Researchers’ shifting roles in living labs for knowledge co-production

1. Introduction

As flooding events become increasingly present in urban areas, Brussels Capital Region (referred to as Brussels) struggled to find innovative means to fight a deep-rooted problem: how to tackle urban flooding while increasing the well-being of communities living in flood-prone areas. This is the type of complex question fit to be explored by urban living labs (ULLs). Brusseau’s (Brussels Sensitive to Water) living labs (LLs) addressed the challenge by fostering residents’ expertise as a key source of knowledge. Researchers from different disciplines worked together with activists, practitioners and public authorities to apply this approach. The roles of researchers changed from one LL to the next, sometimes even within the same event; the researchers often struggled to keep up to this new environment or to find their own way to produce knowledge. As participants in this experience, the authors of this paper wondered whether, how and why researchers change and adapt their practice to the LL.

This type of reflection has entered the growing literature about ULLs. As an emerging action-research practice, a ULL involves citizens, civil society organisations, researchers and public authorities in implementing place-based local solutions to respond to growing urban challenges (Bulkeley et al. 2016). As spaces for experimentation, LLs are known for creating the conditions for transdisciplinary action research where researchers develop knowledge, with both practical and reflective dimensions together with other actors, including those from different fields (Reason & Bradbury 2008). At the core of this process is knowledge co-production, ‘a collaborative and dynamic knowledge-generation process that more fully grounds scientific understanding in a relevant social, cultural, and political context’ (Schuttenberg & Guth 2015: 1).

In this new research environment, research indicates that the role of researchers (affiliated to academic institutions) broadens from observers of a phenomenon to engaged participants who trigger and sustain change such as facilitators, issue advocates or reflective scientists (Herr & Anderson 2015; Kruijf et al. 2022). Researchers change roles and methods during their actions in LLs to, among other objectives, facilitate better understanding of the conditions in which knowledge co-production occurs; integrate the perspectives of the most vulnerable actors; create space for learning and empowerment; and translate complex ‘technical’ products, such as hydrological and climate models, into usable and ‘easy-to-understand’ language (Brandsen et al. 2018; Rickards et al. 2014). In this context, a more structural understanding is needed on the roles of researchers and their impact on knowledge co-production to support researchers in navigating these new and turbulent waters. The aim of this paper is to address this identified need. It investigates the question: what roles do researchers assume during LLs and what are the drivers behind these roles?

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 shows the state of the art on the questions. Section 3 explains the process of data collection and analysis. Section 4 follows the development of the conceptual framework of the research, inspired by Schuttenberg and Guth (2015) and Kruijf et al. (2022), to identify knowledge co-production conditions as drivers for a typology of roles taken by researchers within LLs. Section 5 presents the application of the framework to in-depth research involving two Brusseau LLs, linking knowledge co-production conditions to the roles taken by researchers. Sections 6 and 7 offer a list of elements to consider as recurrent conditions that influence researchers’ roles as baseline for strengthening researcher’s capacity in engaging in LLs.

2. Roles of researchers in living labs

LLs have emerged across Europe as place-based platforms for co-creating innovative, context-sensitive solutions to urban and societal challenges. These environments foster collaboration between diverse stakeholders – citizens, public authorities, researchers or private actors – within physical or virtual settings to develop, experiment and validate technologies, services, and policies in real-life scenarios (Hossain et al. 2019; Leminen et al. 2012; Westerlund & Leminen 2011). Rooted in the principles of open innovation, LLs are conceived as networks or spaces, characterised by openness and user engagement, fostering innovation through mutual learning and iterative development (Nyström et al. 2014). Common across this perspective are various key features: user involvement, real-life environment, service co-creation, multistakeholder participation and the use of diverse tools and methods (Greve et al. 2020). Particularly within urban research, LLs have been recognised for their potential to bridge diverse knowledge systems and foster co-creation across sectors. Franz (2015) highlights their relevance in addressing socially driven research questions, noting that LLs can serve as inclusive spaces where residents, policymakers and researchers co-develop solutions tailored to local needs.

Existing research on LLs has primarily concentrated on analysing their foundational paradigms, with particular emphasis on open and user-driven innovation (Edwards-Schachter et al. 2012; Hossain et al. 2019), as well as on identifying their defining characteristics (Ballon & Schuurman 2015; Greve et al. 2020). Other authors have specifically investigated the different roles that actors play in LLs. Among them, Westerlund and Leminen (2011) have proposed a typology of four actor categories:

• enablers, who provide resources and institutional legitimacy (e.g. public institutions, financiers and NGOs) (Hossain et al. 2019; Leminen et al. 2012);

• providers, such as universities and consultancies, who supply knowledge and support (Hossain et al. 2019; Leminen et al. 2016);

• users (e.g. citizens), who actively participate in co-design and evaluation (Hossain et al. 2019); and

• utilisers, including businesses and public authorities, who apply the outcomes of innovation (Hossain et al. 2019; Leminen et al. 2012).

