Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 395–408 | Cite as

A Living Laboratory Exploring Mobile Support for Everyday Life with Diabetes

  • Anne Marie KanstrupEmail author
  • Kim Bjerge
  • Jens E. Kristensen
Article

Abstract

The paper presents the set up of a Living Laboratory in a city of North Denmark exploring mobile support for everyday life with diabetes. Background and definitions of the living lab method is presented together with descriptions of the technical setup, applications and explorations. The living lab method was practiced over two iterations—one in 2008 and one in 2009. 17 diabetes families, 9 service providers, researchers and ICT-consultants has participated in the activities. The results present how the living lab method provides an open platform for exploring technology in naturalistic settings combined with controlled activities, technical set up, support and data collection. The meetings of users, researchers, developers, and service providers in the living lab showed how living labs are an open platform supporting interactive learning among participants on technological innovations. The living lab method as combined here with a user-driven approach is an example of how designers can carry out and gain from working with people as co-creators in design projects.

Keywords

Living laboratory Diabetes Mobile technology Prototyping Health informatics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sengers B., Sengers J. (2005) Making by making strange—Defamiliazation and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 12: 2Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IDF. (2008). Diabetes atlas, international diabetes foundation, Brussels, http://www.eatlas.idf.org, accessed Mar. 14, 2008 diabetes atlas, http://www.eatlas.idf.org/media/.
  3. 3.
    Kanstrup, A. M., et al. (2008). Design for more: An ambient perspective on diabetes. In Proceedings of the participatory design conference 2008 (PDC2008). Bloomington, Indiana, US, October 1–5, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mamykina, L., Mynatt, E., & Kaufman, D. (2006). Investigating health management practices of individuals with diabetes. CHI 2006, April 22–27, 2006, Montéal, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danholt, P. (2008). Interacting bodies: Posthuman enactments of the problem of diabetes—Relating science, technology and society-studies, user-centered design and diabetes practice. PhD thesis, Computer Science, Department of Communication, Business and Information Technology, Roskilde University, Denmark.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanstrup, A. M. (2008). Living lab Skagen 2008. In Proceedings from the Danish Hci research symposium 2008. Aalborg, November 20th 2008.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Følstad A. (2008) Living Labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: At literature review. The electronic journal of virtual organizations and networks (eJov) 10: 99–131Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abowd, G. D., et al. (2000). Living laboratories: The future computing environments groups at the Gorgia institute of technology (pp. 215–216). CHI 2000, April 1–6, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Intille, S. (2005). A living laboratory for the design and evaluatoin of uniquitous computing technology (pp. 1941–1944). CHI 2005, April 2–7, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CoreLabs. (2008). CORELABS from AMI@Work Communities Wiki. Available at: http://www.ami-communities.net/wiki/CORELABS.
  11. 11.
    Almirall E., Wareham J. (2008) Living labs and open innovation: Roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal of Virtual Organizations and Networks (eJov) 10: 22–46Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leon, M. P., et al. (2006). Creating a distributed mobile networking testbed environment—Through the living labs approach. Testbeds and research infrastructures for the development of networks and communities, 2006. TRIDENTCOM 2006. Barcelona, Spain, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lundvall, B. (eds) (1992) National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovtion and interactive learning. Pinter Publisher, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanstrup A. M., Christiansen C. (2009) User-driven innovation as mutual but asymmetrical learning. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 5(3): 1–12Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomke, S., & von Hippel, E. (2002). Customers as innovators: A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review, April 2008Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hughes B., Joshi I., Wareham J. (2008) Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: Tensions and controversies in the field. Journal of Medical Internet Research 10(3): e23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fisher, G. (1998). Beyond “Couch Potatoes”: From consumers to designers. apchi (p. 2). Third Asian Pacific Computer and Human Interaction.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, M. (2008). Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in kansas anymore... interactions (pp. 28–34). September + October 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanders E., Stappers P. J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1): 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Marie Kanstrup
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kim Bjerge
    • 2
  • Jens E. Kristensen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Engineering College of AarhusAarhus CDenmark
  3. 3.BederDenmark

Personalised recommendations