Student living labs as innovation arenas for sustainable tourism

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to explore sustainable tourism in relation to the concept of student living labs, defined as spaces for open innovation, co-creation and experimentation in real-life settings with students. Although these features are vital for the tourism industry, living labs are seldom discussed nor used in tourism research, education and practice. To illustrate living labs’ organisation, facilitation and impediments, the author uses an ethnographic description and analysis of five different experiences that have the characteristics of living labs. The findings show that tourism living labs offer students opportunities for hands-on engagement in the co-creation and testing of frontier solutions with private, public and civil society sector partners. They also enhance social inclusion, environmental responsibility and life-long learning. For the tourism industry, labs can offer new knowledge; more, extended and deepened relationships; and opportunities to find an educated workforce. The challenges include project timeframes; documentation and information; equality among participants: the size of student groups; and the resources of the university. The article stresses the importance of recognising and handling the challenges that come with the introduction of living labs in a tourism context.

KEYWORDS:

• Co-creation
• living labs
• innovation labs
• sustainable tourism
• student education
• experiential learning

Introduction

Sustainable development and collaboration is the ideal of higher education today (Evans, Jones, Karvonen, Millard, & Wendler, 2015), not least in tourism programmes and courses (Coghlan, 2015). Higher educational institutions, or parts of them, can ‘help society make the transition to sustainable life styles’ (Velazquez, Munguia, Platt, & Taddei, 2006, p. 818) and function as integrated research and innovation arenas for co-creation processes (Zen, 2017). This calls for educational environments that inspire, challenge and develop students, and it requires an understanding of the complex relationships between education, research, collaboration and innovation (Gabrielsson, 2017). In tourism, several scholars point out that there is a gap between what the tourism industry expects from graduated students and what the academic institutions offer (e.g. Rodriguez-Anton, del Mar Alonso-Almeida, Andrada, & Pedroche, 2013; Wang, Ayres, & Huyton, 2010). The increasing complexity of tourism and the rapid changes in the market due to digitalisation and globalisation calls for new understandings of tourism as a phenomenon. It also requires cross-curricular skills in, for instance, problem-solving, information management, ethical behaviour and teamwork, which are difficult to teach (Rodriguez-Anton et al., 2013). Scholars request a balance in regards to content knowledge, vocational skills, liberal thinking and critical reflexivity in tourism education (Coghlan, 2015), which demands ‘different approaches to learning, teaching and curriculum development’ (Rodriguez-Anton et al., 2013, p. 34).

This paper focusses on co-creation, which distinguishes it from individual approaches such as internships and work placements. One of the concepts that appear in discussions about collaborative environments is ‘living labs’, typically categorised by open innovation, co-creation and experimentation in real-life settings (e.g. Gascó, 2017; Hawk, Romine, & Bartle, 2012). Living labs provide spaces to share ideas and develop, for example, goods, services, business models and systems, and if the lab is part of an academic institution, students get the opportunity to collaborate with stakeholders (Hawk et al., 2012) through active, effective and reflexive learning experiences (Zen, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of living labs in relation to education, innovation and sustainable tourism. A literature review is followed by five illustrations of living labs that the author has been involved in, concerning, for instance, how they are organised, time frames, what features they involve, how learning takes place and what critical matters come up. Finally, a conclusion with proposed contributions are given.

