1. Introduction
Real-world experiments (RWEs) are practice-oriented research settings in which interventions are implemented and tested under actual conditions rather than in controlled laboratory environments. They combine elements of scientific enquiry with in-situ application, enabling researchers and practitioners to jointly develop, trial and refine solutions within the complexity of everyday social, technical and institutional contexts (Parodi et al. 2023). Emerging modes of real-world implementation have gained prominence as mechanisms for translating conceptual designs into applied change, fostering iterative learning processes and facilitating direct engagement with both influential and affected stakeholders (Voytenko et al. 2016).
A stakeholder analysis of the actors involved in organising an RWE is presented. The Pop-up Citizen Co-Lab was a mobile, low-threshold participation format designed to engage citizens with complex energy infrastructure topics, in particular heat grid systems, in an accessible, everyday setting. Developed in the context of Germany’s ongoing Wärmewende—the large-scale transformation of heating systems towards sustainable, low-carbon infrastructure—the experiment was embedded within broader national efforts to modernise energy networks and strengthen public acceptance of green infrastructure transitions (Sander & Weißermel 2023). Conducted during a public neighborhood event in Bochum, Germany, the intervention combined participatory engagement with cognitive elicitation techniques to document residents’ mental models and place-based knowledge. While the format was developed to elicit citizen perspectives, the present analysis focuses not on these participant-level insights but on the stakeholders involved in conceiving, organising and implementing the experiment, and on how their interactions shaped the process and outcomes.
The project brought together a constellation of stakeholders whose roles and levels of engagement evolved over time. At its core, the Center of Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS), as the lead academic partner, and the Smart City Innovation Unit (SCIU) of the City of Bochum, as the principal non-academic partner, jointly designed and implemented the RWE. Later in the process, the Wärmewende Unit of Bochum joined informally, contributing technical expertise on district heating and co-organising a public information event. Bochum’s citizenry participated in the Pop-up Citizen Co-Lab events, providing local knowledge and perspectives on urban energy systems. Understanding the roles, relationships and evolving involvement of these stakeholders forms the basis for the analysis presented in the following sections. While such multi-stakeholder RWEs are increasingly common, there is a lack of systematic analysis of how the roles and interactions between academic, municipal, and private actors evolve and shape project outcomes.
The research questions addressed in this paper are as follows:
How can RWEs be collaboratively designed by academic and non-academic actors?
What roles and communication structures support effective collaboration?
How can inclusive public engagement formats be developed in RWE settings?
The objective of this study is to provide a detailed analysis of the stakeholder constellation in an RWE, offering both a theoretical contribution to the understanding of RWEs and practical guidance for researchers and practitioners involved in similar transdisciplinary projects.
2. Theoretical framework
Interest in a robust sustainability transformation increasingly leads to the early involvement of civil society actors in the planning of research projects. Such tendencies are driven by the intention to overcome potential limitations of disciplinary knowledge and, thereby, to better address socially relevant challenges (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2007). This approach has become particularly popular in the urban context, given that sustainability projects often need to be implemented at the municipal level (Kampfmann et al. 2024; Nilssen & Hanssen 2022). Accordingly, it is unsurprising that a variety of research formats has emerged, of which so-called ‘real-world laboratories’ (RWLs) and ‘living labs’ (LLs) are perhaps the best known (Bouwma et al. 2022; Sieber et al. 2022). Although these modes differ in their respective manifestations—sometimes in subtle ways—certain commonalities can still be identified, which function as structural linkages between the formats and indicate a shared conceptual foundation. These include, in particular, an RWE research methodology as well as a transdisciplinary approach (Laborgne et al. 2021), so that these elements, among others, can be understood as constitutive characteristics of transformative research approaches. However, the fundamental consensus on these shared attributes does not imply that they can be viewed uncritically—rather, these specific requirements and challenges are subject to differing interpretations depending on the application context and thus require continuous reflection.
2.1 Challenges of transdisciplinarity
At a fundamental level, this becomes apparent in the understanding of the concept of transdisciplinarity itself. There is broad agreement that such research projects accordingly follow:
a reflexive, integrative, method-driven scientific principle aiming at the solution or transition of societal problems and concurrently of related scientific problems by differentiating and integrating knowledge from various scientific and societal bodies of knowledge.
