovation, stakeholders, quadruple helix, participatory planning, urban environment.

References

Brem, A. (2008). The Boundaries of innovation and entrepreneurship. Gabler.

Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V. P., Kulkki, S., & Hribernik, K. A. (2006). Living labs as a multi-contextual R&D methodology. IEEE International Technology Management Conference, 1‒8.

Fernández-Aráoz, C. (2014). 21st-century talent spotting. Harvard Business Review, 92(6), 46–138.

Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results-based management (2022). OECD Development Assistance Committee. URL: https://one.oecd.org/docu-ment/DCD/DAC/EV(2022)2/en/pdf.

High, C., & Nemes, G. (2009). Purpose and perspective: Using soft systems methods in stakeholder analysis. In Stakeholder Perspectives in Evaluating Sustainable Development. 16–18 October, 2009, Budapest, Hungary. URL: https://oro.open.ac.uk/25826/5/High2009a.pdf.

Hunt, J. (2006). Agile Software Construction. Springer.

Kutsenko, E., & Kokareva, А. (2017). Living labs as a tool of innovation clusters develop-ment. Open Innovations Moscow International Forum ‒ 2017. URL: https://www.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/216157692?ysclid=lxc0fyah3c76023912. (In Russian).

Laloux, F. (2023). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage in human consciousness (V. Kulyabina, Trans.). Mann, Ivanov & Fer-ber. (In Russian).

Nesti, G. (2017). Co-production for innovation: The urban living lab experience. Policy and Society, 37(3), 310–325.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.

Sänn, A. (2017). The preference-driven lead user method for new product development. Springer Gabler.

Slonimskaya, М. (2016). Living labs as a tool for open innovation in network structures. Belarusian Economic Journal, 4, 84–98. (In Russian).

Information about the authors

Nika B. Sedikova
Master of Customer Relations,
Co-Head of Living Labs Tomsk Network
Tomsk State University of Architecture
and Building
2, Solyanaya Sq., Tomsk, 634003,
Russian Federation

ORCID: 0009-0002-0249-0499

E-mail: [email protected]

Ekaterina I. Inozemtseva
Head of Living Labs Tomsk Network,
Expert at Project Management Department
Tomsk State University of Architecture
and Building
2, Solyanaya Sq., Tomsk, 634003,
Russian Federation

ORCID: 0009-0002-1735-0413

E-mail: [email protected]

Natalia V. Kakhaeva
Coordinator of Living Labs Tomsk Network,
Expert at Project Management Department
Tomsk State University of Architecture
and Building
2, Solyanaya Sq., Tomsk, 634003,
Russian Federation

ORCID: 0009-0007-4765-6874

E-mail: [email protected]

Daria V. Chernikova
Cand. Sci. (Philosophy)
Deputy Head of the Center
for Urban Studies & Regional Development
National Research Tomsk State University
36, Lenin Ave., Tomsk, 634050,
Russian Federation
ORCID: 0009-0007-2811-7736
Web of Science ResearcherID: KHY-8644-2024
Scopus AuthorID: 57219176417

E-mail: [email protected]

For citation:
Sedikova, N. B., Inozemtseva, E. I., Kakhaeva, N. V., & Chernikova, D. V. (2024). University campuses as living laboratories. Urbis et Orbis. Microhistory and Semiotics of the City, 4(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.34680/urbis-2024-4(2)-183-200