Innovation and sustainable tourism

The concept of sustainable tourism has developed and matured during the last three decades into an orientation aiming for environmentally, economically, culturally, socially and politically sustainable development through changes in behaviour and societal systems (Bramwell, Higham, Lane, & Miller, 2017). Organisations and people take responsible actions, which manifest in, for instance, CSR programmes in the tourism industry, through regulations, infrastructure and promotion from the part of public authorities, and through the individual and collective actions of tourists (e.g. Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008; Shove, 2010). However, as Bramwell et al. (2017, p. 7) put it, future directions must include undertaking ‘complex issues in new ways, which demand a new order of collaborations that transcend disciplines and methodologies’. Knowledge transfer and accumulation of new knowledge are key for innovations to come forth (Milwood & Zach, 2016). Ideas for innovation are stimulated when you challenge your assumptions and adopt different perspectives on existing situations (De Bono, 1971; Moscardo, 2008). However, the tourism sector features small, seasonal dependent, competitive and fragmented businesses (Hjalager, 2010) with a shortage of resources, a high administrative burden and high rate of human resource renewal, which lower the absorptive capacity of the industry (Najda-Janoszka & Kopera, 2014). It results in an industry with a negative image on highly skilled human resources and leads to difficulties in attracting personnel and financial investments, which further weakens the industry’s knowledge management culture and innovative capacity (Najda-Janoszka & Kopera, 2014, drawing on, for example, Cordeiro & Vieira, 2012; Nordin, 2003). Human resources are the key barrier to innovation in tourism, relating to, for instance, ‘insufficient skills, competencies and low formal qualifications, as well as motivation to engage in innovation processes’ (Najda-Janoszka & Kopera, 2014, p. 199). The difficulties in creating a collaborative innovation culture (McPhee, Guimont, & Lapointe, 2016) often means that new ideas are abandoned at a conceptual stage (Najda-Janoszka & Kopera, 2014). Maybe as a result, most innovations in tourism come forth with the influence of, or as a consequence of, other and wider innovations outside the tourism sector (Bramwell & Lane, 2012; Hjalager, 2015). Furthermore, since innovation in tourism can seldom be formally protected, ‘free-riding’ and imitation is common; any advantage you may gain will rapidly be wind-swept by competitors (Hjalager, 2010). Therefore, to develop sustainable competitive advantage, an important part of innovation in tourism also lies in the branding of places, destinations and products (Jernsand, 2016). The proposed potential lies in new methodologies (Hjalager, 2010), open processes (Sørensen & Sundbo, 2014) and the ability to look outside disciplinary boundaries to find developments crucial for innovation in tourism (Hjalager, 2010). Similarly, Najda-Janoszka and Kopera (2014, p. 199) propose the ‘application of new media for education and knowledge transfer’.

Co-creation

Co-creation originates from the perspective that value cannot be delivered by firms, but derives in relational exchanges and through co-production (Gummesson & Grönroos, 2012; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). In Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s seminal article from 2004, they particularly recognise and develop customers’ (end-users’) active roles as co-creators of value, although increasingly, customer communities, partners and employees are also included (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010).

The types of values that derive from co-creation mainly refer to economic/monetary, social/cultural and/or symbolic/semiotic values (Graeber, 2001; Sanders & Simons, 2009). For instance, in the public sector, the involvement of citizens in public service delivery gives economic yields, such as effectiveness and efficiency, while other examples consider the act of citizen involvement itself as the main objective (Voorberg, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015). Design scholars Sanders and Simons (2009) point out that ‘[o]ne of the key values of value co-creation is that it satisfies the need for creative activity while addressing the need for social interaction’.

In the literature on urban development and transdisciplinary research, the similar term co-production refers to inclusive processes that capture the understandings of different issues in particular contexts through the collaboration between a variety of actors (Gibbons et al., 1994; Polk & Kain, 2015). Knowledge is co-produced across disciplines (Guggenheim, 2006) and addresses ‘the needs for democratic participation or more inclusive political processes called for within the sustainable development debate’ (Polk & Kain, 2015, p. 33). Thus, the view on co-creation is wider, focusing on knowledge and understanding through interrelationships between academic, private and public actors and with a specific focus on sustainability, which is interesting in relation to the wide set of stakeholders and the holistic view that is needed for sustainable tourism. This paper understands co-creation as

an inclusive and creative process between a variety of actors, where knowledge and ideas are captured, integrated, generated and developed into sustainable innovations, and where the values deriving from the process are e.g. economic, social, cultural, environmental, experiential, symbolic, democratic and societal.