This process can help to initiate reciprocal learning processes between various actors both inside and outside academia, and identify sustainable solutions (Ziehl 2021). Logically, this requires the inclusion of the aforementioned actors in the relevant phases of the project (Sonnberger & Lindner 2021; Pregernig et al. 2018), which are typically divided into co-design, co-production and reintegration phases (Bergmann et al. 2021). However such involvement almost inevitably brings with it differing ‘expectations, interpretations, and problem definitions’ among the actors (Nuske 2023: 234; see also Parodi et al. 2023). The previously mentioned requirement to involve actors in relevant phases should therefore be viewed as conditional: early involvement of other actors is desirable to ensure the conceptual integrity of the research project (Huning et al. 2021). However, such participation is not required in every phase of the project (Seebacher et al. 2018). The latter often leads to misunderstandings in transformation projects: it is frequently assumed that all relevant stakeholders must participate in all phases, even when the research design is simply not intended for this. In such cases, perceived necessities may counteract the research design.
The literature often cautions against the supposedly ideal-typical image of transdisciplinary research. Jahn et al. (2012) note that such research is frequently impeded by power asymmetries among the involved actors. Mobjörk (2010: 869) distinguishes between consultative and participatory transdisciplinarity, where in the former societal actors ‘merely respond to and react to research’, whereas in the latter they are understood as partners in a joint research process in which their knowledge is ‘equivalent to scientific knowledge’. Seebacher et al. (2018: 157) even refer to ‘permanent and comprehensive participation of all practice actors’ as a participation myth. And Pohl et al. (2017) developed a multi-stage model that enables the assessment of the relevance of potential actors for individual steps. Accordingly, it is unsurprising that calls are sometimes made for a realistic assessment of research objectives and available resources (Horcea-Milcu et al. 2022; Seebacher et al. 2018).
This is particularly true regarding the aspiration for comprehensive citizen participation: given the municipal embedding of many sustainability projects (see above), such involvement may initially appear necessary, as the acceptance of problem-solving strategies is crucial for the success of associated measures (Liu et al. 2021). However, it must be considered that full participation imposes high demands on methodological rigor and process management (Arnstein 1969). Citizens generally do not possess the methodological or disciplinary expertise required to make informed decisions in highly specialised research phases, such as statistical analysis or experimental design. An unreflective equating of expert and lay knowledge in these contexts can result in quality losses and methodological inconsistencies. Moreover, there is the risk of the participation paradox, wherein high expectations of involvement clash with the complexity or abstractness of certain research steps. Selective and phase-oriented participation can safeguard both motivation and effectiveness without overburdening the scientific process. At a fundamental level, it is also important to note that citizens’ interests are often shaped by specific value orientations, political positions or local conflicts. While these perspectives are valuable for contextualising research findings, unrestricted participation can distort prioritisation or the interpretation of the result. Realising citizen participation is a complex task that bears many risks for stakeholders in a variety of projects, but which can also help to stabilise modernisation processes and support public support.
Similar challenges and limitations are evident regarding the involvement of actors from the public sector. Comprehensive participation rights carry the risk of political influence over research content and outcomes. Public institutions do not operate solely based on knowledge but are often guided by political goals, legislative cycles and institutional interests. Full participation could therefore compromise the independence of scientific decisions and lead to politically opportunistic rather than evidence-driven prioritisation. Additionally, full inclusion can narrow problem definitions. Governmental and administrative perspectives are naturally oriented toward existing legal frameworks, institutional responsibilities and administrative routines. These structures may limit innovative potential by marginalising alternative solutions outside established competencies. Furthermore, it must be considered that the operational and decision-making rhythms of the public sector are often slower and more formalised than those in research. Full participation may thus lead to delays and increased coordination bureaucracy, which can be particularly obstructive in exploratory or methodologically flexible research phases. Applying transdisciplinary conditions is a challenging task, especially in public–private settings with complex stakeholder constellations. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to follow (and trust) the ideas of the concept—but organisers have to invest heavily into maintaining viable communication routines to ensure the integrity of the process.
