Livinglabs as models of open innovation. Analysis based on the concept of extitution




Capture device, institutions, Internet, virtual methods, Sociology of Translation


Open innovation is a way of organising innovation and development (R&D) processes that has recently become popular. The distance that the open innovation model claims to establish with respect to closed innovation is a commonplace in a large number of publications. However, several works question it. In this article we propose a critical reading of open innovation in the light of the concept of ‘extitution’. With the help of this notion, we describe how certain organisations define their ‘innovation environment’ and the ‘external actors’ they
seek to involve in R&D processes. The case studies are living laboratories in Spain that are active in the health and wellness sector. The material was collected using virtual methods and
was analysed using an approach inspired by the Sociology of Translation. The results reveal
a persistent invitation to establish strong relationships with the laboratory, through a set of
problematisation, interestment and enrolment efforts, through which they relate to their externality. Based on these results, the extitutional character of living laboratories is discussed.

Author Biographies

Juan C. Aceros, Universidad Industrial de Santander

Psicólogo por la Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (UPB) de Bucaramanga, Colombia, y Doctor en
Psicología Social por la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). Actualmente es Profesor Asociado
de la Escuela de Trabajo Social de la Universidad Industrial de Santander (UIS), Colombia, y Miembro del Grupo de Investigación Población, Ambiente y Desarrollo (G-PAD) de la misma universidad. Sus investigaciones han cubierto distintos temas. En el ámbito de los Estudios de la Ciencia y la Tecnología se han centrado en cuestiones relacionadas con la innovación gerontecnológica y la participación del público en asuntos complejos.

Antonio Víctor Martín García, Universidad de Salamanca

Catedrático de la Universidad de Salamanca (USAL). Miembro del GIR Procesos, Espacios y Prácticas
Educativas y del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (IBSAL). Director de
EDUSAL_LAB (Laboratorio de Transferencia del Conocimiento educativo). Director del Máster
Universitario Estudios Avanzados de Educación en la Sociedad Global (USAL). Director de Pedagogía
Social. Revista Interuniversitaria. Su investigación se centra en temas relacionados con la
Pedagogía social, la Gerontología educativa y la Gerontecnología.

Bárbara Mariana Gutiérrez Pérez, Universidad de Salamanca

Doctora en Educación por la Universidad de Salamanca (USAL). Graduada en Pedagogía y en el
Máster TIC en Educación: Análisis y Diseño de Procesos, Recursos y Prácticas Formativas por la
USAL. Actualmente trabaja como Personal Docente e Investigador en el Departamento de Teoría
e Historia de la Educación. Es miembro del Grupo de Investigación Reconocido Procesos, Espacios
y Prácticas Educativas (GIPEP). Su investigación se centra en tecnología educativa, enseñanza
en sistemas Blended Learning pedagogía social y educación de adultos y mayores.