Living labs: co-creation and innovation arenas

Co-creation requires ‘a common space where emotions, values, choices, ideas, and ideals emerge, converge or collide’ (Campos, Mendes, Valle, & Scott, 2015, p. 21; drawing on Bochner, Cissna, & Garko, 1991). In Grönroos and Gummerus (2014, p. 209) description, ‘a co-creation platform takes form when two or more actors’ […] processes merge into one collaborative, dialogical process, in which the actors actively influence each other’s processes and outcomes’. Such collaborative environment may have the form of a living lab, which this paper argues can be of use for innovation and learning across disciplines and stakeholders in tourism. The living lab is thus an arena for sustainable co-creation and innovation processes.

The concept of living labs was developed by the Smart Cities research group at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (Hawk et al., 2012). The group integrated design and technology approaches to improve cities’ resource efficiency and responsiveness to inhabitants needs and desires (MIT Media Lab, 2017). Instead of traditional closed and technology-based environments (e.g. R&D departments), living labs represent the concept of open innovation, being more user/human centred, inclusive and creative (Hawk et al., 2012). For instance, according to JPI Urban Europe (2015), an urban living lab is

A forum for innovation, applied to the development of new products, systems, services, and processes in an urban area; employing working methods to integrate people into the entire development process as users and co-creators to explore, examine, experiment, test and evaluate new ideas, scenarios, processes, systems, concepts and creative solutions in complex and everyday contexts.

Living labs can be hosted by universities, public authorities or private sector organisations and they mainly act in a defined context such as a city or a region. Niitamo, Kulkki, Eriksson, and Hribernik (2006) point to the importance of neutral spaces for living labs as they reduce the risk that participants’ are being hampered by institutional ‘lock-in-effects’, such as incorporated norms, cultures and working methods. The triple, quadruple or penta helix model for stakeholder involvement is often used, which emphasises the importance of collaboration between actors in the public and private sector, academia and civil society. An analysis of the living labs that are members of the global network Open living labs (Open living labs, 2017), shows that the descriptions of the labs often underscore users as participants and sources of innovation, sometimes in the forms of test panel participants (e.g. Evolaris Mobile Living Lab) and sometimes more deeply involved in service design (e.g. HumanTech LivingLab). The labs are referred to as physical locations but they can also be virtual (e.g. Images and Résaux-ImaginLab). Some of the members of the Open living labs are networks of labs in a region (e.g. Discovery Innovation Lab) and the structures are sometimes described as innovative ecosystems (e.g. Paris and Co Urban Lab), which can involve or be linked to business support such as incubators and seed funds (e.g. Krakow Living Lab). The living labs are frequently involved with projects in health care (e.g. life quality for elderly people or childcare) or urban development (e.g. smart cities) and they often include features of service design and digital technologies, mainly for public sector service development. Some labs focus on circular economy (e.g. Småland Region Living Lab) or other specific aspects of sustainability such as the reduction of carbon emissions (e.g. Adelaide living laboratories). Other living labs are specifically considered live training sites for industry and students. For instance, TAMK living lab in Finland is hosted by Tampere University of Applied Sciences and combine ‘educational excellence’ and ‘practically oriented, user-driven research, development and innovation actions’ (Open living labs, 2017, online resource).

A design approach, or ‘design thinking’, has gained attention in regards to innovation in recent years (Kimbell, 2011). It refers to a designerly way of knowing and thinking (Cross, 2007, p. 41), which could be of value for firms and policy makers (Kimbell, 2011). A method used by service designers is ‘experience prototyping’ (Buchenau & Suri, 2000; Martin & Hanington, 2012), which means that they put themselves in the shoes of the user and explore the experience in action (Jernsand & Kraff, 2015). Furthermore, participatory design, or co-design, is an acknowledged approach that applies collective creativity (Sanders & Simons, 2009) and uses stakeholders’ practical knowledge and experience (Krippendorff & Butter, 2007) to co-create new products and services using e.g. visual tools (Jernsand, 2016; Jernsand, Kraff, & Mossberg, 2015). User-centered and participatory design is particularly interesting in a tourism context. Tourists continuously want novel experiences (Mossberg, 2007; Sundbo, 2009) and increasingly, consumers are involved, and want to be involved, in the production of their own experience (Alsos, Eide, & Madsen, 2014). This closeness between firms and end-users in tourism means that the knowledge from customers and employees drives innovation (Fuglsang, Sundbo, & Sørensen, 2011).