2.2 Real-world experiments
A broad consensus exists regarding the fundamental understanding of transdisciplinarity. The situation is different with so-called RWEs. Although they are assigned a particular role in investigating causal relationships (Böschen 2023; Kubbe 2020; West 2021) and there is general agreement that these:
do not take place in the special world of scientific laboratories, but in and with society
thereby significantly enhancing the external validity of the results (Behnke et al. 2010; Druckman et al. 2011; Lynch 1999), Parodi et al. (2024: 217) note that the RWE setting ‘remains largely undefined in theory and practice’. While this may initially appear paradoxical, closer examination shows it to be logical: given the open-ended concept of RWEs, a wide range of design possibilities is reasonable. An example is provided by Groß et al. (2015) who situate RWEs between the poles of knowledge generation and application, as well as controlled and situationally specific boundary conditions (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Classification of real-world experiments within the dimensions of knowledge application and generation, and controllability of boundary conditions.
Note: Simplified representation based on Groß et al. (2015).
Given the breadth of design possibilities, it is unsurprising that the experimental nature of real RWEs is sometimes questioned, particularly as these may conflict with the ideal-typical understanding of comprehensive planning in research projects. Conversely, it should be noted that RWEs:
cater to a ‘planning culture’ that, more than technocratic-hierarchical planning, takes into account subjective values and perception patterns, intuitions, and traditions, primarily in a local, small-scale context.
Accordingly, it is only logical that RWEs represent one, if not the central, research mode in newer research designs. However, caution should be exercised in making the quality of a research design solely dependent on the originality of the RWE. Not only would this prioritise the study design over the research objectives, but also practical implications could arise. For example, an overly unconventional research design could have the opposite effect, discouraging rather than motivating citizens. Consequently, attempts to encourage participation through innovative methods are commendable (Scerri & Attard 2023), but a careful balance must be struck, and, if necessary, more ‘conservative’ methods should be preferred. Short-term participation formats promise success (Scruby et al. 2017), as they require relatively little effort to engage participants. This is especially relevant in sustainability transformation projects, where foundational knowledge is often sparse and, depending on the specific case, the associated personal consequences are already subject to controversial debate.
3. Methods
This research combines material derived from participatory observation during the process of developing and implementing transdisciplinary research as well as findings from an external evaluation assessing the project’s design, implementation and outcome.
The methodological foundation of this study is informed by the Three-Circle Model of actor involvement, as conceptualised by Seebacher et al. (2018). This model offers a heuristic framework for analysing the configuration and dynamics of actor participation within RWLs (Reallabore). This model enables both the categorisation of actors and the tracing of their movements within a fluid system of participation. While originally developed for RWLs, its emphasis on transdisciplinary collaboration and dynamic stakeholder engagement makes it transferable to the organisation of RWEs.
The model distinguishes three concentric circles that represent varying levels of actor involvement. The innermost circle, referred to as the core, comprises those actors who bear primary responsibility for the conception, coherence and coordination of the RWL. This typically includes academic researchers and select practice partners who contribute intensively to the design and strategic steering of experimental activities. The role of these core actors extends beyond operational tasks to include normative framing, methodological development and overall governance.
Encircling the core is the inner circle, which consists of actors who are continuously involved in the implementation of real-lab activities. These participants, often from municipal institutions, local businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or community organisations, engage in collaborative experimentation and co-creation. Their contributions are characterised by sustained commitment over time and significant investment of resources, such as time, knowledge or materials. While they may not hold decision-making authority equal to that of the core actors, their embeddedness in the project’s practical dimensions renders them essential to the RWLs’ functioning.
The outer circle encompasses actors whose involvement is more episodic, selective or event-driven. These may include stakeholders who attend individual workshops, contribute to specific phases of the project or offer strategic input without continuous engagement. While their participation is less intensive, they nonetheless influence the discursive and political context in which the RWL operates.
Importantly, the model does not treat these circles as fixed or impermeable; rather, it assumes that actors may shift between circles over time, reflecting changes in their availability, interest or institutional role. This fluidity is a key analytical feature, allowing for the dynamic mapping of actor constellations across the life course of the RWL.
The primary data source consisted of ethnographic field notes taken by one of the authors during the entire project life-cycle (27 October 2022–31 March 2025). This included observations from 12 project meetings, numerous informal discussions and three public events. More than 300 project-related documents, including meeting minutes (eight), email correspondence between partners (253) and public-facing materials (flyers, press releases, websites), were analysed to triangulate the observational data. Additionally, informal interviews were conducted with key representatives from the innovation unit (IU) of Stadtwerke Bochum, com.X to clarify their roles and perspectives.