Nyström et al. (2014: 485) have further conceptualised actors’ roles in LLs by considering them as dynamics, often negotiated and reconfigured throughout the LL life cycle.

Despite this growing scholarly interest on the role of actors enabling innovation in LLs, a nuanced and systematic understanding of the specific role of intermediary actors, like researchers, remains underdeveloped in the academic literature on LLs (Hossain et al. 2019; Nyström et al. 2014). While researchers are often categorised as providers (Hossain et al. 2019), practical experience demonstrates that their contributions often go beyond technical support or knowledge transfer.

Researchers can adopt multiple and shifting roles depending on the context, the phase of the project and the stakeholder constellation. The hybrid and multifaceted involvement includes designing research protocols, managing data, and supporting co-creation or capacity-building. Their actions can be influenced by different drivers and motivations, including the broader governance and power distribution structures within the LLs (Greve et al. 2020; Hossain et al. 2019). Notably, there remains a significant gap in both theory and practice regarding how researchers navigate and negotiate these hybrid roles in LLs and what this engagement entails in their research practice and environment.

To address this gap, the present study adopts the perspective of the researcher, considering the LL as a transdisciplinary research space where innovations are explored within boundaries shaped by the knowledge co-production process (Hermesse & Vankeerberghen 2020; Kruijf et al. 2022). This perspective places the researcher at the core of the analysis, emphasising the mobilisation of diverse forms of knowledge – both experiential and scientific – within a transdisciplinary framework as a key element for driving innovation, i.e. including the root causes of urban sustainability problems, the proposed solutions and the potential for societal uptake (Armitage et al. 2011).

The literature on transdisciplinary research for sustainability transitions offers a broader framework to examine the role of researchers engaged in action research and knowledge co-production processes within LLs (Kruijf et al. 2022; Pohl et al. 2010; Wittmayer & Schäpke 2014). Previous studies have distinguished between the position of an ‘insider’ (a researcher who produces knowledge while actively participating as an actor) and an ‘outsider’ (a researcher who maintains a distance from the field of study) (Louis & Bartunek 1992). However, Herr and Anderson (2015) stress that researchers operate along a continuum between these two extremes.

In-betweenness is another way of characterising the fluid positionality of researchers, according to studies on qualitative inquiry in global south contexts (Jimenez et al. 2022). This concept refers to the intermediary space in which researchers’ practices and relationships with actors become hybridised (Jimenez et al. 2022). In this space, researchers’ positionalities multiply and shift, leading to different knowledge outcomes (Kerstetter 2012). How researchers position themselves in this space is shaped by demographic attributes (such as ethnicity, age, gender and class) (Soedirgo & Glas 2020; Sultana 2007) but also by other factors tied to personal and professional experience (Berger 2015). Others challenge the insider/outsider dichotomy, emphasising that researchers’ positionality is equally influenced by contextual factors linked to institutional, social and political realities in which the research is embedded, which in turn shape researchers’ identity in engaging with these settings (Jimenez et al. 2022). Recognising this in-between space complicates efforts to define researchers’ roles and boundaries in transdisciplinary research, calling for a more nuanced understanding of how these roles are negotiated and redefined.

Recent scholarship has proposed a more nuanced categorisation of the possible roles that researchers may assume when engaging in science–society interfaces (Kruijf et al. 2022; Wittmayer & Schäpke 2014). Within this context, researchers are often viewed as initiators and frontrunners in knowledge co-production processes oriented towards sustainability transitions. Beyond generating data and offering technical expertise, they are frequently involved in leading practical experimentation, fostering trust and collaboration among diverse stakeholders (Qiao et al. 2018) and enhancing the capacity and willingness of local governments to adopt and implement adaptive solutions (Burns et al. 2015).

The present study has built upon this literature on transdisciplinary research and knowledge co-production to develop a conceptual framework for examining the multiple roles of researchers within LLs and the underlying drivers that shape these roles – thereby broadening the understanding of the diverse positionalities that researchers may occupy within the space of in-betweenness.

3. Methods

Driven by their experiences in LLs, the authors’ research began with self-reflection and continued with a more structural understanding of these experiences. The first guiding questions – whether, how and why researchers change and adapt their practice to the LL – were confronted with existing literature on the topic. After a literature review on LLs (both from English- and French-speaking research), the main research question was determined: what roles researchers take during LLs and the drivers behind them. The core of our approach is a conceptual framework that identifies drivers from the process of knowledge co-production (i.e. contextual factors, individual capacities, co-production process and outputs/outcomes) as motivation for the different roles taken by researchers.