Students’ experiential learning

An essential point of departure for co-creation is learning, which in this paper focus on student learning and education since higher educational institutions have crucial roles in the creation of knowledge (Velazquez et al., 2006). Related to living labs, Zen (2017) proposes that when students are involved in case studies where they face the opportunities and challenges of a real-world setting and collaborate with other stakeholders, they are involved with effective and reflexive learning. Active, participatory learning means emotional involvement or commitment, which the students achieve in interactive and supportive contexts where both the activities and the outcomes from them are meaningful (Jernsand, 2017; Mathieson, 2014; Terenzini, 1999). Learning theories emphasise the importance of reaching higher learning loops, i.e. higher levels of consciousness and awareness, which is not possible without conversation, feedback and critical reflection (e.g. Argyris & Schön, 1996; Flood & Romm, 1996). Using an experimental approach, the students are able to explore various perspectives, navigate in the social situation of working with others, reflect on their own learning and enrich the educational outcomes (Reid, 2015).

A variety of student learning experiences are characterised by engaged co-creation. Experiential learning (e.g. Kolb, 1984, 2015), problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980), phenomenon-based learning (Østergaard, Dahlin, & Hugo, 2008), project-based learning, research-led teaching and multidisciplinary studio learning are some of the concepts that may fall into a continuum of experiential co-created learning theories, approaches, styles and methods. For instance, problem-based learning (PBL), or discovery learning, is an approach to instruction where tutors merely support, guide and challenge the learners in their inquiry and discovery process. PBL promotes the development of self-directed learning (SDL) and critical thinking skills. The similar approach phenomenon-based learning (Østergaard et al., 2008) emphasises context-specificity and future wanted situations.

An experiential approach goes in line with the change of emphasis based on the Bologna declaration for education, focusing on learning outcomes and competences through meeting the needs of the labour market (employability) and a transition from a teaching to a learning approach (Bologna working group on qualifications frameworks, 2005). From the university’s point of view, the campus can thus become an experiential learning test-bed for solutions to the challenge of sustainability (Marcus, Coops, Ellis, & Robinson, 2015). For instance, Zen (2017) proposes that the way living labs expose ‘the campus society to the environment’ they lead to ‘accelerating the integration of sustainability science in the academic society’ (pp. 951–952). From the point of view of researchers involved in living labs, it combines operation, teaching and research (Robinson, Berkhout, & Campbell, 2011). Zen (2017, p. 951) suggests that for improved output, researchers should ‘apply their tools, equipment and systems or approach’.

Critical issues of co-creation, experiential learning and living labs

David A Kolb, the scholar who introduced the idea of experiential learning to the scientific community, describes his critics’ view of the concept as ‘haphazard, unreliable, and misleading’ (Kolb, 2015, p. xxi). A common view is that it stands in opposition to classroom and lecture learning (e.g. Keeton & Tate, 1978; in Kolb, 2015). Such a perspective, according to Kolb, downplays the importance of ‘thinking, analysis, and academic knowledge’, and reduces experiential learning to merely ‘an educational technique’ (Kolb, 2015, p. xviii). Rather, experiential learning integrates the traditional and experiential in ‘a spirit of cooperative innovation’ (Kolb, 2015, p. 5).

However, it should be noted that preparing for and facilitating living lab projects takes more time and other types efforts and resources than regular teaching (e.g. Evans et al., 2015), which university systems are generally not designed for. Further, there are gatekeeping academics who are not familiar with, or unwilling to identify projects and arrange partnerships between students and stakeholders outside academia (Evans et al., 2015).

A time consuming fact in living labs is that what one person sees as obvious is not necessarily evident for other people (e.g. Husserl, 1970). In collaborative, cross- and trans-disciplinary work, the knowledge and experience from each of the members of a group is difficult to grasp and consider, especially within the frame of a project (Westberg, Polk, & Frid, 2013). For instance, the different disciplines need to learn each other’s vocabulary (Botero & Saad-Suulonen, 2013) and understand the challenges that face each of the actors in a specific context (Bason, 2013). Similarly, it is difficult to think and act at more than one structural level (micro to meta) at the same time and to move between them (zoom in and out). This process takes time and there is a risk that prescheduled time will be used for meetings and keeping up to date with what is going on in the project, while there is no time left for critical issues related to results (Westberg et al., 2013).