Data analysis followed a thematic approach. First, all field notes and documents were reviewed to identify the key actors involved. Second, each actor was mapped onto one of the three circles (core, inner, outer) based on their level of responsibility, resource commitment and decision-making power as documented in the data. Third, the data were coded to identify key themes related to collaboration dynamics, such as ‘communication challenges’, ‘negotiation of expertise’ and ‘evolving roles’.
All participants from partner organisations were aware of the research component of the project. For the citizen participants at the public event, information was provided on-site, and their contributions were anonymised. All data were stored securely and anonymised where necessary to protect participant privacy.
4. Results
Applying the Three-Circle Model of Seebacher et al. (2018) to the partner constellation within the Bochum project revealed a structure that slowly changed over time, while some variables of the setting were adjusted during the development of the real-life experiment (Figure 2). Not only were technical service providers (outer circle) affected, but also different units within the municipal administration (inner circle). This section considers key actor groups as well as selected working procedures during the course of the project as these discussions reveal a slow shift and partial adjustment regarding the outcome and impact of the project (Table 1).
Figure 2
Actors in the Three-Circle Model.
Note: The core area includes the actors responsible for design and implementation. The inner circle consists of those actors who are at least partially involved in real-world laboratory (RWL) activities. In contrast, the actors in the outer circle are only marginally engaged. The environment contains actors who are not actively involved in the project. The model based on Seebacher et al. (2018).
CAIS = Center of Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS); DDI = Digital Democratic Innovations; SCIU = Smart City Innovation Unit; WW = Wärmewende Unit.
Table 1
Key dates and timeline of project activity.
| DATE | ACTIVITY | ACTORS |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Early encounters at conferences | Research programme, innovation unit |
| 14 March 2023 | Ideation sprint | Research programme, innovation unit |
| 19 September 2023 | Submission of a project proposal | Research programme, innovation unit, research institute, funding foundation |
| 1 April 2024 | Formal start: Taskforce Pop-up Citizen Co-Lab | Research programme, innovation unit |
| 7–8 September 2024 | RWE: Lindener Meile | Research programme, innovation unit, independent evaluation institute |
| 11 October 2024 | RWE: Science Festival Press Play | Research programme, innovation unit, independent evaluation institute |
| 10 December 2024 | Presentation at Stadtwerke | Research programme, energy transition unit |
| 29 January 2025 | Evaluation meeting | Research programme, independent evaluation institute |
| 19 March 2025 | Stadtlabor Wärmewende | Research programme, innovation unit, energy transition unit |
4.1 Core actors
Members of the research programme Digital Democratic Innovations (DDI) at the Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) took the academic lead on the project and were primarily responsible for the research design and cognitive elicitation methods. Representing the city administration, the Smart City Innovation Unit (SCIU), as a part of Bochum’s city administration, focused on practical implementation and citizen outreach.
First exchanges between the research institute CAIS and the IU of the city of Bochum emerged from initial public lectures and discussion events in Bochum. These early interactions revealed a shared thematic interest between academic enquiries into smart city development CAIS and the practical implementation of the federally funded Smart City Dialogue programme (IU).1 The collaboration was initiated by steady communication between the project leads at CAIS and officials at SCIU—which began as casual exchanges during events such as Smart City Con 2022 (Bochum), the Smart Country Convention 2022 (Berlin) and regional conferences of Model Smart City Projects (Bochum, Gelsenkirchen). Meeting protocols defined the shared roles within the project, such as the IU handling location permits for experiments, while CAIS agreed to prepare interview guidelines and documentation.
This gradually led to the realisation that a more structured partnership could generate mutual benefits. Two high-level meetings followed, during which the idea emerged to actively seek project concepts that could facilitate a deeper collaboration. Additionally, both partners had to obtain official permits (‘statement/letter of intent’) from the respective administrative bodies. At this point, the first internal differentiation of the consortium began to take shape: both core actors, DDI and IU, have to be understood as specialised groups within a larger structure. On the academic side, DDI stands out as the research unit driving the process, while CAIS is the organisational unit that functions as a legal entity. On the practical side, the IU is the active unit directly connected to the work process, while Bochum’s city administration is the overarching legal body.
