D) Preconceptions One issue not mentioned above, but of importance was dealing with preconceptions about problems and solutions. Parties participating in living labs, as they work with the issues they try to address in the living labs in their daily work, bring preconceptions on where the problems lie and which solutions are effective. Given the diversity of participants these can also differ considerably. This can lead to resistance to fully explore why problems come in to being and to do this from other perspectives (e.g. indebted youth). In the living lab in Zuidoost this was addressed in the start up of by explicitly emphasising that value to the end-user needed to be the first priority considering the final objective and considering the roles that various actors could play. Researchers as an unbiased party facilitated the exploration of the needs or the end-users using a variety of methods depending on the situation (e.g. survey or interviews with users). Furthermore, other approaches such as Reflexive interactive design (Bos & Grin, 2008) offer insight into how systems can be redesigned in interaction with stakeholders to meet the needs of users and reflexively account for complex causality of problems. E) Inclusiveness Essential in the living lab approach is the user driven character. In the field labs involving and facilitating meaningful exchange end users, researchers and policy makers has proven challenging. For example, the inclusion of end-users in developing models (e.g. models behavioural change in the area of indebtedness problems). Also involving mall, local stakeholders are difficult when the living lab is in development and outcomes are not concrete. Finally, starting with all groups together can be detrimental for communication and trust building in the critical start up phase as the expectations will differ considerably (e.g. establishment actors focused on existing policy, end users focused on their specific issues and non-establishment actors/organisations focused on innovative practices and policies). With regard to actors who do not or cannot participate from early on Bos et al. (2013) see the open network character of a focus project, or in our case living lab project, with various activities which can be appealing for different actors as a way to enable their participation when it is appealing for them. 4 Discussion & Conclusions The first experiences at the AUAS in connection to social living lab practices offer insight in a series of practical and conceptual challenges of setting up and running a social innovation milieu. Most importantly we learned the contingent complexity of living lab practices. A first phase of establishing a new setting for learning and experimentation on social issues requires formidable skills in bridging worlds and connecting a diverse array of partners. Once such a setting is ‘created’ in a basic form, with some agreed principles, financial arrangements etc., the danger immediately occurs that it is institutionalised in such a way that it loses much its potentially innovative character. A major challenge for social living labs in general, and for the once established with help of the AUAS is to sustain their innovative character over a longer timeframe. Different pressures are at work at the same time however, since a form of institutionalisation is necessary to make the connection between the innovation milieu and mainstream practices of urban governance. Learning at different geographic levels in the network surrounding an issue which support each other is a possible way of addressing this. Bos et al. (2013) suggest the
72