Advertisement

»Living Labs« als Beispiel für die konzeptionellen Herausforderungen der Integration von Menschen in Technikentwicklung

  • Andreas BischofEmail author
  • Mira Mariane Freiermuth
  • Michael Storz
  • Albrecht Kurze
  • Arne Berger
Chapter
  • 16 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die Diskussion wissenschaftlicher Methoden, ihrer theoretischen Grundlagen und Implikationen ist für alle Fachgebiete von zentraler Bedeutung: Wie wissen wir, was wir wissen? Während sich in Disziplinen wie der Philosophie, Soziologie oder den Science and Technology Studies (STS), seit Langem mit dieser Frage beschäftigt wird, um diese so genannten epistemischen Implikationen wissenschaftlicher Arbeit nachzuvollziehen, bleibt der Diskurs über die Annahmen und Folgen von Beteiligung in der Technikentwicklung selbst bisher noch immer im Werden begriffen. Zwar ist die Bedeutung der Teilhabe oder Partizipation von Personen an der Entwicklung zukünftiger Technologien unbestritten und mittlerweile auch in viele Forschungsförderungsprogramme eingeschrieben, unter welchen Bedingungen und mit welchen Folgen diese geschieht, bleibt dabei aber vergleichsweise unterbeleuchtet.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Asaro, Peter M. 2000: Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 10(4): 257–290.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Eevi. E. 2002: P for political: Participation is not enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(1): 77–92.Google Scholar
  3. Bergvall-Kåreborn, Birgitta, Marita Holst, Anna Ståhlbröst. 2009: Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10. Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. Bischof, Andreas. 2017: Soziale Maschinen bauen: Epistemische Praktiken der Sozialrobotik. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  5. Bischof, Andreas, Juliane Jarke. 2018: Konfigurierung des Alter(n)s: Instanzen der Konstruktion von »älteren Nutzer*innen«; in der Gestaltung von Assistenzsystemen. In Dritte Transdisziplinäre Konferenz »Technische Unterstützungssysteme, die die Menschen wirklich wollen« (TCST 2018), ed. Robert Weidner, Athanasios Karafllidis, 99–106. Hamburg: Helmut-Schmidt-Universität.Google Scholar
  6. Bischof, Andreas, Robert Herms, Maximilian Eibl. 2018a: MERS-MRI – Methodische, ethische, rechtliche und soziale Implikationen für die Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion in Alltagswelten. In Mensch und Computer 2018 – Workshopband, ed. Raimund Dachselt, Gerhard Weber, 647–664. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.Google Scholar
  7. Bischof, Andreas, Albrecht Kurze, Sören Totzauer, Michael Storz, Mira Freiermuth, Arne-Berger. 2018b: Living Labs zur Initiierung von Partizipation in der HCI. In Mensch und Computer 2018 – Workshopband, ed. Raimund Dachselt, Gerhard Weber, 655–675. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.Google Scholar
  8. Bossen, Claus, Rachel C. Smith, Anne M. Kanstrup, Janet McDonnell, Maurizio Teli, Keld Bødker. 2016: Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference, Volume 1. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bratteteig, Tone, Ina Wagner. 2016: What is a Participatory Design Result? Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: 141–150. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, Yannick Barthe. 2009: Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cardullo, Paolo, Rob Kitchin, Cesare Di Feliciantonio. 2018: Living labs and vacancy in the neoliberal city. Cities, 73: 44–50.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, John M., Mary B. Rosson, M. 2013: Wild at home: The neighborhood as a living laboratory for HCI. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(3): 16.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, Adele. E. 2003: Situational analysis: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symbolic interaction, 26(4): 553–576.Google Scholar
  14. Dalsgaard, Peter, Kim Halskov, Ole S. Iversen. 2016: Participation Gestalt: Analysing Participatory Qualities of Interaction in Public Space. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4435–4446. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Dutilleul, Benoît, Frans A. J. Birrer, Wouter Mensink. 2010: Unpacking european living labs: analysing innovation’s social dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4, 13.Google Scholar
  16. European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). 2017.Google Scholar
  17. European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). 2018: Our Labs. https://enoll.org/ Brüssel: ENoLL. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019.
  18. Eriksson, Mats, Veli- Pekka Niitamo, Seija Kulkki. 2005: State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation-a European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-Spanning Technology, Lulea University of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Eriksson, Mats, Veli- Pekka Niitamo, Seija Kulkki, Karl A. Hribernik. 2006: Living labs as a multi-contextual R&D methodology. In 2006 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), 1–8. Mailand: IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. Fish, Adam, Luis F. Murillo, Lilly Nguyen, Aaron Panofsky, Christopher Kelty. 2011: Birds of the Internet: Towards a field guide to the organization and governance of participation. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(2): 157–187.Google Scholar
  21. Følstad, Astrid. 2008: Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. Electronic Journal of Virtual Organisations, 10(Special Issue »Living Labs«): 99–131.Google Scholar
  22. Gläser, Jochen, Grit Laudel. 2004: Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (1. Aufl). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  23. Goffman, Erving. 1974: Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Greve, Katharina, Veronica Martinez, Andy Neely. 2018: Co-Creation in Practice: Objectives and Outcomes. Working paper. Cambridge, University of Cambridge: https://cambridgeservicealliance.eng.cam.ac.uk/resources/Downloads/Monthly%20Papers/2018CSASeptemberPaper.pdf. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019
  25. Halskov, Kim, Nicolai B. Hansen. 2015: The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74: 81–92.Google Scholar
  26. Harrison, Steve, Deborah Tatar, Phoebe Sengers. 2007: The three paradigms of HCI. In Alt. Chi. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–18. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Innolab. 2018: Innolab 2018 Dokumentation: Experimentierraum für Gesundheit und Gesellschaft. https://www.innolab-livinglabs.de/. Zuletzt aufgerufen: 21.12.2019. Bochum: Innolab.