In retrospect, two factors were particularly important for shaping a strongly application-oriented approach to this cooperation:
CAIS had established knowledge about transfer projects as a core component of its research programmes.
The Smart City Dialogue funding programme emphasised the implementation of model projects supported by applied research.
This ‘symmetry’ within the programmatic frameworks created intrinsic incentives for collaboration: while CAIS could strengthen its transdisciplinary research agenda, the IU team conceived the partnership as a valuable complement to their activities in implementing concrete projects, adding academic insight and methodological support.
4.1.1 Shaping interaction between the core actors
To initiate a concrete collaboration, the CAIS research team proposed a joint ideation sprint in March 2023 to explore potential synergies—in terms of both thematic focus and organisational set-up. A total of 13 participants engaged in the 180-min session: six members from CAIS and seven members from the IU.
The overarching question: What might a joint urban LL look like, and what can be learned from it? guided the session.2 The process included an introduction to the concept of RWLs, discussions around legal frameworks and experimental clauses, and brainstorming on digital dimensions of such a partnership.
As a result of this collaborative reflection, the central research question was divided into two key clusters: ‘content’ and ‘process’. These were further detailed in two structured questionnaires (Table 2).
Table 2
Research questions, clustered during the development of the urban real-world experiment.
| CONTENT-RELATED QUESTIONS (URBAN LIVING LABS AND SMART CITIES) | PROCESS-RELATED QUESTIONS (‘HOW DOES A LIVING LAB FUNCTION?’) |
|---|---|
| Do urban living labs provide access to novel urban data streams? (‘How do data come to the city?’) | What roles do researchers adopt in a living lab setting (e.g. co-creation, consultation, embedded research)? |
| Can urban living labs enhance communication about and engagement for smart city initiatives? | How are citizens integrated into the working process? |
| Which smart city narratives are particularly well-suited for living lab environments? | What characterises living labs that engage with digital transformation? |
| Are there smart city topics where living labs may not be an appropriate tool? | What is a suitable life-cycle for a living lab? |
| Can urban living labs contribute to more informed and better legitimatised policy decisions? | What legal considerations must be accounted for in the design process of a real-world lab? |
| Do living labs in smart cities necessarily require a digital focus? | |
| Are urban living labs inherently political spaces? |
Throughout the ideation sprint, agile methods were used to encourage creativity and collaboration. For instance, an initial ‘ecosystem mapping’ exercise helped identify relevant stakeholders and institutional structures for a potential lab. These insights fed into a ‘rapid prototyping’ session in which interdisciplinary teams sketched out preliminary concepts for smart city interventions that could serve as foundational use cases. Examples included a ‘health kiosk’ and an ‘Adopt-a-Tree’ initiative.
This early-stage exchange confirmed that there are substantive overlaps between CAIS’s research agenda and the IU’s operational framework that make the co-creation of an urban LL a feasible and promising endeavour. However, it also became apparent that implementing such a lab—given the high demands in terms of content, legal considerations and resource allocation—would require careful planning and significant financial investment. Thus, additional funding or partnerships with other municipal units were identified as potential strategies.
4.1.2 Stabilisation of the actor network by external funding
The opportunity to submit a proposal for the funding accelerated project concretisation. The call ‘Transformation Knowledge for Democracy’ sought ‘task forces’ that bring together academic and non-academic actors—criteria that perfectly matched the evolving relationship between CAIS’s research programme on Digital Democratic Innovations and Bochum’s IU. The joint proposal—Pop-up Citizen Co-Labs: Social Acceptance of Urban Innovations—was submitted in fall 2023 and received funding in early 2024. The project formally launched on 1 April 2024, with an initial 12-month timeline, later extended to 18 months through prudent budgeting. This grant addressed a major concern raised during the ideation sprint: securing sufficient staffing and financial resources for the experimental, participatory elements of the project.
With these conditions in place, the collaboration was able to establish the conditions for conducting a small set of RWEs, combining experimental, citizen-centric formats with flexible, mission-oriented project development.
