Send message to Contributors

Short Abstract

This roundtable uses insights from Three Days Inside to discuss key dilemmas for embedding citizen science in Living Labs: control vs. co-creation, system vs. lifeworld, short-term projects vs. long-term trust.

Abstract

Citizen science and Living Labs both promise inclusive innovation, yet their practice is full of dilemmas. This roundtable builds on insights from Three Days Inside, a participatory action research experiment in Appingedam (NL), a shrinking region affected by demographic change, earthquakes, and declining trust in institutions.

For three days, researchers immersed themselves in community life, joining walks, meals, and collaborative activities. The experiment highlighted that participation depends less on formal methods than on attitudes of openness, reflexivity, and willingness to share control. At the same time, it surfaced critical dilemmas:

• Control vs. co-creation: letting go is essential, but often confrontational.

• Relational vs. transactional working: residents value long-term presence, while institutions push for visible results.

• Formal ethics vs. everyday ethics: protocols clash with context-sensitive trust-building.

• System vs. lifeworld: policy logics often miss the realities of daily life.

• Short projects vs. long-term trust: continuity is crucial, yet hard to secure.

These tensions show that embedding citizen science in Living Labs is not just methodological, but ethical and political. In this roundtable, we invite participants to reflect on their own experiences of such dilemmas, and to discuss strategies for strengthening reciprocity, trust, and inclusivity. Together, we will explore how Living Labs can move beyond symbolic participation and support genuine co-creation of knowledge and innovation.