Since the activities in living labs are often practical, equal relationships, ‘humbleness and modesty’ are essential (Hawk et al., 2012, p. 228). Jernsand (2017, drawing from e.g. Lave & Wenger, 1991), proposes three aspects of engagement to enhance learning: embodied and situated learning, relationship-building, and acknowledging and sharing of power. Hawk et al. (2012) suggest that the higher education systems in the Nordic countries (mainly referring to Finland) are less competitive than structures in other parts of the world, specifically pointing towards the hierarchical divisions in the United States. Lecturers in the Nordic countries are mentors who listen and advise rather than set directions, which make living labs in these countries easier to handle. Participants from other cultures may find it hard to adjust to these ‘flat leadership/followership structures’ (Hawk et al., 2012, p. 228). Within tourism, Jamal, Taillon, and Dredge (2011, p. 136) point to the ‘sustainability-oriented actions’ that are critical to undertake, and for students to develop skills for, concerning environmental but also ethical issues, such as inclusion, exclusion, belonging and identity.

Experiences of living lab settings

In the following section, some examples of living labs that the author has been involved in are described in chronological order, to illustrate how student learning, innovation and sustainable tourism can be enhanced and what critical issues come up. The various approaches to student living labs are assembled in Table 1. Using an ethnographic approach, the empirical material mainly originates from research diaries and notes from participatory observations. The first three labs are cases of action research, where the author and her colleague were embedded in practical work with 1) a municipality, 2) a business incubator and 3) an ecotourism guide group. In these cases, the empirical material also includes interviews with participants involved in the projects. The empirical material from the last two cases are more shallow observations than the previous, concerning projects where students were involved in two completely different contexts: 4) the unstructured, unfamiliar yet deeply engaging Kenyan environment and 5) a research context with established structures and close mentor communication and instruction. The reason for including these last cases is as examples of shorter interventions, which still have impact in regards to sustainable tourism development and student learning.

Table 1. Approaches to student living labs as experienced by author.

Approach to student living lab	Empirical example	Time frame	Size of student group	Stakeholder engagement	Main sponsors	Location	Main characteristics
Action-oriented master course/ thesis project	Bollebygd master project and thesis	1 year	Small	Master’s students, municipality, idea-based sector, residents, local businesses	Academy, municipality	Small municipality in West Sweden	Multiple helix collaboration, evolutionary, relational, available project space
Creative arena with incubator	Brewhouse business incubator and arena	1 semester to continuous	Individual or small	Ex-students, start-ups, business coaches, creative industry businesses, academy (ongoing evaluation)	Regional and transnational authorities (EU)	Arena for cultural industries in Gothenburg, Sweden	Networks, peers, coaching, multifunctional arena
Action-oriented PhD project	Ecotourism PhD project	4 years	Small	PhD students (multiple disciplines), peers, int. research and knowledge centre, local businesses, residents	Academy and development cooperation agency	Fishing village outside Kisumu, Kenya	Community-based, transdisciplinary, evolutionary, transparent, relational
Significant part of master’s course	Reality Studio master’s course	7 weeks (part of course)	Medium-sized	Master’s students, peers, local organisations, residents	Academy	3rd largest city in Kenya and its environments	Community-based, context-specific, reflexive, self-realizing
Minor part of PhD course	Marine aquaculture PhD course	1 week (part of course)	Medium-sized	PhD students, peers, experts in each discipline	Academy	Research stations in West Sweden	Research-based (experts involved)