Over the course of the project-funded collaboration, reliable processes of cooperation gradually developed and were adapted as the project progressed. Following the hiring of new staff members in April–May 2024, the planning phase was advanced through monthly meetings. These meetings focused on information-sharing and coordination between the project partners. CAIS’s team took the lead on content-related preparatory work, including the theoretical framework, development of the experimental setting and creation of materials. In collaboration with the IU, a strategy was developed to embed the citizen lab into the broader context of Bochum’s Smart City strategy.
4.2 The inner circle
As noted above, CAIS and Bochum’s city administration mostly acted as legal entities, supporting administrative processes and providing workspace for project meetings. As such, they built a sustainable framework allowing the core actors to follow their pursuit to establish new routines for cooperation. Still, the core actors had to report back to their ‘home institutions’ about the project development. Eventually, this led to delays in setting up meetings or agreeing on a timeline.
The ideation sprint suggested the need to focus and define the project partnership attached to a specific urban technology challenge. Initially, climate sensors (SenseBox) and low-barrier communication technologies (LoRaWan) were considered. However, technical issues (e.g. unreliable hardware, insufficient participant numbers, data-handling uncertainties, unclear responsibilities) made this unviable.
A more promising approach centred on a publicly relevant and widely debated issue that also aligned well with citizen engagement and had strategic priority for the city: the ‘urban heating transition’ (Wärmewende). This topic focuses on restructuring municipal heat supply systems through renewable energy sources (solar, geothermal, wind power, mine water), expanding district heating networks, and evolving into a smart thermal grid. Following the German federal coalition’s 2023 decision to subsidise ecofriendly heating modernisation, an intense public debate arose around the highly contested 2024 Building Energy Act (Gebäudeenergiegesetz—GEG). Given this controversy, the issue was well-known among citizens and had already spurred local action: in early 2023, Bochum launched a dedicated Wärmewende Unit to coordinate efforts across departments, including the municipal utility, housing associations and city administration.
It is important to note that no formal or ongoing working relationship had existed between the key municipal project partner (IU Bochum) and the Heat Transition Unit. Both units operate independently, although occasional points of contact arise when thematic overlaps occur. Initially, Stadtwerke’s involvement was limited to providing technical data and information about the local activities regarding energy transformation.
The RWEs thematic focus on district heating (Fernwärme) and the decentralised control of thermal energy networks attracted the attention of staff at Stadtwerke Bochum (Bochum’s public utilities company). This led to informal exchanges with members of the internal Heat Transition Unit (Wärmewende Unit), as the citizen survey component had generated significant interest. Initial findings from the survey were presented to the unit on 10 December 2024 at the Stadtwerke Bochum offices.
The process of an ex-post integration of a new partner organisation illustrates a common challenge in organising transdisciplinary research: collaborations with external partners can shift during the course of a project. In this case, the set of collaborators was expanded to include an additional stakeholder. Such developments typically require increased communication and coordination efforts, particularly from the central project actors, adding to the overall organisational demands.
4.3 The outer circle
The funder provided crucial financial sponsorship but had no operational involvement, thus fitting the outer circle definition. The citizens of Bochum participated during the RWE itself, providing essential local knowledge that directly influenced the data collected. Furthermore, citizens were addressed as a specific audience during the townhall meeting (Bürgerlabor) organised by the IU and DDI as core actor, supported by the Wärmewende Unit as a new actor within the inner circle.
Once two dates for the RWE called Pop-up Citizen Co-Labs had been set—Lindener Meile (7–8 September 2024) and the science festival Press Play (11 October 2024)—the focus had shifted to concrete preparations for these events. Flexible meeting times were scheduled between the project teams at DDI and the IU, with a particular emphasis on identifying points of contact and overlapping interests. Working materials were shared digitally, and most of the planning sessions were conducted via online meetings.
Beyond its thematic relevance, the project aligned with a key concept in sustainable innovation research: strategic listening, which promotes the early integration of public voices into urban planning and technology development. From this perspective, co-developing a transdisciplinary collaboration in the spirit of an RWE appeared both timely and appropriate.
As the project outline provided by the funder explicitly demanded the creation of recommendations for practitioners, it was decided to include another actor in the consortium: the Bochum-based consulting agency com.X has specialised in supporting and consulting scientists in organising and realising surveys, interviews, and experiments. Within the project, com.X monitored both instalments of the RWE (Lindener Meile, science festival Press Play), interviewing participants of the experiments as well as passers-by who did not engage in the survey. Additionally, there were interviews and debriefings with team members of DDI and the IU to better understand the aims of the core actors. Based on their data collection, com.X provided an evaluation report (Gabriel & Quast 2025) discussing the methods applied during the RWE, its outreach to the citizenry and the participatory character of the entire setting. The inclusion of com.X helped to improve the informational material used in the RWE, supported the securing of results, and provided additional insights into both the outcome and the impact of the RWE.
