Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore Living labs: Challenging and changing the smart city power relations? Huong Thu Nguyen a, *, Pilar Marques b, Paul Benneworth c, d a Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain b Universitat de Girona, Spain c Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway d University of Twente, the Netherlands A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Smart cities refer to place-specific collaborative systems where multiple actors collaborate to collectively address Citizen inclusion public problems. However, smart city initiatives regularly frame citizens as the weakest link, as passive con­ Living labs sumers rather than active creative agents. This article argues that power imbalances between citizens and other Organising collaborative systems organisational participants structurally mute citizens' voices, ultimately compromising smart cities' aims. Living Power relations Smart cities laboratories are a popular smart city intervention that have the potential to address this power imbalance and empower citizens to influence smart city development. This research theoretically and empirically explores this role of living labs through a multiple-case study of urban living labs in the region of Catalonia. The findings uncover a ‘power banking’ mechanism which, coupled with other critical factors, facilitates the effectiveness of such initiatives. The considerable efforts required to engage citizens at a fairly basic level suggest that incor­ porating citizens into smart city models is more challenging than simplistic Quadruple Helix discourses convey. 1. Introduction (Dameri, 2017; Leydesdorff and Deakin, 2011). However, the actors in these collaborations tended to prioritise deploying technologies above Cities face increasingly complex sustainability issues, such as social aligning those technologies with citizens' needs (Hollands, 2008; Kum­ inequality and environmental pollution, and ‘smart city’ notion have mitha, 2018). Critics have therefore called for a human-centred vision of emerged as a promising solution to these challenges (Albino et al., 2015; smart cities, one that involves citizens in the development process Kummitha and Crutzen, 2017). Smart city development is a rapidly (Andreani et al., 2019; Vanolo, 2016). growing interdisciplinary area of research conducted across various Living labs (LLs), a recently popular urban policy instrument in contexts, a situation which has led to the absence of a singular definition Europe, aim to stimulate an inclusive and collaborative ecosystem in (Mora et al., 2017; Ricciardi and Za, 2015), although the term was first shaping smart cities (Bifulco et al., 2017; Santonen et al., 2017). LLs used in the 1990s (Mahizhnan, 1999). Meijer and Bolívar (2016, p. 398) facilitate multiple stakeholder collaborations and are user-centred in propose that a city is smart when it is able ‘to attract human capital and their efforts to co-create innovation in real-life contexts (Eriksson et al., to mobilize this human capital in collaborations between the various 2005; Leminen et al., 2012). The rise of several LLs comprising local (organized and individual) actors through the use of information and (place-based) and social (citizen-driven) dimensions (Neirotti et al., communication technologies’ (ICT). Combinations of three aspects are 2014; Scholl and Kemp, 2016) could be regarded as a new urban phe­ emphasised, including technology (smart technology), governance nomenon that favours citizen inclusion. (smart collaboration) and human resources (smart people). However, despite the perceived importance of citizen inclusion, The concept of a smart city emerged as a primarily technological power imbalances between individual citizens and organisational in­ discourse about the opportunity for ICT to improve quality of life terests remain fundamental concerns of LL practice (Engels et al., 2019) through innovative urban infrastructures (Borkowska and Osborne, and undermine collaboration outcomes (Kähkönen, 2014). Scholars 2018). This approach grew encompass the idea of governments and have thus cited the need to explore the mechanisms that LLs have in knowledge institutions co-operating with businesses, in what is known place to address concerns about inclusion and power and fulfil their as the Triple Helix innovation model, to solve diverse urban challenges goals in urban contexts (Hossain et al., 2019; Kronsell and Mukhtar- * Corresponding author at: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Department of Business, Cerdanyola del Vallès 08193, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail address: huongthu.nguyen@uab.cat (H.T. Nguyen). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121866 Received 4 December 2021; Received in revised form 9 May 2022; Accepted 7 July 2022 Available online 28 July 2022 0040-1625/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 Landgren, 2018). Accordingly, this paper explores whether and how LLs participants undermines other actors' trust, interest and commitment, include citizens in ways that change power relations with other organ­ preventing the inclusive involvement of new partners and, in later isational participants in smart city collaborative systems. This theoret­ stages, intensive collaboration (Kähkönen, 2014; Ran and Qi, 2018). ical and empirical enquiry starts by seeking to understand how citizen Furthermore, a substantial power imbalance drives compliance behav­ power is sourced and acknowledged, the practices that LLs implement to iours when weaker actors face stronger actors that are capable of include citizens and the impact of those practices on power relations. manipulating collective processes for private benefit (Ansell and Gash, Understanding power relations is critical to successfully organising 2008; Hardy and Phillips, 1998). inclusive and collaborative ecosystems in urban contexts. According to A delicate balance of power is achieved when no party has consid­ Clegg et al. (2006, p. 1), ‘Power is the most central concept in the erable domination and when underrepresented or less powerful actors analysis of organization(s) and organizing’, as power relations among have a sufficient voice in the system (Gray, 1985; Hardy and Phillips, different stakeholders, including citizens, shape and reshape participant 1998; Kähkönen, 2014; Menny et al., 2018; Purdy, 2012). In such cases, capabilities and decisions, and vice versa. However, while power has actors can shape the direction of the network and improve outcomes by been largely explored inside organisations (Barley, 2010), it has been influencing the decision-making process (Bickerstaff and Walker, 2005; relatively neglected in the field of organising collaborative systems. Ribeiro et al., 2018). Empowering others by motivating them to The research question is explored through a multiple-case study of participate in decisions increases the joint capacity for effective action seven LLs in Catalonia which sought citizen participation and knowl­ (Purdy, 2012). That said, addressing imbalances requires the application edge input in smart city processes. The findings provide insight into the of appropriate mechanisms; it does not happen spontaneously in citizen participation process within LLs and analyse the perceived shift collaborative arrangements (Huxham and Vangen, 2005). in power relations between citizens and other stakeholders. Based on the evidence, the discussion and conclusions suggest a mechanism for 2.2. Citizen inclusion in smart cities: a tale of power imbalance organising a more inclusive and collaborative ecosystem for smart city development purposes. Any kind of multi-actor collaboration is complex, and achieving an ideal synergy of dissimilar logics (public vs. private vs. civic) is difficult 2. Theoretical background (Jensen and Trägårdh, 2004). While considering the balance of different logics and purposes, collaboration theories tend to assume – implicitly, if 2.1. Power as a contested concept not explicitly – that all actors have similar power positions (Hardy and Phillips, 1998; Lin et al., 2018). Including citizens in urban collaboration Scholars are paying increasing attention to the concept of ‘power’ is not easy because, unlike other urban actors, citizens are diffuse and and the role it plays in the organisation of society (Anderson and Brion, weakly coordinated. Citizens lack resources and the collective power to 2014; Clegg, 2010). The definition of power is manifold and constantly deploy resources effectively (Huxham and Vangen, 2005; Rodrigues and contested, as it embodies ‘a cluster of concepts’ (Avelino, 2021; Clegg Teles, 2017). and Haugaard, 2009, p. 3). Among those contestations is a classic debate Smart city collaborative ecosystems can be conceptualised as a set of over whether power is possessed (i.e. ‘power to do or accomplish arrangements among Quadruple Helix actors, each of which has something’) or exercised (i.e. ‘power over another or others’) (Pitkin, different sources of power (Fig. 1). In these collaborations, governments 1972, p. 277). Accordingly, power can be broadly conceived as the ca­ possess the strongest formal authority. They provide regulatory support pacity of actors to mobilise means or to influence others' behaviours to for the collaboration (Etzkowitz, 2008), and they can offer or withhold achieve a specific purpose (Avelino, 2021; Turner, 2005). critical resources, such as funding (Miller et al., 2016). Governments Actors possess three main sources of power (Hardy and Phillips, generally, and politicians in particular, rely on discursive legitimacy, so 1998; Purdy, 2012; Ran and Qi, 2018): (i) formal authority, which is the long as they are elected representatives of their citizens. However, acknowledged legitimate right to make decisions and is usually doubts have been raised about the representative democracy model and embedded within a given institutional context; (ii) critical resource con­ its capacity to truly identify and fulfil citizen demands (Sønderskov, trol, which is participating actors' access to necessary tangible and 2020), suggesting that governments' discursive legitimacy is weaker intangible resources; and (iii) discursive legitimacy, which is the ability to nowadays. The power of industry relies on the resource advantages influence social constructions by invoking values and societal norms provided by staff and technologies, which are used to produce products while discussing certain topics, such as the environment or democracy. and services (Yang and Holgaard, 2012). While industry lacks formal Classical theories of power from the 1950s relied heavily on resource authority, it has economic authority by creating economic value in so­ dependency – control over necessary resources such as funds, technol­ ciety and determining citizens' economic welfare. Industry may have ogies and knowledge – to explain actors' power positions (Turner, 2005). less legitimacy in this context than public sector actors; however, The fact that power is relational has long been acknowledged, innovation imperatives have acquired a strong economic aspect in emphasising the dimension of exercised power (Foucault, 1982) over the recent