Bollebygd master project and thesis

Business and Design is a master programme in collaboration between the business school and the design school at University of Gothenburg. The author was part of the programme between 2008 and 2010. During the third semester, student groups chose from various design briefs written by public and private organisations in the Gothenburg region. The author from business administration and a student colleague from design started working in a project with the municipality of Bollebygd. Together with representatives of the municipality, the students discussed and changed the design brief as to suit both parties, which made the students’ engagement in the project deeper although still useful for the municipality. The students were not consultants who were supposed to do ‘a job’: the learning process was the central part of the work, and since there was no actual money involved, it enabled the process to be more open and experimental from the municipality’s side, thus connected to an iterative and open-ended innovation spiral (e.g. Jernsand & Kraff, 2015). The work resulted in development of ideas from residents, NGOs, firms, officials and politicians and ended with an exhibition and a treasure hunt in the city centre, as well as a report on strategic design and place branding. Since the municipality is very small (appr. 8 000 inhabitants), the students came to know the senior civil servants and politicians very well as the project evolved. Gaining their trust, they also got the opportunity to do their thesis work in Bollebygd. The municipality arranged a space where the students could sit and work, continue and develop the exhibition and meet people on a daily basis, since the premises was a free shop space in the city centre. The students developed a brand platform together with stakeholders, in workshops, discussions and through visual tools as well as their situated learning about the place. Sustainability was at the core of the project. For instance, they found the life giving local water and the proud inhabitants as central for the Bollebygd place brand.

The location of a lab can be just as important for its success as the collaboration itself. Consequently, it may not always be that the space should be neutral for all, as Niitamo et al. (2006) suggest, or at least not the place, since tourism is place-specific. Living labs builds on real-life settings, and co-creation is at the core (Gascó, 2017; Hawk et al., 2012). Thus, it is essential to emphasise the specificity of the place along with the neutrality of the facilitators and the space. In the Bollebygd project, the fact that the author and her colleague had an available project space in the town centre made it possible for people to drop by. It was their town, and they were able to tell things just because they were there, but they did not have to face some local officials with whom they may have had a bad relationship. For instance, they could give and vote for ideas on the vision and core values of the municipality. The central location also made it possible for stakeholders to come who would not have been invited to other types of gatherings. From the part of the students, the situatedness was an embodied quality of learning, ‘an evolving form of membership’ in the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 53), which made them able to reflect on the situation of residents, officials, politicians, firms and tourists.

Brewhouse business incubator and arena

The engagement in student living labs can lead to new friendships and colleagues, new networks and new career opportunities. The author and her colleague found themselves working well together and started a company. One of the assignments was the ongoing evaluation of a business incubator for creative industries. The participants were often students with degrees from the university’s arts, design, film and music programmes. The creative and permitting environment with studios, a large scene and supporting people from various creative sectors formed a living lab in itself. Students and other entrepreneurs started small businesses facilitated by the organised (and neutral) environment. In the interactions with the other participants in the same working space, they were able to reflect on their own situation, get continuous feedback and reach higher learning loops (Argyris & Schön, 1996). Further, the need for creative activity could be satisfied through social interaction (Sanders & Simons, 2009), which resulted in ‘a spirit of cooperative innovation’ (Kolb, 2015, p. 5) and a culture based on trust that is often missing in the tourism industry (McPhee et al., 2016). The setting of different types of companies also connects to that other sectors, outside tourism, influence the tourism industry; firms may even copy what is already out there and place it in their own context (Hjalager, 2010). Even though only a couple of the start-ups in the incubator were related to tourism, those that actually were could learn from the other participants.

Ecotourism PhD project

When the author and her colleague started their PhD studies, they continued working together in a transdisciplinary project in Kisumu, Kenya. A group of PhD students from Kenya and Sweden started collaborating with a tour guide organisation in a small fishing village by Lake Victoria and developed, for instance, their guided tours, a signage and waste management system and an association for male and female tour guides in the county. The author and her colleague explored and reflected on participation and inclusiveness in regards to sustainable tourism development, design and place branding.

Tourism experience innovation is a process where consumers play important roles as co-creators of their own experience (Alsos et al., 2014). In the living lab, the PhD students, the tourists and the members of the tour guide group were all involved in the innovation process, through an open process of planning, prototyping, testing and evaluation of a new type of guided tour (Jernsand et al., 2015). The group took advantage of the closeness between customers and employees (Fuglsang et al., 2011), the recognition of end-users (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010) and combined it with academic knowledge (e.g. new methodologies) from multiple disciplines (Hjalager, 2010).