The conceptual framework was adapted and tested through a process of data collection and analysis divided into three main parts carried out in parallel (2022–24) (Figure 1). The first part focused on the conditions of knowledge co-production based on the framework of Schuttenberg and Guth (2015) as drivers for researchers’ roles. Three focus groups were organised with researchers with experience in working in various LLs (Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Senegal, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tanzania). The wide variety of contexts allowed the exploration of a wide range of conditions to develop the most comprehensive perspective possible that accounts for the evident and relevant contextual differences. The researchers were from natural, spatial and social sciences, and the thematic of their LLs included environmental issues. Carried out in the form of workshops, the focus groups refined the research questions and modified and completed the conditions proposed by the framework.

Figure 1

The second part concerned the identification of a typology of researchers’ roles, starting from the work of Kruijf et al. (2022). For this purpose, five semi-structured interviews with researchers working within LL in Brussels were used. During the interviews, a mental map (Appendix 1 in the supplemental data online) was created with each researcher identifying their different roles and linking them with the four main conditions (contextual factors, co-production process, individual capabilities and output/outcomes). The third part of the research entailed case study research on two LLs located in Brussels. During this part, the framework was completed with a link between drivers (knowledge co-production conditions) and the roles of actors. The choice of the LLs is related to the authors’ personal involvement in the process that allowed using the data collection archives, documentations and participatory observations collected during the six-year span of the LLs’ activities. Furthermore, the data analysis included the answers from the five semi-structured interviews carried out in the second part of our study, focusing on the relation between conditions and roles of the researchers.

4. Roles of researchers in knowledge co-production framework

5. Results

5.2 Researchers’ roles in LLs

During the two LLs, researchers with different expertise worked in collaboration in a transdisciplinary approach. Their interactions did not follow a continuous line. During each LL, they engaged with the LLs, withdrew from them, and took on different roles within them. Their roles combined covered the three spheres of policy, action and knowledge (Figure 2). Several findings can be drawn from the analysis.

Figure 2

First, by looking at the sum of the roles taken by researchers in Brusseau and Brusseau bis LLs, no substantial difference can be observed. Nevertheless, individual researchers changed roles from one LL to another or left the consortium as new researchers joined. As one of the researchers observed, ‘The roles were defined on a case-by-case basis, often depending on availability and needs during coordination meetings’ (Interview 1, 2024). This implies that the type of LL – either action research for Brusseau or policy action for Brusseau bis, changed the individual trajectory of researchers, while the needs of expertise within the LLs remained similar. The differences observed revealed a reduction in the capacity of researchers to act in terms of production of meaningful output/outcomes or to play more reflexive roles (i.e. disappearance of the role of reflexive scientist). The conditions identified by the researchers were financial restrictions, the Covid pandemic and the involvement of public authorities:

[Brusseau Bis] became more technical and less opened to residents. We lost the initial enthusiasm. It was a very difficult period for all the partners and stakeholders involved. In the end the results did not have the expected impact, mostly because of the resistance to change of public authorities.

(Interview 2, 2024)

Second, researchers identified the motivation behind the roles (or the drivers) in relation to the four categories: contextual factors, co-production process (internal to LL – methods), individual factors and the requirements for outputs and outcomes. The mental maps (Appendix 1 in the supplemental data online) produced during the interviews facilitated the linking of the roles taken by researchers with drivers (Table 3). The results confirmed several of the potential drivers identified by the expert groups (Table 1).

Table 3

The drivers identified by researchers respecting their different roles in the Brusseau and Brusseau bis LLs.

TYPE OF SPACE	ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER	CONDITIONS (DRIVERS)	MOTIVATING THE ROLES
Action (stakeholder) space	Process facilitator	Contextual factors	Characteristics of social movements – rising awareness of environmental challenges (Interview 2)
		Co-production process	Consortium partnership (Interviews 1 and 3)
		Individual capabilities	Physical, natural and social sciences (Interviews 3 and 4)
	Project manager	Co-production process	Consortium partnership (Interview 3)
	Expert in learning	Individual capabilities	Personal motivations and career status (Interview 1) Previous training in anthropology (Interview 1)
Knowledge space	Reflexive facilitator	Contextual factors	Academic environment and protocol (Interviews 3 and 4)
		Outputs/outcomes	Knowledge relevant for other scientists (Interview 4)
	Science arbiter	Contextual factors	Characteristics of social movements – Need of the community (Interview 1)
		Co-production process	Consortium partnership (Interview 1)
	Technical expert	Individual capabilities	Previous training in natural and applied sciences (Interview 1)
		Co-production process	Consortium partnership (Interview 5)
		Individual capabilities	Cultural knowledge and practice (Interview 5)
	Reflective scientist	Contextual factors	Institutional context (Interview 1)
		Contextual factors	Academic environment and protocol (Interview 3)
		Outputs/outcomes	Knowledge relevant for other scientists (Interview 3) Sustainability solutions and changes (Interview 1)
Policy space	Intermediary	Co-production process	Engagement of representative stakeholders (Interview 4)
		Individual capabilities	Intellectual stimulation (Interview 2)
	Honest broker	Individual capabilities	Researcher taking a militant stance even under external criticism (Interview 2)
	Issue advocate	Co-production process	Engagement of representative stakeholders (Interview 2) Consortium partnership (Interview 3)