  28. Kelty, Christopher, Aaron Panofsky, Morgan Currie, Roderic Crooks, Seth Erickson, Patricia Garcia, Michael Wartenbe, Stacy Wood. 2014: Seven dimensions of contemporary participation disentangled. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(3): 474–488.Google Scholar
  29. Le Dantec, Christopher A., Sarah Fox. 2015: Strangers at the gate: Gaining access, building rapport, and co-constructing community-based research. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1348–1358. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Lefeuvre, Kevin, Sören Totzauer, Andreas Bischof, Albrecht Kurze, Michael Storz, Lisa Ullmann, Arne Berger. 2016: Loaded Dice: Exploring the Design Space of Connected Devices with Blind and Visually Impaired People. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Morgan, David L. 2008: Snowball Sampling. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, ed. Lisa M. Given, 816–817. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  32. Morse, Janice M., Phyllis Noerager Stern, Juliet Corbin, Barbara Bowers, Kathy Charmaz, Adele E. Clarke. 2009: Developing grounded theory: the second generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mulder, I., Velthausz, D., & Kriens, M. (2008): The living labs harmonization cube: Communicating living lab’s essentials. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, 1–14.Google Scholar
  34. Mulvenna, Maurice, Suzanne Martin. 2013: Living Labs: Frameworks and Engagement. In Innovation through Knowledge Transfer 2012, Bd. 18, ed. Robert. J. Howlett, Bogdan Gabrys, Katarzyna Musial-Gabrys, Jim Roach, 135–143. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Mulvenna, Maurice, Suzanne Martin, Donal McDade, Eileen Beamish, A De Oliveira, Anna Kivilehto. 2011: TRAIL Living Labs Survey 2011: A survey of the ENOLL living labs. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  36. Neven, Louis. 2010: ›But obviously not for me‹: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(2): 335–347.Google Scholar
  37. Niitamo, Veli-Pekka, Seija Kulkki, Mats Eriksson, Karl A. Hribernik. 2006: State-of-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs. In 2006 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), 1–8. Mailand: IEEE.Google Scholar
  38. Ogonowski, Corinna, Benedikt Ley, Jan Hess, Lin Wan, Volker Wulf. 2013: Designing for the living room: long-term user involvement in a living lab. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1539–1548. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Pallot, Marc, Brigitte Trousse, Bernard Senach, Dominique Scapin. 2010: Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. In First European Summer School » Living Labs«. Paris.Google Scholar
  40. Qaurooni, Danial, Ali Ghazinejad, Inna Kouper, Hamid Ekbia. 2016: Citizens for science and science for citizens: The view from participatory design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1822–1826. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  41. Sanders, Elizabeth B. N., Pieter J. Stappers. 2008: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1): 5–18.Google Scholar
  42. Schuurman, Dimitri, Lieven De Marez, Pieter Ballon. 2015: Living Labs: a systematic literature review. In Open Living Lab Days 2015, Proceedings. Presented at the Open Living Lab Days 2015.Google Scholar
  43. Simonsen, Jesper, Toni Robertson. 2013: Routledge international handbook of participatory design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Suchman, Lucy. 2007: Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Vanmeerbeek, Perrine, Lara Vigneron, Pierre Delvenne, Benedikt Rosskamp, Mélanie Antoine. 2015: Involvement of end-users in innovation processes: toward a user-driven approach of innovation. A qualitative analysis of 20 Livings Labs. In Open Living Lab Days 2015, Proceedings. Presented at the Open Living Lab Days 2015.Google Scholar
  46. Veeckman, Carina, Dimitri Schuurman, Seppo Leminen, Mika Westerlund. 2013: Linking living lab characteristics and their outcomes: towards a conceptual framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12): 6–14.Google Scholar
  47. Vines, John, Rachel Clarke, Peter Wright, John McCarthy, Patrick Olivier. 2013: Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 429–438. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  48. Vines, John, Gary Pritchard, Peter Wright, Patrick Olivier, Katie Brittain. 2015: An age-old problem: Examining the discourses of ageing in HCI and strategies for future research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22(1), 2.Google Scholar
  49. Whittle, Jon. 2014: How much participation is enough?: a comparison of six participatory design projects in terms of outcomes. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference, 121–130. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  50. Zandbergen, Dorien. 2017: »We Are Sensemakers«: The (Anti-) politics of Smart City Cocreation. Public Culture 29.3: 539–562, (83).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Bischof
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mira Mariane Freiermuth
    • 2
  • Michael Storz
    • 1
  • Albrecht Kurze
    • 1
  • Arne Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für InformatikTechnische Universität ChemnitzChemnitzDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für SoziologieTechnische Universität ChemnitzChemnitzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations