My Blog

From a Test Bed to a Living Lab July 24, 2010

Dear Mike

A thousand thanks for writing From a Test Bed to a Living Lab: Some Community Informatics Thoughts on Community Oriented Science  You have given me a practical example  and some valuable vocabulary. To me, what you have written is a major step forward in cross-cultural collaboration. I have quoted in part from what you wrote in order to highlight the areas of overlap (see below my email).

I have struggled clumsily for years to express some of the ideas that you share so clearly:

  • I did not have the expression "living laboratories" until you used it.
  • You are concerned with access to the Internet
  • My concern is also access for those with limited current access - the "bandwidth challenged", the "bandwidth starved" and those with with language. literacy or other cultural barriers to Internet use. 
  • You mention 'finding a common language"
  • It is so important and yet often given less recognition than it deserves. Much of our work in Dadamac is to do with cross-cultural collaboration - acting as a kind of mediator between people from different cultures and finding ways for effective two way communication - I am so  glad to see this highlighted by you.
  • You write of the dramatic differences between Living Labs and Test Beds and how they can come together through trusting relationships.
  • Our experience in Dadamac demonstrates this - one of the reasons we can get things done is because we have a great wealth of high trust relationships
  • We can access huge grass roots networks to serve as living labs.
  • You write of making use of “open access information” in support of community processes and that the (community) volunteer was providing... a somewhat equivalent service
  • I believe that local people should be seen as collaborators and consultants - that research and development should be done "with them" (rather than "about them" "at them" or "for them".)
  • You write about the way the “research” problem was defined was determined both by the concerns of the community and by MEIS’ technical knowledge.
  • Shared definition of the problem is so important  - that is what is on my heart when I cry out for more connection between top-down and bottom-up, for more links between academics and practitioners.
  • It's why I keep knocking on doors to invite people to include Dadamac (with its knowledge and networks - its easy to access "living lab") in their research projects.
  • You write about win-wins, about wrapping  an institutional (and minimal funding structure) around ... a quite effective LL  ....  other things that could be learned from this example about how scientific knowledge and skill can be made both accessible and useful at the local level.....how with minimal effort or cost MEIS (and indirectly the N4C project) has had a quite significant and positive impact on this community by simply being able to listen and learn, to adjust expectations marginally and adapt their knowledge and expertise to local circumstances and requirements.
  • Yes - yes - yes - please let's look for more win-wins.

What  word should we use for the kind of relationship you describe? (I used to think that is what people meant by "participation".) Even more importantly - how can we help more of it to happen - both in general ways and in ways that specifically make use of Dadamac's "learning lab"?

Again, thank you for writing From a Test Bed to a Living Lab: Some Community Informatics Thoughts on Community Oriented Science parts or which are quoted below.

Pamela

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the last several months ...My role has been to comment on the community engagement component of the project and most recently on the notions (and differences) as between technical “test beds” and “living laboratories” (LLs) ... The question was, how could the Internet be used to support the Sami’s reindeer activities, northern lifestyles, and particularly how could the internet be made accessible and usable under northern geographic and environmental conditions i.e. very dispersed and semi-nomadic lifestyles, extreme weather conditions and so on?... the ultimate technology solutions which are being examined would, I think, have wide applications in the kind of extreme environments which many of those with limited current internet access ... are experiencing. I had a chance to .. observe something that might be of wider interest.....

One of the issues we discussed at some length and following an earlier discussion in the context of the broader project was the difference between a “technical test bed” and a “living lab”.  In fact, the discussion was for much of its length concerned with finding a common language to discuss these matters—questions of “problem setting”, “methodology”, “data capture”, “data analysis” and so on, all had a somewhat different meaning when viewed from the perspective of highly qualified scientific researchers conducting formal research or from the perspective of a social scientist concerned with community based social and technical processes.

In the technical context a “test bed” involving the community was understood as the process of finding a local person who would volunteer to facilitate the collection and transmission of data as prescribed by the researchers.  In this instance the problem definition, methodology, data capture, analysis and reporting and so on are (and were) all done within the framework of normal accepted scientific practice with the initial problem and the ultimate reporting all being structured for and by scientists/technical developers. In this context data/information “access” was the process of publication of the ultimate results in peer reviewed journals or possibly making the interim data available in “raw” form but ultimately in a form that would be of interest (useable) only to those working very much within the shelter of the scientific/technical tent.

My abstract point ...was that a “Living Lab” (LL) would differ dramatically from their “test beds”..

And then serendipity intervened…I was privileged to be in attendance when the report on the monitoring was delivered to the local volunteer. .. He walked away with the report indicating that his neighbours would be equally interested in the results which he would be sharing with them directly.

It was at about that point that the penny dropped and I realized that what MEIS had done here was to provide an extremely good example of how a LL could and should function in this type of environment and also provided some useful lessons on how to in fact, make use of “open access information” in support of community processes.

The location of a test site in the community by MEIS was of course quite fortuitous as was the development of a trusting relationship between MEIS and the local volunteer.  However, MEIS was in a position to volunteer its services in this area with little cost to themselves (they already owned the equipment and had the expertise) and they were well disposed to undertake the project since the volunteer was providing them with a somewhat equivalent service.  Importantly, the way in the “research” problem was defined was determined both by the concerns of the community and by MEIS’ technical knowledge with the research methodology being identified by MEIS but implemented in such a way that the volunteer was a party to the process and thus was willing to trust the data collection of which he was a part.  The analysis and reporting by MEIS reflected their understanding and sensitivity to the requirements of the community for results which would be visibly accessible by those with no scientific or technical training i.e. simple graphic displays.

The result was a win-win… the community got the reassurances it was looking for and MEIS got its committed volunteer for the future life of the N4C project and presumably beyond if they so chose. If a way could be found to wrap an institutional (and minimal funding structure) around this activity a quite effective LL could quite possibly be developed – perhaps not for this specific community which might not be large enough to support such, but possibly on a regional basis.

And as well there are other things that could be learned from this example about how scientific knowledge and skill can be made both accessible and useful at the local level.  It would have been a very normal process and result for MEIS to have gone into this community, set up their monitoring equipment, gathered their data, done their analysis, reported and packed equipment again – all without having had an impact in the community much greater than purchasing a few tankloads of gasoline.  And yet with minimal effort or cost MEIS (and indirectly the N4C project) has had a quite significant and positive impact on this community by simply being able to listen and learn, to adjust expectations marginally and adapt their knowledge and expertise to local circumstances and requirements.