6. Discussion

7. Conclusions

Drawing on a three-step analysis that includes an in-depth case study of the Brusseau LL experience in Brussels, this study has provided a reflective and empirically grounded exploration of the multifaceted and shifting roles that researchers may assume within LLs, along with the potential conditions that shape these roles. The study has highlighted the complexity and fluidity of researchers’ roles, which shifted dynamically across different LLs in response to internal and external conditions. By linking lived experience with theoretical insights, the study contributes to an emerging field of inquiry by interrogating the active role of intermediary actors, such as researchers, in co-producing actionable, context-sensitive knowledge within LLs. Furthermore, it proposes a coherent and structured approach to better equip researchers to navigate the complexities of transdisciplinary action research in response to pressing urban and environmental challenges.

The conceptual framework developed in this study is a valuable analytical tool to explore the different possible positionalities that characterise the in-betweenness of researchers’ roles within LLs at the intersection of knowledge, action and policy spaces. Furthermore, the conceptual framework details the conditions of co-producing knowledge in the context of LLs shaping researchers’ roles, which differ from traditional multidisciplinary research settings. The difference, for instance, is particularly visible in the weight of the consortium partnership and the engagement of relevant stakeholders on the activity of researchers. Practically, knowledge is produced predominately through a process of learning by doing concrete actions influenced by the constant input of ‘others’ members of the LL (from outside the academic realm).

While the framework has demonstrated relevant explanatory capacity, further refinement and empirical testing in other contexts would be beneficial to expand on the following issues. First, the framework could not capture the relationships between individual drivers and specific roles but rather the connections between drivers and the hybridisation of roles. Second, further development of the framework could allow following the evolution of individual researchers from one LL to another – for instance, researchers involved in both Brusseau LLs gained experienced in one role, which led them to take on a different role – and the complementarity of activities among researchers that are not fitted to a specific role, i.e. a realignment occurred among researchers to ensure no overlapping of activities and reinforcement of capabilities. Last, the framework could be enlarged in examining how other actors within the LL – e.g. NGOs, practitioners or public authorities – might assume complementary or overlapping functions. A more holistic analysis involving all actors would allow for a richer assessment of how tasks, responsibilities and knowledge practices are negotiated across the LL.

This study opens several avenues for future research. From a theoretical standpoint, it encourages deeper examination of the mechanisms that researchers employ to steer and sustain knowledge co-production. This includes understanding how researchers adapt their methods, manage their positionality and navigate power relations throughout the iterative phases of LLs. From a practical perspective, the findings offer guidance for researchers to create better knowledge co-production processes by recognising and articulating their roles, aligning expectations and making informed decisions. Such awareness can enhance both the quality of engagement and the integrity of the knowledge produced. However, this engagement also entails a significant epistemological shift: from detached observation to situated, co-productive participation. While LLs hold strong potential for transformative innovation, there is a risk that their product-oriented nature may overshadow the critical and reflective role of researchers. Care must be taken to ensure that knowledge production remains central to the process, rather than being subordinated to instrumental project outcomes.

The Brusseau LLs case demonstrates that the capacity of researchers to perform different roles is both a strength and a challenge. While adaptability is fundamental to enable researchers to bridge gaps between theory and practice and to contribute to the design and implementation of inclusive sustainability solutions, it also exposes them to role ambiguity, tensions in aligning academic and societal expectations, and difficulties in sustaining long-term engagement. In this regard, a key insight emerging from this study is the importance of individual and collective reflexivity as a guiding principle for researchers engaging in LLs. The ability to reflect on their positionality, motivations and interactions with stakeholders allows researchers to navigate complex environments and to better align their actions with the evolving needs of the co-production process.

Ultimately, future research should examine how researchers influence and are influenced by the dynamics of knowledge co-production, and how their identities, research practices and agency evolve within LLs. Longitudinal and cross-contextual studies are especially needed to trace these evolutions and to uncover how researchers mediate between scientific rigor and societal relevance in increasingly hybrid research environments.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Data accessibility

The data that support the findings of this study are available in Diffusion ULB at http://hdl.handle.net/2013/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/394632. The dataset includes results from the focus groups, extracts from the transcripts of interviews and mental maps, and has been anonymised to ensure participant confidentiality. Any additional data related to this article may be requested from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at: https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.622.s1