years (Fitjar et al., 2019). Knowledge institutions' main sources of mere possession of power. The contemporary literature on power tends power lie in critical resources, such as human capital and research to combine these two perspectives, proposing that the power positions of expertise (Etzkowitz, 2008). actors are dependent not only on power sources but also the relations Lastly, participant citizens can exert power through their discursive and perceptions of others (Kähkönen, 2014; Purdy, 2012). Overall, legitimacy: citizens mobilised under civil society organisations (CSOs) within collaborative settings, shifting power relations is ‘not just a are empowered to speak on behalf of society, and general citizens are matter of asking who has more or less power, but also about analysing the affected by changes in social prosperity and environmental sustain­ different types of power they exercise and how subsequent inter- ability (Purdy, 2012). One could also argue that citizens represent a dependencies change over time’ (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016, p. 644). source of user know-how which could have value, especially for industry Power relations and positions affect collaboration outcomes, both and public service providers (Von Hippel, 2005). However, there is positively and negatively (Clegg et al., 2006). On the one hand, balanced asymmetry in this relationship; users provide their knowledge to in­ power produces deeper collaboration in which partners have equal novators, who use that knowledge to develop better products that possibilities to contribute (Kähkönen, 2014). On the other hand, power benefit citizens. If citizens withhold their knowledge to create leverage, balance poses a risk of ‘stalemate and inaction’ (Gray, 1985, p. 927) in a then they suffer by receiving less useful solutions to their problems. ‘shared-power’ but ‘no-one-in-charge’ world (Bryson and Crosby, 2005, From a capacity-based perspective of power, citizen power positions p. 1). However, it is commonly acknowledged that strong power im­ may be eroded because citizens do not often possess ‘the political power balances limit the collaboration quality; the presence of dominant and authority of government and academia, and the economic power of 2 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 Fig. 1. Citizen power positions in smart city systems. industry’ (Borkowska and Osborne, 2018, p. 363). Similarly, from a 2015). LLs typically facilitate intensive interaction between ‘innovators’ relation-based approach, citizen roles may be undermined because they and ‘users’ in ways that allow users to co-determine and shape inno­ are loosely related to the Triple Helix participants and, therefore, lack vation processes (Feurstein et al., 2008). Finally, LLs organise these opportunities to exercise power. In urban collaborative ecosystems, the activities in environments that are familiar to users, such as care homes strong co-dependencies and ties among the Triple Helix participants (Kanstrup, 2017), or attempt to create or replicate specific contexts tend to have a technological focus (Mora et al., 2019), and these part­ within which problems arise to facilitate the development of solutions nerships are resistant to new partners (Grundel and Dahlström, 2016; that account for the complexity of real-world environments. MacGregor et al., 2010). Taken together, these features mean that LLs could conceivably serve The strong power imbalance is a hindrance to effective citizen in­ as not only co-creative environments that foster collaborations that clusion in solving urban problems. Citizen exclusion may jeopardise the advance social change but also power-exercising arenas where dominant governments' capacity to represent its citizens in decision-making and actors potentially impose their logics (Arnkil et al., 2010; Puerari et al., instead encourage the promotion of its immediate partners in the busi­ 2018). Understanding how LLs facilitate citizen inclusion in ways that ness and university sectors. In this scenario, smart cities are failing to challenge and change power relations between participants is therefore ensure that the voices of different citizen groups are heard, which re­ critical but underexplored (Hossain et al., 2019; Kronsell and Mukhtar- duces smart cities' capacity to better align services, infrastructure and Landgren, 2018). This article investigates this overarching question by management with what citizens want and need. Instead, smart cities' testing whether the theoretical possibilities associated with LLs are services, infrastructure and management are aligned with what tech­ deployed in practice. Following the concept of power as something that nology corporations and knowledge institutions desire, engaging only is possessed and exercised (Pitkin, 1972), this empirical analysis of LL citizens who are keen to embrace these high-tech niches (Andreani et al., practices explores first the power acknowledged to citizens and other 2019; Engelbert et al., 2019). stakeholders and second how this power is exercised, as well as how it Overall, the issue of citizen inclusion is often oversimplified in the mobilises means and influences others' behaviours to achieve a purpose extant literature. First, scholars and planners who call for citizen in­ (Avelino, 2021; Turner, 2005). Finally, the article explores the impact of clusion – for example, through the Quadruple Helix model – rarely LL activities in changing power relations. consider who citizens really are and ‘which […] opposing interests people in cities may have’ (Engelbert et al., 2019, p. 347). Second, 3. Research method and context typical roles assigned to citizens, such as consumers, implicitly reflect power imbalances by imposing the dominance of market logic and We adopted an exploratory multiple-case study approach to inves­ tending to diminish the power and agency of actors who could concur­ tigate this research area (Yin, 2003). Research based on cases enables rently be voters and activists (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016). the generation of deep context-dependent knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2006), which is especially valuable for understanding multiple-actor in­ 2.3. Living labs as orchestrators of power relations teractions (Ott and Kiteme, 2016) and therefore applicable to smart city research (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017). As LL activities typically operate LLs are characterised by three main features: the involvement of with a local and regional scope (Mulvenna and Martin, 2013), studying users as early as possible in the innovation process; the use of co-creation several LLs in the same region allowed us to observe the diverse nature processes with multiple actors; and attempts to simulate real-life prob­ of stakeholder engagement, which is shaped by common regional fac­ lem contexts (Almirall and Wareham, 2011; Dell'Era and Landoni, tors. Cases were included when they seemed likely to cover specific 2014). In this way, LLs can be considered orchestrators (Reypens et al., processes, such as the potential power relations between citizens and 2019) that may facilitate a shift in power relations between citizens and other Quadruple Helix players in smart city contexts. The selected cases other participants in collaborative ecosystems involving Quadruple included LLs that aimed to (i) include citizens through active roles in Helix actors (Miller et al., 2016). working processes, (ii) work with other Quadruple Helix actors, and (iii) LLs seek to put users at the centre of their activities – as key sources address different urban challenges, irrespective of its working area. of knowledge creation and innovation – and allow that knowledge to be We selected Catalonia, a region located in northeast Spain, to study influential from the outset (Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbröst, 2009; smart cities, citizen inclusion and LLs. First, the region is known for its Eriksson et al., 2005; Leminen et al., 2015). Although citizens, as users, smart city focus. Barcelona, the region's capital, has long been recog­ may play both passive and active roles in LLs, some authors have nised as a model city for global urbanism (Charnock et al., 2019) and emphasised the particular advantages of the latter case where citizens was ranked the second smart city in the world especially in energy and act as not only consumer agents but also creative agents (Leminen et al., sustainability policies (Juniper Research, 2016). In 2014, the regional 3 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 government officially approved the SmartCatalonia strategy (SmartCat), LLs nor ensured funding for all of them. The studied LLs' working seeking to elevate the smart city concept to a regional level and to structures and outcomes were hence bound to the main organisations innovate public services, among other purposes (Government of Cata­ and various funders they collaborated with. The main lead organisations lonia, 2014). Second, the idea of citizen inclusion was explicitly included municipalities and knowledge institutes (i.e. universities and emphasised in SmartCat, as part of a regional effort to promote a ‘more research centres), while a typical funder was the European Commission, inclusive society’. The focus aligned with and was likely reinforced by funding different schemes under fixed- and short-term projects, the European Commission's Horizon 2020 programme. It also took including pilot programmes. advantage of the existing regional innovation system in which citizens Appendix 1 provides details about the year each LL was established, were already acknowledged as actors. In Barcelona particularly, the the sector or purpose of its activity, and other information about the transition towards a citizen-focused smart city strategy was seen as a main participating stakeholders. result of a political change in the municipality in 2015 (Charnock et al., 2019). Third, Catalonia possessed a large number of LLs and embedded 3.1. Data collection and sources the LL approach within its regional smart city and innovation strategy (Government of Catalonia, 2017). Catalonia is home to several of Spain's Both primary and secondary data were collected (Appendix 2). At the and Europe's first LLs as well as one-third of all Spanish LLs within the end of 2017, a list of Spanish members was extracted from the ENoLL European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). In 2017, the CatLabs pro­ webpage, and seven LLs were located in Catalonia's urban areas. We gramme was created under the dual direction of SmartCat and the contacted these LLs and scheduled interviews with persons who un­ regional innovation strategy (RIS3CAT). It sought to promote a regional derstood and facilitated LL stakeholder engagement. All the LLs network of existing LLs and other organisations that worked towards responded positively to participating in the research, although one LL (digital) social innovation and smart city initiatives (Government of described themselves as ‘inactive’ and was subsequently excluded from Catalonia, 2017). Overall, the scale and characteristics of LL activity in the research. During the data collection, an additional LL that actively Catalonia promised a high rate of eligible cases. participated in the CatLabs programme was added, leading to the total Based on these criteria, seven LLs located in Catalonia's urban areas inclusion of seven LLs in this study. were selected as cases, mapped in Fig. 2 with their names and acronyms. The primary data for the analysis included 29 semi-structured in­ All the selected LLs explicitly expressed their commitment to engaging terviews with 36 respondents, referred to as R1 to R36, as well as follow- citizens and other actors in activities related to several urban sectors up emails in some cases. The first round involved interviews with the LL such as culture, ICT, and health and mobility. This commitment was management team and coordinators, defined as people explicitly dedi­ articulated through their participation in either the ENoLL (six cases) or cated (although not always full-time) to promoting LL activity. A the regional CatLabs programme (six cases); five of the seven cases were snowball technique was employed to identify key Catalan LL stake­ part of both networks. ENoLL, a European movement established in holders that represented all Quadruple Helix actors. Some stakeholders 2006, accredits LL members via a two-round expert evaluation of the were familiar with and were connected to more than one of the research extent to which LLs empower citizens and users to participate in the sites. Each interview lasted an average of 70 min. Although regional LLs innovation process (ENoLL, 2019; Mastelic et al., 2015). The CatLabs are a small community, the respondents were diverse. They included key programme prioritises the involvement of LLs as organisations that work Quadruple Helix actors and provided sufficient information to address under a new open and collaborative structure of innovation and smart our research question. cities, such as the Quadruple Helix model (Government of Catalonia, In addition, for research purposes, one author was invited to observe 2017). and participate in several LL activities by interviewees who were orga­ Although the selected LLs were participants of ENoLL and CatLabs, nisers or active participants in these activities. Site visits were used for they maintained their autonomy and idiosyncrasies because their triangulation. Secondary sources included the LLs' webpages and annual participation in these networks was voluntary. At the same time, reports as well as other documents provided and recommended by regional policies and strategies neither established strong directions for interviewees. Fig. 2. Map of the studied Catalan Living Labs (Source: authors' own design based on OpenStreetMap). 4 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 3.2. Data analysis You include citizens, not because they are going to buy the innova­ tion, but because they have the right to innovate; because they have All interviews were recorded and transcribed except for two cases the right to be involved in the innovation that will impact society. where interviewees preferred that only notes were taken. Thematic (R9, management) analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was conducted with an abductive Citizens have access to this public technology, and they are partici­ coding strategy (Ashworth et al., 2019; Linneberg and Korsgaard, 2019) pants; they can innovate without permission. This is permission-less using NVivo (12) software. While we embrace the inductive principle of innovation. building theory with a qualitative methodology (Bryman and Bell, (R8, management) 2011), we agree with Snape and Spencer (2003), who claim that this methodology involves both induction and deduction in which the data This approach also aimed to encourage and provide opportunities for generation and interpretation are partially based on current theory. We everyone to innovate, pursuing increased social equality, especially adapted the thematic analysis in three steps: (i) categorising in­ because ‘a growing number of citizens who feel left behind by the digital terviewees' narratives into codes; (ii) assigning these codes to sub­ revolution are becoming disaffected’ (R1, management). The same themes; and (iii) ultimately assigning these codes to broader themes that interviewee clarified as follows: potentially address the research questions. The benefits of the productivity increases brought by new digital To fill research gaps, we explored how LLs included citizens in ways products and services are not shared equally. […] Because of these that changed power relations between citizens and other organisational asymmetries, we are witnessing some reactions against digital participants. First, we identified the citizens' initial power sources by technology, a kind of neo-Luddism which is often directed to appli­ tracing back the reasons that LLs engaged with the citizens. Next, we cations such as Uber or Airbnb. deductively analysed LL operations based on the theoretical framework, considering how three characteristics of LLs might affect the power Furthermore, citizens were believed to possess critical resources or sources of citizens and their relationships with other stakeholders. capabilities in all the case studies. Their most valued resource was their During the process of assigning codes into themes, some interviewee co-creation capabilities, especially enhanced in the Internet era, narratives clearly conveyed the steps that LLs took, and we used these as following a ‘digital social innovation’ notion whereby ‘innovators, users guidelines for our analysis. The codes were accordingly re-organised and communities collaborate using digital technologies to co-create into a common process shared by the seven cases. A final stage knowledge and solutions for a wide range of social needs, and at a involved examining the impact of LLs on power relations, particularly scale and speed that was unimaginable before the rise of the Internet’ citizens' perceptions of empowerment and other stakeholders' perspec­ (R1, management). Finally, most interviewees perceived the importance tive on citizen input. of engaging with citizens in delivering meaningful impacts specifically through their activities and generally in developing the region. Citizens' 4. The case of the Catalan living labs know-how as users was also a crucial capability for developing products that were ‘useful for health’ (R5, management) and to conduct research One common characteristic of the studied Catalan LLs is that they in a ‘responsible manner’ (R15, management). Additionally, citizens were launched by either governments or knowledge institutions initially were residents and potential users whose behaviour changes could boost dedicated to providing and mobilising operational resources, such as a ‘healthy city’ (R7, academic) and develop more ‘sustainable mobility’ human capital and finance. Among other Quadruple Helix actors, the (R13, management). This agency or capacity demonstrates that citizens business sector was occasionally involved but lacked formal and critical possess the critical ability to advance urban change, since they are likely contributions to LL activities. Citizens participating in the studied LLs to be the most impactful type of actors. were ‘not a mass’ but ‘different collectives’ (R4, management), which These perceptions align with several community-based normative will be further explained. The flow of empirical data is depicted in Fig. 3. and policy concepts of European and regional research and innovation programmes mentioned by interviewees, including ‘responsible research 4.1. Why engage citizens? Acknowledging citizens' power sources and innovation’, ‘open science’, ‘open innovation 2.0’, ‘citizen science’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’. These perceptions were also derived from the In the interviews, the urge to include citizens in efforts to effectively needs of some stakeholders, particularly governments and knowledge respond to urban challenges was emphasised explicitly: ‘The transition institutions, to address social changes arising from digital trans­ to a more inclusive approach to the notion of the smart city is not a formation or to meet institutional missions. A public authority indicated luxury, but a pressing necessity’ (R1, management). Two main power that ‘digitalisation changes the ways of our learning, teaching, working, sources of citizens were identified. First, citizens had strong discursive and manufacturing’ (R17, government). Today, for example, few citi­ legitimacy, justified by their rights, as made clear in three cases zens use conventional public services (e.g. libraries, museums) because (BCNLab, Citilab, i2Cat): Fig. 3. A process for challenging and changing smart city power relations. 5 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 ‘young people don't need to go to libraries to find books, they can search the [LL's] structure, activities, management model and relations with the for information on Internet’ (R17, government). In turn, knowledge other services of the campus or with external projects’ (co-creation institutions wished to ‘bring laboratories out of the research centre’ invitation letter). (R11, management) and ‘make an impact with university research in the The engagement of citizens in later phases – that is, at the project territory’ (R27, management). level – was present in all cases. Some LL projects facilitated proactive citizen involvement in which citizens were given a degree of freedom in 4.2. Who are citizens? Identifying citizens and their interests subject choice (Citilab, L3). Several interviewees reflected on this ‘citi­ zen-first’ attitude, asking citizens, ‘We begin with your interest. What do Among interviewees, there was a major belief that citizens were in­ you want to do?’ (R8, management). Some citizen groups (BCNLab, dependent actors who potentially brought their own insights into the i2Cat, LLH) also suggested individual projects within larger, pre-defined ecosystem: themes, such as ‘merging arts and technology’ or ‘mental health’: The approach that we always try to champion from Barcelona is the To have a clear visualisation of our communities, at the first stage, one we believe. It's more inclusive because you don't just try, let's we did a co-creation process for two days and a half. Well, [it means say, to fix an old innovation system, in which you don't try to push that] inviting interdisciplinary profiles, we tried to co-design pro­ citizens into [the interests of] Triple Helix, but you try to include jects. Our main purpose was to structure the projects and then try to them as they need. find resources to implement them. (R9, management) (R1, management) As addressed by several interviewees, it was thus imperative to In some cases, citizens were engaged early in the working process to identify target citizens and their interests: identify challenges and provide needs that were incorporated into the agendas of the other actors. This approach was notably observed in The first step is to understand who they are, where they are, what health and mobility projects (HCLLC, LLH, UABSSC). One interviewee they need to be involved in the projects, and the barriers they face. clarified the following: ‘Patients were involved at the beginning of the So, we focus on contacts, even defining them, mapping them like innovation part, but not in the design of the proposal and the design of mapping other stakeholders from the ecosystem. the clinical trial. We included them partially, but we tried to include (R4, management) them […] We enquired about their experience, how they did it, and We try to discover ‘what is the community?’, ‘what are their in­ what they wanted’ (R7, academic). This effort was perceived as a ‘new terests?’ and provide a tool to develop their own interests. We don't fashion [way of doing]’ (R13, management), whereas ‘in the past, pa­ want to force citizens into our interests. This is our main concern. tient involvement was so passive’ (R7, academic). […] First of all, listen to them. (R24, management) 4.4. How to engage citizens? Facilitating interactions among stakeholders According to interviewees, citizens were distinct collectives contin­ and mobilising necessary resources gent on each LL's focus, stakeholders' networks, project purposes and location. Citizens were a group of individuals who shared the same in­ 4.4.1. Co-creating terests or CSOs that represented them, such as resident associations and The LLs used various techniques to enrol citizens and elicit their patient associations. input in ways that could steer new and ongoing projects and promote Target citizens were classified into four main categories based on interactions among diverse participants in an open environment. The their interests in both personal and collective purposes. These interests techniques were largely grouped under the ‘co-creation’ umbrella, were not static and could change over time. The first type included sometimes also referred as the ‘participatory’ or ‘co-designing’ meth­ people who potentially desired to grow as entrepreneurs (e.g. pro­ odology by interviewees. These techniques were facilitated by either LL fessionals, such as artists, or open data community members). The sec­ coordinators or external co-creating professionals. Co-creation was used ond type referred to citizens wishing to pursue personal interests (e.g. for short-term projects, such as a mental health project, or one-off library users, seniors). The third type included those who would like to intensive events, such as workshops, panel sessions and hackathons. improve living areas by identifying and attempting to address problems There were two main directions: co-creation in groups of diverse (e.g. education community: high school pupils and teachers, residents). stakeholders, irrespective of their sectors, and co-creation among par­ The last group was people affected by, and willing to contribute to, ticipants of the same sector (e.g. only citizens). specific projects (e.g. patients; university campus community: students The first direction directly endowed citizens with agency and was and employees). For citizens outside CSOs, the LL activities transformed adopted in most of the LL projects because of its ‘openness’ (R16, aca­ some of these sets of people into more socialised communities and demic) and its value for holistically understanding and tackling the is­ groups. sues: ‘In my experience, it is always very useful, and people, for the first session only, were very satisfied. This is a challenge, but if you do some design thinking or have technical dynamics for people to interreact with, 4.3. When to engage citizens? Early in the process you break barriers, and people open up’ (R13, management). The ‘challenge’ this interviewee mentioned refers to different languages, Although LLs aimed to include citizens in all phases, engaging them different purposes and previous misconceptions among different types early was perceived as one of the ways that citizens were able to of participants. meaningfully shape choices about the innovation trajectory: ‘We try to This challenge motivated one case LL in the health sector (LLH) to involve users from the beginning. That's the key point’ (R13, manage­ move from the first direction into the second – that is, towards single ment). ‘Early’ was interpreted in different ways: at the beginning of the sector co-creation – in their latest project: LL's establishment or at the beginning of LL projects. The earliest option of engagement was evident in two university- People will talk freely without power relationships. It will be easier, promoted LLs (L3, UABSSC), in which citizens shaped the LL establish­ and the power or knowledge of the group will be similar, so the ment and purpose. L3 was ‘rooted from the community’ with significant conversation will come up more freely. In practice, what we do is influence from an association of residents who expressed their needs in organise separate workshops, one with experts from academia and the creation phase (R10, management). UABSSC organised a series of co- one with representatives of the CSO. creation sessions in their extension phase that aimed to jointly ‘define (R15, management) 6 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 This illustrates the effort to overcome the challenges of trust, confi­ specifically leading its communication strategy. The CSO was endowed dentiality and knowledge gaps between citizens and other groups, with formal authority to shape the direction of the LL operation. especially in the health sector and in some other projects involving Offering this formal authority to civil society was not realised in the general citizens. Likewise, Citilab ‘tried to lower the bar’ in terms of co- remaining cases, although several interviewees spoke positively about creation topics, ‘so citizens got into the project’ (R4, management). the example: Indeed, one of the reasons citizens declined to participate was that ‘the We have 8,000 members of Citilab. But we still don't have anybody topic was not exactly something [they] knew about’ (R23, academic), that represents the Citilabers in the board of the Citilab; it is some­ according to several interviewees. thing to do. These people can influence the orientation of the Citilab directly, not only orientation of their owned project, but the orien­ 4.4.2. Enrolling citizens in projects (citizen-led vs. professional-led) tation of the whole foundation. Citizens participated in two main types of projects: citizen-led or (R8, management) professional-led; both could exist in the same LL. In the first type, citi­ zens worked on their own issues and were granted the autonomy to lead This realisation requires, on the one side, the capability and projects with various resources, such as funds and advice, provided by commitment of civil society, and, on the other side, the willingness of all LLs; these efforts were sometimes positioned within the framework of stakeholders – or at least the ones with pre-existing formal authority. European projects. In the latter type, ‘researchers had specific projects – One interviewee hesitated about the possibility of co-opting civil society for example, within the H2020 programme, or SMEs [small and medium in the governance board at the current stage, arguing the following: enterprises] proposed experiments’ (R14, management). Users' participation is important, but board members have different The first type of project was observed most evidently in BCNLab roles, completely different. They are people who have connections, projects, where, after co-creation sessions, citizens were provided with have a professional entrance in developing whatever we do, to critical resources to undertake activities with visible outcomes. An open answer the needs of users. […] And now patient associations are not call was made for entrepreneurial activities, and then the responses were very organised. […] Also, this is a new kind of project, new concept matched with available funding and consulting from the public sector. for stakeholders, so it's hard and difficult. Other projects produced open-sourced products for public purposes or (R5, management) solutions to identified problems (Citilab, L3, LLH), where spaces, tools and academic consultations were facilitated by LLs. Citizens exerted Nonetheless, the same person conveyed a prospect: ‘But in the future leadership roles in these short- or long-term activities and reached some maybe, if we have strong patient associations, maybe we invite them to degree of formal authority within their projects. For example, the aca­ participate in the board, why not? The LL is not in a closed structure; it is demic who worked with education communities confirmed that ‘stu­ open’. dents decided everything’ (R16, academic). In contrast, other respondents offered different views on CSOs in Some professional-led projects also ‘put citizens, as much as [they Catalonia generally and in the health sector particularly, noting that could], in the centre of the process’ (R4, management). Citizens played ‘they are very active’ (R15, management), and ‘there are a lot of asso­ different roles, such as improving the operations of other actors by ciations. They are well organised, they provide a lot of services to pa­ testing applications or providing feedback on prototypes to technicians, tients, and patients are really linked to them. It's not only a lobby SMEs or researchers. These activities appeared in the early stage of the [influencing politicians]. There are clinicians there, also; they some­ LLs, when UABSSC ‘did not have a strong LL methodology yet’ (R14, times work as [service] providers’ (R7, academic). Accordingly, some management) or HCLLC ‘had not yet received official funding’ (R6, interviewees acknowledged the right or capacity for citizens to be management). The main purpose was to ‘make an efficient use of the involved in LL governance: “Citizens should be involved. They have existing resources, but in a collaborative manner’ (R14, management), resources and experts. It depends on what you think when you say ‘so­ based on their existing industry contacts, research programmes and ciety’, but it's organised. For example, neighbourhoods have their as­ funding. The same happened in i2Cat, before the establishment of the LL sociations. And they are very active, and they have some money; they unit in 2015, when the LL activities were integrated into research and can also support some initiatives” (R23, academic). innovation projects: ‘It was technological in nature, and the LL partici­ Governance boards with that include civil society were perceived as pation in these projects was constrained to basically testing the pro­ possible because “there is no political blocked mindset to say: ‘No, you totypes with the user, managing the user interaction and user feedback, cannot participate’”. However, the following reality was acknowledged: and the real-life qualification of these platforms’ (R9, management). This is a slow process […] You can invite them, but people say, ‘No, I Thus, it was clear that available resources and stakeholder goodwill am an NGO dealing with social issues, why should I innovate – what in LLs affected the ways citizens participated. On the one hand, LLs did is that?’ This is a process to understand that innovation is an issue for not expect financial returns, a fact confirmed by most interviewees in all everyone. It is not a business for the private sector or university. cases, although some recognised that citizen inclusion might open Everyone should be involved in innovation in some way. funding opportunities: ‘We are building a new concept for projects, and the benefit is clear because some European funds [prioritise] this line [of (R8, management) projects]. This benefit is direct for the stakeholders because they have the possibility to access the funding from projects’ (R5, management). On the other hand, it was very difficult to organise citizen projects if they 4.5. Where to engage? Enabling citizen participation were not within funded research and innovation frameworks, especially when LLs did not have sustainable funding to maintain operations. The From 2017 to early 2019, LL operations were both virtual (R6, operations required a ‘sustainable model’, where ‘you don't have to open management) and physical. As explained by several interviewees, vir­ any budget to feed it’ (R11, management). tual networks meant that there were LL activities and projects imple­ mented that involved different stakeholders, yet the project team had no 4.4.3. Co-opting citizens in governance fixed space or otherwise considered the whole city and university Citizens played the role of governors in only one case (L3) by means campus as an LL workspace. Three cases operated in virtual environ­ of an association of neighbourhood residents. This was because this CSO, ments by the time of the data collection (BCNLab, HLLC, UABSSC) but together with the support of a research centre, had initially mobilised to were in the process of establishing physical spaces. Among those cases, demand the municipality provide the neighbourhood with an innova­ BCNLab had worked to ‘shape the concept of the city laboratory’, tion location. The CSO then became involved in co-governance of the LL, referring to the ‘city as an ecosystem of experimentation and co- 7 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 creation’ among Quadruple Helix actors (R1, management). UABSSC and researchers considered the positive aspects of citizen engagement sought to ‘explore the possibilities of the network’, where they ‘made for education and research purposes: connections’ virtually with different stakeholders to initiate and The LL can be the first step to new ways of teaching, new ways of implement LL projects (R30, management). interacting among teachers, students, and companies and A physical place was necessary to organise activities and improve researchers. citizen participation by providing an open space for citizens to come on a (R27, management) daily basis and propose their ideas while optimising public in­ frastructures. Five of the LLs were integrated into public spaces, Before participating in the LL, all the projects I had were only [some including the local public library (L3), university libraries (UABSSC), an interviews] for research. But in the last few years, as the European art factory (BCNLab), and technological and research centres (HCLLC, Commission also promotes this, I try to incorporate this method, that Citilab). The remaining cases operated in certain locations on a project needs to work with the community in the whole process of the basis (i2Cat, LLH), mainly utilising public infrastructures. LLH used project and with the LL. places it considered to be ‘neutral’ locations (R15, management) for all (R16, Academic) participants in terms of distance and discipline, depending on the project Academics were motivated to engage with citizens because of the (e.g. a science museum for a science education project). It is worth derived benefits especially from learning opportunities, yet in some noting that this multiple-case study was carried out before the COVID-19 cases they needed institutional support to do so. While these initiatives pandemic and, therefore, any changes in organising citizen participation were better valued by universities, academics faced challenges related to (i.e. virtual vs. physical) due to the pandemic were not observed. time and opportunity cost as they worked to meet different expectations. Academics thus ‘have to look for the balance’ (R16, academic). 4.6. LLs changing power relations 4.6.3. The role of coordinators in changing power relations Based on the outcomes of some LL projects, evidence suggested that A crucial role of LL coordinators, if not the most important one, was power relations between citizens, governments and knowledge in­ to stimulate stakeholder commitment, especially from citizens. Citizen stitutions had changed. Citizens were motivated to participate in LL commitment refers to the willingness of citizens to participate in the LL activities, while academics and public authorities confirmed the positive and exercise their power. In five of the seven cases, the LL employed full- dynamics resulting from citizen input. The connections with industry time coordinators at the time of the enquiry; during the course of the were not very well observed because of their inconsistent presence, but research, two other LLs also introduced this position. L3 acknowledged the innovation managers we interviewed indicated that the interests of the need for a coordinator and was in the process of recruiting: ‘Until industry in citizen inclusion appeared to be for ‘business-as-usual’ pur­ now, the persons in charge of the LL are A or B; both are teachers and poses of innovation exploitation, noting that ‘doing real-life tests is researchers from the university. They have no time to do that. […] It is something important’ for product development (R31, industry) and very difficult if you go to the LL but it is closed because A is in class and B innovation exploration, including ‘entrepreneurial idea discovery’ (R32, is at a conference’ (R30, management). industry). In L3, individual citizens who had their representative, a CSO, on the governance board considered their governance board something that 4.6.1. Citizen power: their self-perception was ‘highly political’ (R34, resident). When they had concerns, they With the support of LLs, some citizens were motivated and enabled to preferred to reach out to someone who coordinated their daily activities: achieve their initial goals. One citizen appreciated the regional pilot ‘The most important change [we would like] is to have someone here efforts to promote the active participation of other citizens, noting that who we can speak to, or someone who organises courses and spends time ‘we need to teach the citizens how to be able to solve problems by here’ (R34, resident). Having a dedicated person to address citizens' themselves’ (R22, citizen). An academic confirmed the impact of LL needs and reinforce trust was also a common theme: ‘They can express activities in enabling citizens to address their problems: ‘Students pre­ more things they would like to change when they have some space and sented the results of their research to the director of the school, and the some reference persons to talk with. I think it is the key’ (R21, NGO). school made some changes. For them, it was very interesting, and it had The LL coordinators bridged citizens and different stakeholders. In a real impact in the moment’ (R16, academic). An interviewed entre­ some cases, they helped citizens overcome their hesitation to directly preneur shared the value of the LL network: ‘We have the city council as contact other actors: ‘The interesting thing here is that I do not need to a client, as well as the regional government. We are exploring the uni­ be concerned about politics, that I am related to this public thing. I work versity side and then the companies because we think that it makes sense with C [LL coordinator], who is channelling us to projects and events’ for companies to have this digital channel for the community. But at this (R2, entrepreneur). moment, companies are not valuing it so much’ (R2). Interestingly, during the LL process, some local residents went 5. Discussion: how do living labs include citizens in ways that beyond their initial personal interests and genuinely wanted to promote change power relations? regional development by inviting industry to participate. This demon­ strated the complexity of power where it was not always perceived as a A common finding across the studied cases was the presence of LL ‘zero-sum game’ among actors but could be a collective effort to address actors who acknowledged the agency of citizens in collaborative eco­ common problems. One interviewee suggested, “We need someone to go systems. These actors, especially LL coordinators, were closely aligned to company A and speak to someone: ‘We have this LL, and we want to with the interests of relevant citizens and keen to involve them in collaborate – what can we do?’ Here, we have a lot of big companies. various ways in different projects. This offered what might be consid­ […] The more people we have here, the more interesting it is” (R33, ered a ‘temporary’ or ‘borrowed’ power position within LL collabora­ residents). tions, justified mainly by the discursive legitimacy of citizens and the critical need for their participation. When citizens were able to suc­ 4.6.2. Citizen power: perceived by other stakeholders cessfully leverage this initial power change, these closely aligned actors Citizen input was positively valued among governments and were able to once more ‘lend’ power positions to citizens to allow them knowledge institutions, and a change in the citizen inclusion method to acquire critical resources through access to project funding and was observed: ‘It is interesting seeing how the discourse about how the contacts. In these cases, citizens secured either their autonomy to lead smart city should look has affected the agenda of the government itself’ projects and achieve goals or their formal authority through (R20, industry). In the case of knowledge institutions, both management 8 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 participation in formal governance structures. In the latter situation, including several funding opportunities. Citizen inclusion in collabora­ citizens were able to be formally involved and constructively contribute tive ecosystems seeking to ‘democratise innovation’ then became a to the governance of the collaborations. This constitutes what we call a learning process supported by public funding or included in funded ‘power banking’ mechanism in which the power lending roles were research and innovation projects. If this had not been the case, according mainly played by the coordinators funded by either governments or to our interviewees, then such collaboration would not have been knowledge institutions. possible. This points to the perceived emergent challenge of maintaining The power banking mechanism includes two key self-reinforcing LL operations (Rizzo et al., 2021), a condition for power banking to elements facilitating the power transfer process. The first element is function. citizens' willingness to borrow power and to use it productively to Second, although the voices and interests of citizens are better leverage their initial power sources. The second is the power bankers' valued by participants in LL contexts, incentives