The expanded project constellation led to new joint activities toward the end of the project phase. A public information event for citizens—‘City Lab on Tour’ (19 March 2025)—on the topic of district heating was organised and delivered jointly by CAIS, IU and Heat Transition Unit. While the IU was responsible for planning and on-site logistics, the Wärmewende Unit and CAIS provided presentations and discussions on the topic. While the Heat Transition Unit described the technical background, the CAIS team shared feedback and comments from residents who participated in the Pop-up Citizen Co-Lab events.
5. Discussion
This article has explored the conceptual and practical journey of co-developing an RWE at the intersection of academic research and municipal governance.
The authors’ perspective on the organisational development and evolving collaboration among participating actors highlights the flexible nature of such project constellations. It also illustrates the shifting roles and relationships between actors, which can be understood in terms of the model proposed by Seebacher et al. (2018). The ‘core area’ includes the actors responsible for the design and implementation. The ‘inner circle’ consists of those actors who are at least partially involved in RWL activities. CAIS took the lead as the main actor responsible for including the IU as a non-academic partner. In contrast, the actors in the ‘external circle’ are only marginally engaged in these activities, i.e. the Wärmewende Unit joining the project constellation during the later stages of the project. The ‘surrounding world’ contains actors who are not actively involved in the project. Nevertheless, selected members of Bochum’s citizenry became more active when participating in the Pop-up Citizen Co-Lab experiments.
Very early in the process, the ideation sprint of the two core actors—DDI and IU—already exposed the inherent complexity of translating the real-world cooperation between academic and non-academic actors into practice. These experiences suggested that launching a full-scale urban LL would be both time- and resource-intensive. In the immediate debrief following the sprint, the need for dedicated personnel emerged as a critical prerequisite—specifically, the integration of at least one new team member solely responsible for developing and coordinating the joint project.
Nevertheless, the session also revealed valuable outcomes and learning opportunities: researchers gained direct access to municipal practitioners, insights into institutional workflows and exposure to typical smart city tools such as sensors, digital displays, apps, data dashboards and software enabling citizen participation.
Later in the course of the project development, the authors learned about the different affordances of various forms of transdisciplinary research settings. RWEs were regarded as the smallest—and least controlled—element that can be connected to the idea of broader RWLs. These offer more control than smaller, stand-alone experimental spaces. LLs are the most rigorous and regulated environments, but also have the strongest effects for effective changes in practice, because the connection to the legislative realm is more intense as with the latter two and the results might be considered more binding.
The research is on the actor constellation and the communicative structures between the stakeholders. The critical points for implementing new ideas and strategies into public administration are the transdisciplinarity discussions. These function as a catalyst that enables novel forms of exchange and dialogue between academic and non-academic actors while also including the ‘broader public’ (i.e. the citizens of Bochum), thereby stabilising otherwise more fragile processes of modernisation.
These findings underscore that RWEs are not simply bounded sites of experimentation. Instead, they function as ‘relational infrastructures’: networks of people, knowledge, tools and legal flexibilities that foster iterative co-creation. When embedded in urban life, these infrastructures can connect divergent knowledge cultures, democratise innovation and challenge static models of participation by meeting citizens where they are. The Pop-up Citizen Co-Lab as the core element of the RWE exemplified this shift: by relocating experimentation into the fabric of everyday urban routines, it brought to light previously overlooked knowledge, concerns and aspirations about critical technologies. Additionally, it also helped to connect formerly separated units within the bureaucracy of Bochum city’s administration.
This RWE also revealed the fragility of such relational infrastructures. Tensions between scientific rigour and accessibility, between institutional timelines and civic rhythms, and between policy goals and local knowledge demand continuous negotiation—these frictions have been documented in the evaluation report (Gabriel & Quast 2025). ‘Closing the circle’ in this context does not imply resolution or finality, but rather a return to the core ethos of experimental research in unconventional settings, using innovative forms of organisation: the commitment to ongoing, reflective experimentation that evolves in dialogue with its setting.