Including students in tourism experience innovation means that the entrance level for students is low since they probably have a relation to tourism and can put themselves in the shoes of the user (Buchenau & Suri, 2000; Martin & Hanington, 2012). This designerly way of working is often used in living labs (Open living labs, 2017) in which students learn new approaches and methodologies. In the Kenya project, the author and her colleague refined their competencies in design and marketing by using them in a new context, while other participants were new to the methodology. A while into the project, the guides declared that they had been asked by colleagues from other sites to teach them how to develop their site. A living lab can thereby be of use for spreading tools and methodologies, as Robinson et al. (2011) and Zen (2017) suggest. The tour guide association asked for prototypes, visual presentations and documentation, to be able to apply for funding for implementation from other beneficial organisations (see also Jernsand, 2016).

The PhD students met the participants’ families and other residents, and got an understanding of the place, which would probably not have been possible through activities in the city centre of Kisumu. Also, the fact that workshops were held on the beach, right where the guided tours were to be held, made it possible to relate to the surroundings when composing guided tours. The examples points to situated learning and relationship building as vital parts of sustainable tourism development (Jernsand, 2017).

The comments and discussions with two female Kenyan PhD student colleagues made the author and her colleague aware of the importance of including women in tour guiding, which highlights the ethical considerations and critical thinking that students must undertake (Jamal et al., 2011). Tourism’s complex nature with multiple stakeholders and environmental, socio-cultural and economic challenges related to the place makes sustainability at the core. The ecotourism setting exposed the author to these challenges: to involve people, protect the environment and improve the economic situation that many of the participants and residents are in. The types of knowledge and skills that students and others may learn also consider entrepreneurship and project management (Robinson et al., 2011), which are useful in tourism industry and governance.

The transdisciplinary research setting with specific emphasis on co-creation of value for people and society made the Kenyan living lab relevant as an example of sustainable tourism and innovation, as expressed by, for example, Bramwell et al. (2017). However, a vital factor for the ‘sustainability-oriented actions’ (Jamal et al., 2011, p. 136) was the length of the PhD project (four years). There is risk that projects with too short time frames and too much focus on results end up doing more harm than good, which the author realized the extent of, having worked in Kenya for some time. Coming from Sweden with frameworks, tools and expectations, the author and her colleague felt they set the agenda of the first parts of the project (see also Kraff, 2018; Kraff & Jernsand, 2014), which calls for ethical guidelines and preparations before entering living lab settings, especially in unfamiliar contexts.

Further, regarding the critical issue of time, it can be precarious when working in collaborative settings. Students from different disciplines and other stakeholders may have diverse timeframes and schedules, which complicates teamwork (Westberg et al., 2013). In the author’s project in Kenya, a group of PhD students worked together, however, it was not without impediments. The Kenyan PhD students worked full time as teachers but when the Swedish team came to Kenya for three weeks at a time, they wanted to work intensively during a short period (see also Jernsand, 2016; Jernsand & Kraff, 2016). This often made the Swedish team take project leadership, which influenced the results in many ways. It calls for structures and facilitators for living labs, but it also calls for an understanding of the time factor (Jernsand, 2017). Furthermore, higher education systems varies in different parts of the world. The leadership structures with mentors, influenced by problem- or phenomenon-based learning rather than hierarchical divisions, make living labs easier to understand and handle for supervisors, lecturers and students from the parts of the world where equality is a central part of the political systems and culture (Hawk et al., 2012).

Reality Studio master course

During her PhD studies and after, the author has held lectures on participation, innovation and ecotourism and supervised student groups that are part of ‘Reality Studio’, a master course at Chalmers university of Technology in Gothenburg. During the course, the students spend about seven weeks in Kenya or Tanzania and work in practice-based projects related to design, architecture and urban planning. The experience of other cultures and societal systems give meaning to students’ work. They get committed to the place, and often, they want to come back and work or become volunteers in similar contexts. Here, the context-specificity (Robinson et al., 2011) is one of the key learning aspects of the living lab. The real-life setting emphasises emotional involvement (Mathieson, 2014; Terenzini, 1999) and reflexivity (Zen, 2017).