are critical to maintain commitment to reserving their own discursive legitimacy, critical re­ participants' commitment (Weaver, 2014). Citizens may also feel an sources and formal authority to better incorporate citizens into activities incentive to participate in LLs if they expect to obtain outputs from the with other actors. Presenting our findings and discussion, Fig. 4 visu­ collaborations. However, the expected outputs are vague and uncertain, alises the overall mechanism by which intermediaries such as LLs may considering the long process. In contrast, the cost of participation is organise the inclusion and empowerment of citizens in collaborative clearer and observable, especially as regards the time investment. The ecosystems. feeble incentives and cost requirements raise important challenges in the A few studies in the collaboration literature have identified LLs as effort to engage and retain citizens and other stakeholders, since the boundary spanners seeking to bridge various sectors (Van Geenhuizen, collaboration is voluntary (Nguyen and Marques, 2021). LLs or 2018) or LL coordinators as individuals who nurture the relationships participating organisations would need to address the issue of incentives among different actors (Palomo-Navarro and Navío-Marco, 2018). to enable changes in power relation at a structural level. Doing so would When it comes to citizen inclusion, the role of LL coordinators conven­ require either LLs to align the outcomes to the needs of each participant tionally involves collecting and organising information provided by or Triple Helix organisations to allow citizen engagement activities to be citizens, as users, and forwarding it to other Triple Helix actors (Nyström recognised and best utilised at the institutional level. et al., 2014). Our analysis contributes to this discussion by illustrating a In this regard, we note that the simple act of meaningfully involving fundamental change in contemporary urban collaborative discourses citizens in ways that allow them to participate as equivalent (not even and practices that are interested in exploring the agency of citizens in equal) actors to the other established organisational actors in these innovation and their likely undermined roles. In this context, power experimental ecosystems is extremely complex. The proposed mecha­ bankers are the focal actors who build trust, empower individual citizens nism involves enthusiastic coordinators who repeatedly provide power to identify their desires, and effectively incorporate citizens into the to citizens, a role justified by citizens' discursive legitimacy, so citizens collaborations as independent actors. can leverage that loaned power to create new power sources. This il­ We acknowledge that organising collaborative systems requires the lustrates the challenge of the problem: it is not a trivial task to mean­ efforts of many individuals and organisations, rather than ‘a single he­ ingfully involve citizens when the extant collaborations consistently roic agency’ (Breznitz et al., 2018, p. 894). While our findings suggest marginalise and exclude citizen power. This suggests that we should be that power bankers are central to challenging and changing smart city more critical with the calls for using the Quadruple Helix model to power relations in favour of citizens, several factors are critical for this improve the quality of governance and decision-making. Primarily, we endeavour to be sustained or scaled. should focus on the mechanisms through which power can be ‘lent’ to First, the existence of power bankers – a role exercised by LL co­ civic actors to facilitate their exercise of agency. ordinators – is largely contingent upon political and social support, as As an additional challenge, although citizen inclusion is a precon­ public funding was crucial to filling this role in most of the cases. The dition for leveraging citizens' capacity for innovation from a democratic discursive legitimacy of citizens, perceived as their right to be involved perspective, their inclusion does not necessarily imply that collaborative in the system, especially in digital era, was primarily addressed by projects are strategically successful. Even if Quadruple Helix collabo­ governmental actors first. This call was later echoed by knowledge in­ ration takes place, satisfactory outcomes for all participants are difficult stitutions in the form of European community-based policy concepts, and endanger the continuation of the collaboration (Nguyen and Fig. 4. Citizens' power and inclusion in smart city systems with intermediaries (LLs). 9 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 Marques, 2021). contingent upon two interrelated elements. On the one hand, citizens must be empowered to exercise their power sources and to influence the 5.1. Theoretical and empirical contributions decision-making process. On the other hand, the strong ties between Triple Helix participants must be challenged: the actors must be better Our findings contribute to the contemporary discussion on citizen attuned to citizen voices and recognise the value of citizen input. inclusion in collaborative ecosystems by providing a process and This paper presents an exploratory case study of seven LLs in a single mechanism, foregrounded by the theory of power, to meaningfully region renowned for its social practices and relatively high levels of include citizens. By doing so, we make three contributions. social cohesion. Our results suggest that a self-reinforcing mechanism First, we address a major concern from several scholars about the that agencies exert through ‘power bankers’, coupled with factors such vagueness of the terms ‘citizens’ and ‘civil society’ and their ontology in as political support and incentives, endows citizens with temporary the context of including citizens in collaborative systems (Avelino and positions of power. Citizens may leverage this power in smart city ac­ Wittmayer, 2016; Engelbert et al., 2019). Our findings highlight the tivities to deploy means, such as access to critical resources and primary importance of detecting citizens and their interests and (potentially) formal authority, to achieve their goals. The identified uncovering different types of citizens according to their interests. Sec­ mechanism appears to be strongly reliant on publicly funded co­ ond, we underline that differential interests and power sources require ordinators, who are unlikely to be present in all contexts. Although other different strategies and incentives when it comes to engaging different mechanisms may occur, these findings may apply generally, thereby types of citizens, both in term of power relations and democratic rep­ justifying a sceptical attitude towards the Quadruple Helix model. The resentation. For example, this can be observed in the different directions efforts required to engage citizens at a basic level in a socially active of co-creation adopted in our case studies with the aim of facilitating region suggest that, in less social regions, it could be even harder to citizen contributions. Some co-creation activities, such as the hack­ mobilise citizens to build smart cities. It would be valuable to have athon, attracted ‘disproportionately young and tech-savvy’ participants. similar studies in other settings to compare and verify our findings and Several interviewees were aware that different strategies would have arguments. needed to be implemented to if the goal had been ‘to reach out to senior This research is subject to two main limitations that future research citizens or people from socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods’. As per could address. First, access to citizen interviewees was relatively limited; our interviewee, ‘This is especially important to avoid the pitfall of a future interviews could uncover more nuances in citizen perceptions. well-intentioned public policy actually ending up increasing the digital Further research that offers broader citizen insights would be beneficial, gap between the capability-rich and the capability-poor’ (R1, manage­ although this issue may be difficult to overcome due to the dispersion of ment). This issue is extremely relevant in debates related to the booming citizens. Second, this study examined LLs as a potential instrument for co-creation literature as a methodology to create an open environment citizen inclusion to expand the problem-solving capacity of smart cities. for societal transformation. Failing to recognise power asymmetry in The effect of LLs on democracy should be subject to deeper examination. these activities in practice leads to negative consequences, as recently proposed in several conceptual studies (Turnhout et al., 2020). Some Funding critics also importantly note that that co-creation and other participa­ tory methods should not be a means for public authorities to elude their This work was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 responsibilities (Hertting and Kugelberg, 2018). Third, the capability to Research and Innovation programme [grant number 722295]; and the influence decision-making and change may encourage citizen engage­ Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad [grant number ment, as suggested by current theory and policy discourses. That said, ECO2017-86054-C3-3-R]. The research reflected only the authors' view, the evidence indicates that, at the time of this study, formal authority in and the funders are not responsible for any use that may be made of the the form of representative co-governance appears uncorrelated with information it contains. individual citizens' motivation to participate. However, gaining the autonomy to identify and address their problems seems to generate immediate effects on citizen empowerment. Declaration of competing interest 6. Conclusions None. This paper addresses the contemporary interest in citizen inclusion in Acknowledgments smart city collaborative ecosystems to effectively address urban prob­ lems. It contends that there is a need to address the existing power im­ The authors would like to thank all interviewees for sharing valuable balances in which institutionalised norms and the relationships between insights and facilitating the fieldwork. We are also grateful to three classic actors tend to frame citizens as passive consumers and prevent anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Lastly, this them from exerting power. We analysed how LLs challenge and change article has been published on behalf of our late co-author, Paul Benne­ those power relations at the micro-scale and could potentially form the worth, and in his memory. The excellent contribution of Paul is basis for a broader shift at the structural level of urban collaborative acknowledged and his firm belief on the value of this research has systems. Applying power theory, the success of power relation change is inspired us to continue this work. Appendices Appendix 1 Main characteristics of cases. Case Est. Sector Purposes relevant to LLs Lead stakeholders year BCNLab 2012 Culture and To combine traditional arts, science and technology; to support Promoted by the Directorate of Creativity and Innovation within technology both existing initiatives