As cities face intensifying pressures—from climate change to digital transformation—urban RWEs offer a way forward that is neither top-down nor bottom-up, but instead grounded in responsive reciprocity. They remind one that sustainable urban futures are not merely planned or engineered: they must also be co-experienced, iteratively questioned and continually made public. This study demonstrates the value of integrating elements of a field study and agile methods, creating a productive environment for academic as well as non-academic actors. By embedding participation in citizens’ everyday spaces and focusing on communication dynamics, the Bochum Pop-up Citizen Co-Lab offers a replicable blueprint for inclusive, actionable and sustainable urban innovation. The findings address calls in the literature for more diverse stakeholder inclusion and practical methods for public engagement in transdisciplinary experiments.
The potential of urban RWEs is shown as dynamic, transdisciplinary infrastructures which can experiment with and shape urban transformation. The collaboration between diverse actors has shown how a variety of approaches (agile methods, field experiments and low-threshold participation formats) can support inclusive, location-based engagement with complex urban technologies.
This research contributes to the evolving discourse on transdisciplinary research methods. It offers a practical framework for integrating experimental research with municipal governance. The combination of agile workflows and participatory experiments enabled mutual learning between academic and administrative actors, while also creating space for broader public engagement. This approach also revealed the limitations of collaborative urban experimentation, particularly in contexts marked by regulatory constraints, fragmented responsibilities and diverse stakeholder expectations.
The findings highlight that citizens are not passive recipients of innovation but active meaning-makers with valuable insights, concerns and aspirations. However, realising this potential requires more than invitations to participate: it calls for new communication strategies, empathetic formats, and the institutional willingness to adapt and iterate. RWEs, when designed with care and reflexivity, can serve as experimental democracies: spaces where knowledge is not only produced but also contested, negotiated and reimagined.
In times of rapid urban and technological change, such experimental infrastructures are vital. They help close the gap between policy, science and society—not by simplifying complexity, but by embracing it as a condition of meaningful transformation. By embedding experimentation within everyday life, urban RWEs can act as both tools and symbols of democratic innovation in cities striving toward more just, sustainable and inclusive futures.
6. Conclusions
The findings of this study reveal the potential of real-world laboratories to better describe and partially bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and real-world applications, while offering insights into the practical and methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. By highlighting the value of commonly developing experiments in public settings, this study contributes to the growing discourse on real-world experiments (RWEs) and their role in advancing sustainable societal transformation. Its implications extend to policymakers, researchers, and practitioners aiming to design and implement living labs for impactful and inclusive innovation.
This study has shown the potential of urban RWEs as infrastructures for urban transformation. By examining the development and implementation of such an experiment, the positive outcomes and challenges were shown for working in a multistakeholder group. The collaboration illustrated how agile methods and participatory formats can open spaces for mutual learning among academic, administrative and civic actors, while also exposing the difficulties posed by regulatory constraints, fragmented responsibilities and diverse expectations.
These results highlight the active role of different stakeholders in shaping experimentation processes and point to the value of reflecting on how scientific work interacts with municipal governance, practitioners and citizens. RWEs thus emerge not only as tools for testing urban technologies but also as occasions for negotiating relationships between science and society in contexts of rapid urban and technological change.
Notes
[1] See www.smart-city-dialog.de/en.
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Data accessibility
The organisation of the collected data follows FAIR-Data principles to ensure reusability. The collected data are organised in common open formats. Text data are primarily stored as txt or docx files, tabular data in csv files. The repositories (e.g. GESIS or Qualiservice) intended for publication will assign a digital object identifier (DOI) to the data. The authors understand data management as an ongoing process that is adjusted as necessary as the research project progresses. If advice is needed, the authors can draw on the Center of Advanced Internet Studies’ (CAIS) internal advisory structures through the dedicated Research Data and Methods team.
Ethical approval
All partnering organisations were informed about the conducted research, and the use of minutes, protocols and e-mail correspondence for documentation purposes. Citizens participating in the real-world experiment (RWE) were provided transparent information on-site about the character and scope of the research. All their contributions to the RWE were anonymised. Accordingly, all data related to the RWE were stored securely and can be made available for reuse (see above).