The potential innovative results that come out of student living labs are of course one of the major raisons d’etre. If a lab can contribute to sustainable development in one way or another, it must be considered successful. In one of the Reality Studio projects in Kenya, the students designed a multilayer rack for drying fish on the beach, so that the fishmongers could get a better workplace and save space. Two years later when the author came back, the fishmongers had made a full-size rack themselves, which implies that seemingly small ideas can give effect through collaboration, documentation and information. It also implies that those students who are involved in living labs in interactive and supportive contexts find meaning in their work, confronting real challenges (Jernsand, 2017; Mathieson, 2014; Terenzini, 1999).

Marine aquaculture PhD course

The research centre Swemarc at University of Gothenburg organises a course that brings different disciplines together with a focus on marine aquaculture. The lecturers are, for instance, architects, marine biologists and social scientists. One of the lecture tracks is about sustainable maritime tourism, in which the author taught during the first course held in 2017. PhD students from all over the world gathered at Tjärnö and Kristineberg science stations in northern Bohuslän on the Swedish west coast. The science stations offer real-life working environments and the PhD students got one week together there, with lectures and group work. Thereafter, they continued working together in their home universities to fulfil the assignments on sustainable marine aquaculture. As Marcus et al. (2015) propose, the campuses at Tjärnö and Kristineberg constitute experiential learning test-beds: the students can better relate to the environmental issues since they are there, where the challenges of sustainability can be seen, reflected upon and handled. The type of living lab can also combine operation, teaching and research (Robinson et al., 2011), for instance by students’ testing new tools, equipment, systems or analytical frameworks. However, it should be noted that the circumstances and conditions of a course often makes living labs hard to handle due to the number of students and the university’s resources. Large student groups with few lecturers make the living lab approach even harder to accomplish.

Conclusion

Tourism’s rapid growth (Hunt, 2017) and customers’ demand for continuous novelty and surprise (Mossberg, 2007; Sundbo, 2009) must be set in relation to its environmental and socio-cultural impact (Budeanu, 2007). These and other challenges that tourism stakeholders face require new understandings, knowledge and skills that academic institutions of today are not sufficiently equipped to handle. A collaborative approach, innovative initiatives (Bramwell & Lane, 2012; Bramwell et al., 2017), new methodologies and multi-disciplinarity (Hjalager, 2010) are said to be the way to go to.

Student living labs make it possible to co-create and test frontier solutions with private, public and civil society sector partners. Fusing intellectual disciplines, labs can offer students opportunities for hands-on engagement in sustainable product development that aims for exciting tourism experiences, but also for social inclusion, environmental responsibility and life-long learning. For the tourism industry, the living lab is also an opportunity to find well-educated workforce with content knowledge and vocational skills, but also with abilities to reflect critically on tourism as phenomenon, system and practice. Thus, student living labs can function as innovation arenas for co-creation between stakeholders (Zen, 2017) aiming for a sustainable future for the education institutions and society (Velazquez et al., 2006).

The challenges with student living labs include e.g. timeframes, the size of student groups, the resources of the university, the interest from employees, information within and outside the organisation/lab, and equality among participants (also including non-participants). These challenges must be handled within the university system but also in each case, adapted to e.g. places, actors and seasons. A living lab in Kisumu, Kenya is different from one in Bollebygd, Sweden. There must be time and other resources to identify relevant projects, arrange partnerships before arranging a lab and also to handle critical issues within the lab. Recognising these impediments, the introduction of student living labs in a tourism context can be handled with consciousness. When critical thinking and experiential active learning go hand in hand, the values of co-creation lie both in the process and in its innovative results.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributors

Eva Maria has a PhD in business administration and is a researcher in marketing and tourism at the School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her research interests include place branding, sustainable tourism, experience innovation, participation and transdisciplinary research. She is affiliated with the faculty-wide Centre for Tourism at University of Gothenburg and Mistra Urban Futures, an international research and knowledge centre in urban development.