D3.9 Living labs for co-creation and co-innovation v3.0

Background

This report presents the outcome of Work Package 3, Task 3.3 of the LibrarIN project, which investigates libraries as living labs, i.e. experimental and participatory spaces for service development. The living lab approach is interesting or topical in library research as the concept captures and illustrates the increasing user-centredness of libraries and libraries as experimental sites for library service development and community development.

This third deliverable (third release of the deliverable) provides:
1. A review of the literature on libraries as living labs, i.e., as experimental settings that apply participative methods of co-creation and co-innovation for public service and library innovation (included in deliverable 3.7).
2. Illustrations of cases selected for further study, highlighting their relevance to LibrarIN and informing the tracker and databases of WP5 (included in deliverable 3.8).
3. Final results and implications of the case studies for policy and research (included in deliverable 3.9).

Our focus is on libraries as living labs rather than libraries with living labs. This distinction is important because it is the library as a whole that in some cases transitions into a more experimental space. The deliverable explores various concepts, theories, and empirical examples of how libraries engage in experimental practices.

Purpose
The purpose of the report is to answer the following research question: How are innovation and participatory methods applied and understood in the context of public libraries and how does this influence opportunities and limitations relative to co-creation and co-innovation of library services and other community services? The literature review and case illustrations inform the third release of the report due in month 36, which will report the final results and implications of the case studies for policy and research.

Method
The first part of the report is based on a systematized literature review of scientific articles. The review strategy draws on the logic of the PRISMA model in the selection and screening of the literature.

The second and third part of the report builds on the literature review, which enabled us to formulate case selection criteria, develop a case study protocol, and select and carry out case studies. Sixteen case studies, highlighting libraries as living labs, were selected, are illustrated in this report, and a cross-case comparison of then have been carried out.

Overview of findings

The key results of the literature review are:
• The term “living lab” is not used to a great extent in the reviewed literature. However, the library is often described as an innovative and experimental setting for developing a broad range of new services. The construct of living lab is instead identified as a latent construct and theme in the literature.
• The literature discusses the purpose of the library in terms of its boundaries, legitimacy and types of libraries. Overall, we interpret this as implicit discussions of the “public value” of libraries.
• Libraries, as physical spaces, undergo a conceptual transformation that enable them to deliver three interconnected types of services: ‘space-place services,’ ‘processional learning services’ and “democratic engagement services’. As such the basis for further development of co-creation and co-innovation are highly present.
• The library is evolving from a space with distinct roles for patrons and librarians to a more dynamic and collaborative environment. This implies that librarians become library professionals and that the development of a new skills-sets is an issue.

The cross-case analysis identified different ideal types of libraries. While each library is unique and often combines different types in practice, it is still possible to distinguish ideal types that are emphasized to different degrees in the libraries. Library A is the classical library ideal type, Library B is the embedded library ideal type (hosting , and Library C is the advanced library ideal type: Library A maintains a strong commitment to traditional missions such as promoting literature, education, and civic engagement, operating primarily within politically defined frameworks and deriving legitimacy from institutional mandates. While evolving into community hubs, their innovation potential is often moderated by these political constraints. Library B, in contrast, functions as a community host, embracing open-ended and participatory approaches that deliberately blur the traditional service provider boundary. Its legitimacy is derived from its ability to adapt, listen, and co-create with local communities, rather than solely relying on political mandates. Library C moves beyond adaptation by embedding living lab principles as a core design strategy. These institutions proactively shape a novel, visionary space, deriving their legitimacy from their capacity to encourage systematic innovation, experimentation, and collaboration with academic and municipal organizations.