Aceros, J. C., & Domènech, M. (2010). La mancomunidad de política hidrológica española. Sectores y trayectorias políticas en Internet. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, (132), 11–34.
Aceros, J. C., & Domènech, M. (2011). The ‘New Water Culture’ on the Web: an issue network analysis. Regional Environmental Change, 11(4), 963–973.
Aka, K. G. (2019). Actor-network theory to understand, track and succeed in a sustainable innovation development process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 524–540.
Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Open innovation requires integrated competition-community ecosystems: Lessons learned from civic open innovation. Business Horizons, 57(3), 391–400.
Álvarez-Aros, E. L., & Bernal-Torres, C. A. (2017). Modelo de Innovación Abierta: Énfasis en el Potencial Humano. Informacion Tecnologica, 28(1), 65–76.
Angelini, L., Carrino, S., Abou Khaled, O., Riva-Mossman, S., & Mugellini, E. (2016). Senior Living Lab: an ecological approach to foster social innovation in an ageing society. Future Internet, 8(4).
Aylen, J. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: Development of the wide strip mill for steel in the United States during the 1920s. R&D Management, 40(1), 67–80.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2015). Places and spaces within Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(12).
Bilandzic, A., Foth, M., & Hearn, G. (2019). The role of Fab Labs and Living Labs for economic development of regional Australia . In A. van Luyn & E. de la Fuente (Eds.), Regional Cultures, Economies, and Creativity. London: Routledge.
Bravo-Ibarra, E. R. (2020). Revisión sistemática del concepto de laboratorios vivos. Dimensión Empresarial, 12(1), 78–104.
Callon, M. (1980). Struggles and Negotiations to Define What Is Problematic and What Is Not : the Socio-Logics of Translation. In K. Knorr, R. Krohn, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation (pp. 197–220). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Callon, M. (1984). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196–233.
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hugues, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83–103). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technical democracy. London:The MIT Press.
Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 615–625.
Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research “‘in the wild’” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society, 25, 193–204.
Capdevila, I. (2019). Joining a collaborative space: is it really a better place to work? Journal of Business Strategy, 40(2), 14–21.
Chesborough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Bussiness School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Choi, B. K., Yeo, W. D., & Won, D. K. (2018). The implication of ANT (Actor-Network-Theory) methodology for R&D policyin open innovation paradigm. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 16(3), 315–326.
Collet-Sabé, J. (2013). From total institution to extitution? Discussions on the future of monastic life in the Benedictine women’s monasteries of Catalonia (Spain). Revista Internacional de Sociología, 71(2), 335–356.
Coorevits, L., & Jacobs, A. (2017). Taking real-life seriously: An approach to decomposing context beyond “environment” in living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 26–36.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.
de Magdala Pinto, M., & Pedruzzi Fonseca, L. (2013). Profundizando la comprensión de los Living Labs de Brasil. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 8(23), 231–247.
Domènech, M., & Tirado, F. (1998). Sociología Simétrica: ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor–Network Theory in Education. Oxon: Routledge.
Følstad, A. (2008). Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. Electronic Journal of Organizational Virtualness, 10, 99–131.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums (Anchor Books & Doubleday & Co., Eds.). New York.
González-Sánchez, R., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2011). Innovación abierta: Un modelo preliminar desde la gestión del conocimiento. Intangible Capital, 7(1), 82–115.
Hancke, E., & Larsen, E. (2019). The problem of innovation. Copenhagen.
Hennion, A. (2015). The passion for music. A sociology of mediation. Farnham: Ashgate.
Hetland, P. (2011). Science 2.0: Bridging science and the public. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 326–339.
Hetland, P., & Mørch, A. I. (2016). Ethnography for Investigating the Internet. Seminar.Net, 12(1), 1–14.
Hine, C. (2005). Virtual Methods. United Kingdom: Berg.
Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 141–170). London: Sage.
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 225–258). London: MIT Press.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis of the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1998). De la mediación técnica: Filosofía, sociología, genealogía. In M. Domènech & F. Tirado (Eds.), Sociología simétrica (pp. 249–302). Barcelona: Gedisa.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2017). Lecciones de sociología de las ciencias. Barcelona: Arpa.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1995). La vida en el laboratorio. La construcción de los hechos científicos. Madrid: Alianza.
Law, J. (2008). Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell Companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). London: Blackwell.
Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor Network Theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.
Leminen, S., Rajahonka, M., & Westerlund, M. (2017). Towards third-generation living lab networks in cities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11), 21–35.
Lezaun, J. (2017). Actor-Network Theory. In C. Benzecry, M. Krause, & I. Reed (Eds.), Social theory now. The University of Chicago Press.
Marone, L., Onofrio, R., & Masella, C. (2020). The Italian case of Lecco Innovation Living Lab: stakeholders’ needs and activities to contribute to the technological innovation process in healthcare. Sustainability, 12(24).
Marres, N. (2002). May the victim of defacement stand up! On reading the network configurations of scandal on the Web. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art (pp. 486–489). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martín-García, A. V., Gutiérrez-Pérez, B. M., & Aceros, J. C. (2021). Living Senior Labs, ecosistemas de co-creación e innovación abierta con personas mayores: revisión sistemática de la literatura en Ciencias Sociales. Interface, 25, e210399.
Masseck, T. (2017). Living Labs in architecture as innovation arenas within higher education institutions. Energy Procedia, 115, 383–389.
Mendiola, I. (2016). El dispositivo de la captura: Espacios y cuerpos bajo el signo de la excepcionalidad. Athenea Digital,16(1), 83–111.
Michael, M. (2017). Actor Network-Theory. Trials, trails and translations. London: Sage.
Osorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., Palominos, P., Peña, J. I., & Alfaro, M. (2019). Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 82–100.
Ramírez, M.-S., & García-Peñalvo, F.-J. (2018). Co-creación e innovación abierta : Revisión sistemática de literatura. Comunicar, 54, 9–18.
Serres, M. (1994). El nacimiento de la física en el texto de Lucrecio. Valencia: Pre-textos.
Spicer, A. (2010). Extitutions: The other side of institutions . Ephemera, 10(1), 25–39.
Tirado, F., & Domènech, M. (2001). Extituciones: El poder y sus anatomías. Política y Sociedad, 36(2), 191–204.
Tirado, F., & López, D. (2012). Teoría del Actor-Red. Más allá de los estudios de ciencia y tecnología. Barcelona: Amentia.
Tirado, F., & Maureira, M. (2016). De Objetos y Extituciones: nuevos operadores de lo social . Oxímora, 8, 112–130.
Tirado, F., & Mora, M. (2004). Cyborgs y extituciones. Nuevas formas para lo social. México: Universidad de Guadalajara.
Trott, P., & Hartmann, D. (2009). Why “open innovation” is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(04), 715–736.
Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab characteristics and their outcomes: Towards a conceptual framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12), 6–15.
Venturini, T. (2009). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.
Venturini, T. (2012). Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796–812.
Verbeek, H., Zwakhalen, S. M. G., Schols, J. M. G. A., Kempen, G. I. J. M., & Hamers, J. P. H. (2020). The Living Lab in ageing and long-term care: a sustainable model for translational research improving quality of life, quality of care and quality of work. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 24(1).
Verloo, H. L. A., Gomes da Rocha, C., Amoussou, J. R., Gillès de Pélichy, E., Matos Queiros, A., Mendez Rubio, M., & von Gunten, A. (2020). A comprehensive scoping review protocol of using Living Labs to explore needs and solutions for older adults with dementia. Smart Homecare Technology and Telehealth, 7, 19–27.
von Hippel, E. (2009). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 29–40.