and new entrepreneurial proposals. the Culture Institute of Barcelona (Barcelona City Council). (continued on next page) 10 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 Appendix 1 (continued ) Case Est. Sector Purposes relevant to LLs Lead stakeholders year L3 2015 Culture and To create links between culture, technology and society; to explore Located in a public library. Governed by Computer Vision Centre technology how technology can transform users' experience into new services (a research centre of UAB), UAB, the Sant Cugat municipality and and applications. the Volpelleres Association of Residents. HCLLC 2016 Health To provide administrative infrastructure, management and a Governed by long-standing LEITAT technological centre. ‘laboratory of ideas’. Developed from the Terrassa municipality's innovation platform. LLH 2014 Health To promote health for and with society through educational and Governed by IrsiCaixa AIDS, a private research centre promoted participatory programmes that empower citizens with the by a bank and regional government. knowledge to make decisions about health and to engage in health research and innovation projects. Citilab 2007 ICT To democratise innovation and promote a knowledge society Established by the Cornellà municipality. First citizen centre in through use of the Internet and a collaborative learning Catalonia for social and digital innovation. Serves as a training environment based on design thinking, computational thinking centre, research centre and business and social incubator. and user-centred co-creation. i2Cat 2002 ICT To foster collaboration and empower citizens through open and Non-profit research and innovation centre, with a separate LL participative digital social innovation. unit established in 2015. Promoted by the regional government. Pioneer of the Catalan LLs, founding member of the ENoLL. Consulted for the creation of other Catalan LLs. UABSSC 2014 Mobility (and To assist the university in research, technology transfer and Established by the UAB, Catalonia's second largest university. extending to other societal interaction by considering the university as a city LL that Part of the CORE strategic research communities at UAB. areas) combines smart city technology with social innovation and actively engages end users. Appendix 2 Data sources. BCNLab L3 HCLLC LLH Citilab i2Cat UABSSC No. interviews 5 12 2 3 3 8 6 No. interviewees 5 17 3 3 3 8 6 Out of which … LL management 2 5 2 1 2 3 4 and coordination Government 1 3 1 1 2 1 Academia 1 3 1 1 1 Industry 2 1 Citizens 1 (Entrepreneur) 4 (Residents who 2 (NGO & participated in citizen) trainings) Observations and Workshop on innovation Public debate on Hospital visits Hospital and Citizen co- Co-creation participations programmes and projects artificial intelligence (12/2017 & public health working space workshop, opening (01/2018) (01/2019) 02/2018) centre visit (12/ visit (12/2017) day (02/2018) 2017) - Site visits (2017–2018) - Day of open innovation and fab LLs in Catalonia (CatLabs, 02/2018) - Open LL Days (ENoLL, 08/2018) Secondary data Webpage, emails, Case studies, Webpage Webpage Case studies, Case studies, Case studies, presentation, LL webpage, annual reports, annual reports, webpage, LL introduction presentations, leaflets webpage webpage extension plan - Presentations and working papers on regional LL strategies - ENoLL webpage and members' profiles References Ashworth, R.E., McDermott, A.M., Currie, G., 2019. Theorizing from qualitative research in public administration: plurality through a combination of rigor and richness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 29 (2), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/ Albino, V., Berardi, U., Dangelico, R.M., 2015. Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, muy057. performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 22 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/ Avelino, F., 2021. Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092. implications for research on social change and innovation. J.Polit.Power 1–24. Almirall, E., Wareham, J., 2011. Living Labs: arbiters of mid and ground-level https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1875307. innovation. Technol.Anal.Strateg.Manag. 23 (1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M., 2016. Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: 09537325.2011.537110. a multi-actor perspective. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18 (5), 628–649. https://doi.org/ Anderson, C., Brion, S., 2014. Perspectives on power in organizations. Annu.Rev.Organ. 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259. Psychol.Organ.Behav. 1, 67–97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- Barley, S.R., 2010. Building an institutional field to corral a government: a case to set an 031413-091259. agenda for organization studies. Organ. Stud. 31 (6), 777–805. https://doi.org/ Andreani, S., Kalchschmidt, M., Pinto, R., Sayegh, A., 2019. Reframing technologically 10.1177/0170840610372572. enhanced urban scenarios: a design research model towards human centered smart Bergvall-Kåreborn, Ståhlbröst, 2009. Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 142, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. for innovation. Int. J. Innov. Reg. Dev. 1 (4), 356–370. techfore.2018.09.028. Bibri, S.E., Krogstie, J., 2017. Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive Ansell, C., Gash, A., 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 31, 183–212. https://doi.org/ Adm. Res. Theory 18 (4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032. 10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., Piirainen, T., 2010. Exploring Quadruple Helix: Bickerstaff, K., Walker, G., 2005. Shared visions, unholy alliances: power, governance Outlining User-oriented Innovation Models. University of Tampere. No. 85/2010. and deliberative processes in local transport planning. Urban Stud. 42 (12), 2123–2144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500332098. 11 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., Amitrano, C.C., 2017. Co-governing smart cities through living Kähkönen, A.K., 2014. The influence of power position on the depth of collaboration. labs. Top evidences from EU. Transylvanian Rev. Adm. Sci. 50E, 21–37. https://doi. Supply Chain Manag. 19 (1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2013-0079. org/10.24193/tras.2017.0002. Kanstrup, A.M., 2017. Living in the lab: an analysis of the work in eight living Borkowska, K., Osborne, M., 2018. Locating the fourth helix: rethinking the role of civil laboratories set up in care homes for technology innovation. CoDesign 13 (1), 49–64. society in developing smart learning cities. Int. Rev. Educ. 64, 1–18. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2016.1146304. 10.1007/s11159-018-9723-0. Kronsell, A., Mukhtar-Landgren, D., 2018. Experimental governance: the role of Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 municipalities in urban living labs. Eur. Plan. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/ (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. 09654313.2018.1435631. Breznitz, D., Ornston, D., Samford, S., 2018. Mission critical: the ends, means, and design Kummitha, R.K.R., 2018. Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: why of innovation agencies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 27 (5), 883–896. https://doi.org/10.1093/ Smart City planning needs to go beyond corporate visioning? Technol. Forecast. Soc. icc/dty027. Chang. 137, 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.010. Bryman, A., Bell, E., 2011. Business Research Methods, Third ed. Oxford University Kummitha, R.K.R., Crutzen, N., 2017. How do we understand smart cities? An Press, Oxford. evolutionary perspective. Cities 67, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B., 2005. Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public cities.2017.04.010. Problems in a Shared-power World. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/ Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., Nyström, A., 2012. Living labs as open-innovation 10.2307/977190 networks. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. (September), 6–11. Charnock, G., March, H., Ribera-Fumaz, R., 2019. From smart to rebel city? Worlding, Leminen, S., Nyström, A.G., Westerlund, M., 2015. A typology of creative consumers in provincialising and the Barcelona Model. Urban Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/ living labs. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 37, 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 0042098019872119. jengtecman.2015.08.008. Clegg, S., 2010. The state, power, and agency: missing in action in institutional theory? Leydesdorff, L., Deakin, M., 2011. The Triple-Helix model of smart cities: a neo- J. Manag. Inq. 19 (1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492609347562. evolutionary perspective. J. Urban Technol. 18 (2), 53–63. Clegg, S., Haugaard, M., 2009. The SAGE Handbook of Power. SAGE Publications. Lin, X., Ho, C.M.F., Shen, G.Q., 2018. For the balance of stakeholders' power and Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., Phillips, N., 2006. Power And Organizations, First ed. SAGE responsibility: a collaborative framework for implementing social responsibility Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215715. issues in construction projects. Manag. Decis. 56 (3), 550–569. https://doi.org/ Dameri, R.P., 2017. The conceptual idea of smart city: university, industry, and 10.1108/MD-05-2016-0275. government vision. In: Smart City Implementation: Creating Economic And Public Linneberg, M.S., Korsgaard, S., 2019. Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the Value in Innovative Urban Systems. Springer, pp. 23–43. novice. Qual. Res. J. 19 (3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012. Dell’Era, C., Landoni, P., 2014. Living Lab: a methodology between user-centred design MacGregor, S.P., Marques-Gou, P., Simon-Villar, A., 2010. Gauging readiness for the and participatory design. Creat. Innov. Manag. 23 (2), 137–154. https://doi.org/ quadruple helix: a study of 16 European organizations. J. Knowl. Econ. 1 (3), 10.1111/caim.12061. 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-010-0012-9. Engelbert, J., van Zoonen, L., Hirzalla, F., 2019. Excluding citizens from the European Mahizhnan, A., 1999. Smart cities: the Singapore case. Cities 16 (1), 13–18. https://doi. smart city: the discourse practices of pursuing and granting smartness. Technol. org/10.1016/s0264-2751(98)00050-x. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 142, 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Mastelic, J., Sahakian, M., Bonazzi, R., 2015. How to keep a living lab alive? Info 17 (4), techfore.2018.08.020. 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-01-2015-0012. Engels, F., Wentland, A., Pfotenhauer, S., 2019. Testing future societies? Developing a Meijer, A., Bolívar, M.P.R., 2016. Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on framework for test beds and living labs as instruments of innovation governance. smart urban governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 82 (2), 392–408. https://doi.org/ Res. Policy 103826, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103826. 