eRollin' On Green

Cech, Florian; Wagner, Marlene

doi:10.1145/3328320.3328402

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, our review shows that qualitative research methods are most commonly used for evaluating LLs (Figure 9). Some noteworthy studies which detail their qualitative methods used in LL assessment are Callari et al [29], Cech & Wagner [30], and Georges et al [31]. Within those qualitative methods used, participatory design but also workshops and open-ended qualitative interviews are the most common methods deployed (Figure 9).…”

Section: Qualitative Evaluation Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More structured LL evaluation methods that have been applied across jurisdictions and individual studies do exist, but these were under-represented in our dataset and appear to be applied specifically to LLs that aim to design or prototype technologies (specifically ICTs). Some noteworthy studies which give a high level of detail regarding their qualitative methods used in LLs assessment are Callari et al [29], Cech and Wagner [30], and Georges et al [31]. This gap in the academic literature is consequential if LLs want to move beyond particularity to make broader claims about the value of the LL approach.…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The living labs (LLs) approach has been applied around the globe to generate innovation within and suited to real-life problems and contexts. Despite the promise of the LL approach for addressing complex challenges like socio-ecological change, there is a gap in practitioner and academic community knowledge surrounding how to measure and evaluate both the performance of a given LL process and its wider impacts. Notably, this gap appears particularly acute in LLs designed to address environmental or agricultural sustainability. This article seeks to verify and address this knowledge gap by conducting an adopted scoping review method which uses a combination of tools for text mining alongside human text analysis. In total, 138 academic articles were screened, out of which 88 articles were read in full and 41 articles were found relevant for this study. The findings reveal limited studies putting forward generalizable approaches or frameworks for evaluating the impact of LLs and even fewer in the agricultural or sustainability sector. The dominant method for evaluation used in the literature is comparative qualitative case studies. This research uncovers a potential tension regarding LL work: the specificity of LL studies works against the development of evaluation indicators and a universal framework to guide the impact assessment of LLs across jurisdictions and studies in order to move toward generalizability.

show abstract

Section: Qualitative Evaluation Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[32,33,39]) or enduser eco-feedback tools (e.g. [7,[10][11][12]25]). The former research tends to focus on the technical domain-specific challenges, where as the latter is more concerned with the suitability and effectiveness of such tools for 'nudging' [37] its users to continue using the tools and effecting positive behavioural changes to reduce the carbon footprint of its users.…”

Section: Exploratory Vignette and Prior Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling Algorithmic Transparency in Communal Energy Accounting through Participatory Design

Cech

2021

C&T '21: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities &Amp; Technologies - Wicked Problems in the Age Of

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Algorithmic transparency presents a significant challenge to system developers and users of algorithmic systems alike. Framing the problem as a 'wicked' one, this study tackles the issue of transparency in the EnerCoach energy accounting tool through presenting a situated ethnography of the algorithmic system and exploring the issues and challenges of model transparency and post-hoc explainability therein. By engaging stakeholders through participatory design methodologies, both a conceptual understanding of the problem and material solutions thereof are developed and evaluated. The findings show the promising potential of participatory design methodologies to elevate users to a 'critical audience', and the solutions co-created by the study participants for the challenge of algorithmic transparency. The results also highlight the complexity of the problem: transparency of algorithmic systems must be understood as a multi-facetted and highly contextual, 'wicked' problem that requires diverse methodological interventions to reach 'satisficing' solutions. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Participatory design; Empirical studies in interaction design; Ethnographic studies; • Social and professional topics → Sustainability.

show abstract