10.1177/0020852314564308. ENoLL, 2019. About us - European Network of Living Labs. Retrieved August 6, 2019, Menny, M., Voytenko Palgan, Y., McCormick, K., 2018. Urban living labs and the role of from. https://enoll.org/about-us/. users in co-creation. Gaia 27, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.14. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V., Kulkki, S., 2005. State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs Miller, K., Mcadam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A., Puthusserry, P., 2016. Knowledge approach to user-centric ICT innovation - a European approach. Technology 1 (13), transfer in university quadruple helix ecosystems: an absorptive capacity 1–13. perspective. R&D Manag. 46 (2), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12182. Etzkowitz, H., 2008. The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Mora, L., Bolici, R., Deakin, M., 2017. The first two decades of Smart-City research: a Action. Taylor & Francis, New York. bibliometric analysis. J. Urban Technol. 24 (1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K., Thoben, T., Schumacher, J., 2008. Living Lab: a 10630732.2017.1285123. new development strategy. In: European Living Labs - A New Approach for Human Mora, L., Deakin, M., Reid, A., 2019. Strategic principles for smart city development: A Centric Regional Innovation. Wissenschaftlicher, Berlin, pp. 1–14. multiple case study analysis of European best practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Fitjar, R.D., Benneworth, P., Asheim, B.T., 2019. Towards regional responsible research Chang. 142, 70–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.035. and innovation? Integrating RRI and RIS3 in European innovation policy. Sci. Public Mulvenna, M., Martin, S., 2013. Living labs: frameworks and engagement. In: Innovation Policy 46 (5), 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz029. Through Knowledge Transfer 2012. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12 (2), Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A.C., Mangano, G., Scorrano, F., 2014. Current 219–245. trends in smart city initiatives: some stylised facts. Cities 38, 25–36. https://doi.org/ Foucault, M., 1982. The subject and power. Crit. Inq. 8 (4), 777–795. Retrieved from 10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.010. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1343197. Nguyen, H.T., Marques, P., 2021. The promise of living labs to the Quadruple Helix Government of Catalonia, 2014. SmartCatalonia: Catalonia's smart strategy. Retrieved stakeholders: exploring the sources of (dis)satisfaction. Eur. Plan. Stud. 1–20 https:// March 15, 2020, from. http://smartcatalonia.gencat.cat/web/.content/01_SmartC doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1968798. AT/documents/SmartCatalonia_ENGLISH.pdf. Nyström, A.G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., Kortelainen, M., 2014. Actor roles and role Government of Catalonia, 2017. CatLabs Programme. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from. patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Ind. Mark. Manag. 43 (3), 483–495. SmartCatalonia. http://smartcatalonia.gencat.cat/en/detalls/article/CatLa https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.016. bs-00001. Ott, C., Kiteme, B., 2016. Concepts and practices for the democratisation of knowledge Gray, B., 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Hum. Relat. 38 generation in research partnerships for sustainable development. Evid. Policy 12 (3), (10), 911–936. 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416X14700793045951. Grundel, I., Dahlström, M., 2016. A quadruple and quintuple helix approach to regional Palomo-Navarro, Á., Navío-Marco, J., 2018. Smart city networks' governance: the innovation systems in the transformation to a forestry-based bioeconomy. J. Knowl. Spanish smart city network case study. Telecommun. Policy 42 (10), 872–880. Econ. 7 (4), 963–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0411-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.10.002. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., 1998. Strategies of engagement: lessons from the critical Pitkin, H.F., 1972. Wittgenstein And Justice. University of California Press. examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organ. Puerari, E., De Koning, J.I.J.C., Von Wirth, T., Karré, P.M., Mulder, I.J., Loorbach, D.A., Sci. 9 (2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.217. 2018. Co-creation dynamics in Urban Living Labs. Sustainability 10 (6). https://doi. Hertting, N., Kugelberg, C., 2018. Representative democracy and the problem of org/10.3390/su10061893. institutionalizing local participatory governance. In: Nils, H., Kugelberg, C. (Eds.), Purdy, J.M., 2012. A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance Local Participatory Governance And Representative Democracy. Routledge, processes. Public Adm. Rev. 72 (3), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315471174. 6210.2011.02525.x. Hollands, R.G., 2008. Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or Ran, B., Qi, H., 2018. Contingencies of power sharing in collaborative governance. Am. entrepreneurial? City 12 (3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Rev. Public Adm. 48 (8), 836–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017745355. 13604810802479126. Reypens, C., Lievens, A., Blazevic, V., 2019. Hybrid Orchestration in Multi-stakeholder Hossain, M., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., 2019. A systematic review of living lab Innovation Networks: practices of mobilizing multiple, diverse stakeholders across literature. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 976–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. organizational boundaries. Organ. Stud. 42 (1), 61–83. jclepro.2018.12.257. Ribeiro, B., Bengtsson, L., Benneworth, P., Bührer, S., Castro-Martínez, E., Hansen, M., Huxham, C., Vangen, S., 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory And Practice of Shapira, P., 2018. Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and Collaborative Advantage. Routledge. responsible research and innovation. J. Responsib. Innov. 5 (3), 316–331. https:// Jensen, C., Trägårdh, B., 2004. Narrating the Triple Helix concept in “weak” regions: doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1495033. lessons from Sweden. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 27 (5), 513–530. https://doi.org/ Ricciardi, F., Za, S., 2015. Smart City research as an interdisciplinary crossroads: a 10.1504/IJTM.2004.004287. challenge for management and organization studies. In: Mola, L., Pennarola, F., Juniper Research, 2016. Singapore named “Global Smart City – 2016”. Retrieved from. Za, S. (Eds.), From Information to Smart City: Environment, Politics And Economics. https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/singapore-named-global-smart-city-2016. Springer, pp. 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09450-2. 12 H.T. Nguyen et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 183 (2022) 121866 Rizzo, A., Habibipour, A., Ståhlbröst, A., 2021. Transformative thinking and urban living Von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Massachusetts. labs in planning practice: a critical review and ongoing case studies in Europe. Eur. Weaver, R.K., 2014. Compliance regimes and barriers to behavioral change. Governance Plan. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1911955. 27 (2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12032. Rodrigues, C., Teles, F., 2017. The fourth helix in smart specialization strategies: the gap Yang, Y., Holgaard, J.E., 2012. The important role of civil society groups in eco- between discourse and practice. In: Monteiro, S.P., Carayannis, E.G. (Eds.), The innovation: a triple helix perspective. J. Knowl. Based Innov. China 4 (2), 132–148. Quadruple Innovation Helix Nexus. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 111–136. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1108/17561411211235730. org/10.1057/978-1-137-55577-9_5. Yin, R.K., 2003. Case study research. In: Design And Methods, Third ed. SAGE Santonen, T., Creazzo, L., Griffon, A., Bódi, Z., Aversano, P., 2017. Cities as Living Labs- Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Increasing the impact of investment in the circular economy for sustainable cities. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/groups/rise/ Huong Thu Nguyen is a PhD fellow in Economics, Management and Organisation (DEMO cities_as_living_labs.pdf. programme) at the Department of Business of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Scholl, C., Kemp, R., 2016. City labs as vehicles for innovation in urban planning Spain. Huong’s research explores key actors and their interactions for innovation and processes. Urban Plan. 1 (4), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i4.749. regional development. In particular, her doctoral thesis examines the development from Snape, D., Spencer, L., 2003. The foundations of qualitative research. In: Ritchie, J., the Triple to the Quadruple Helix model of innovation. Lewis, J. (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students And Researchers (First). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.18352/jsi.39. Sønderskov, M., 2020. Councillors' attitude to citizen participation in policymaking as a Pilar Marques is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management at the Department of driver of, and barrier to, democratic innovation. Innov. J. 25 (3), 1–20. Business Organization of the Universitat de Girona (Spain) and Director of the Chamber of Turner, J.C., 2005. Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory. Eur. J. Soc. Commerce Chair of Family Business at the same university. She holds a PhD in Business Psychol. 35 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.244. Administration and her current research interests include business model innovation, Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Louder, E., 2020. The politics of co- collaborative innovation and Quadruple Helix approaches to innovation. production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009. Paul Benneworth was a Professor of Innovation and Regional Development at the Van Geenhuizen, M., 2018. A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary Department of Business Administration of the Western Norway University of Applied spanners in innovation. Environ. Plann. C Polit. Space 36 (7), 1280–1298. https:// Sciences and a Senior Researcher at CHEPS, the Netherlands. Paul's research focused on doi.org/10.1177/2399654417753623. the dynamics of innovation and societal change and in particular the ways in which Vanolo, A., 2016. Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in partnerships of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners try to use various kinds of tomorrow's smart cities. Futures 82, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. knowledge to stimulate socio-economic development. futures.2016.05.010. 13