Scaling Deep with Local Community Champions in Living Labs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the outcomes of a project, that used living labs to transform urban and rural space. It uses the ethnographic living lab approach and showcases the lived experiences of participants to document key outcomes, and conclusions.

The abstract defines clearly the scope of the article and presents key findings resulting from the research. The introduction elaborates on the concept of living labs, how living labs are interpreted in the context of the specific study. A very interesting term scrutinized within the literature review is the deep scaling, which is connected with transformation and change. These are combined to foster sustainable change through living lab projects which include community engagement.

Literature review builds on the rationale used for the project. It is rich in appropriate and up-to-date references, organized in sections.

The materials and methods used are founded on the principles of ethnographic research, oriented towards social innovation and participatory urban development. It offers a fresh, and qualitative view to social participatory innovation and the living lab methodology. Authors justify adequately the selection of this approach and discuss its connection to deep knowledge, interpretative value and reflexivity. Methodology also clearly explains the process and timeline followed for the project implementation, and the process entry points of the participating actors.

I really enjoyed reading the results with the vivid quotations of the commentaries used for the documentation of the outcomes. The authors revealed five relational practices of reciprocity that evolved in collaboration with the community champion over the course of the project, which also explain how LL projects can scale deep and result to sustainable changes: From Gatekeepers to Co-Creators; Relational Ethics in Practice; Immersing the Researchers; Situated Learning through Moving Around

The title for 3.5 should be checked as it is a repetition of the 3.4 title. I believe it should be “holding trusting conversations”.

For the presentation of the outcomes, perhaps, including in a more direct way observations and comments of the reactions of other participants in the process, could strengthen even further the authors’ conclusions on the role of the local champion. As it is, the commentaries and their interpretation is subjective and influenced by the researcher’s predispositions, ideas, and emotions. I understand that this is inevitable in a qualitative context, but a triangulation by observing the reactions and comments of other participants could strengthen even more the outcomes and further support the argument for deep scaling.  Consider enhancing your data with evidence addressing power dynamics. The article already mentions situations where certain tensions were observed and resolved with the intervention of the local champions. Where there no other tensions, or disagreements? If there were, mentioning them and explaining how they were managed, could allow an even more critical discussion. Answering important questions such as how tension resolution eventually enabled deep scaling, or how local priorities were truly considered, is important in the context of ethnographic research and ethics.

Overall the article is very well written, interesting and contributes to the academic knowledge. There are very few typos that the authors could check:  e.g. line 45 (enabling), line 472 (to speak). I really enjoyed reading it and I believe it offers a fresh and qualitative perspective to social participatory innovation and living lab methodology.

Author Response

Before moving onto actions taken by authors, we want to communicate a massive thank you for the fruitful comments as they assisted us in making this paper a better version of its' former self. Thank you very much for your time and effort.

Best regards,

Authors

#1	The title for 3.5 should be checked as it is a repetition of the 3.4 title. I believe it should be “holding trusting conversations”.	Headline has been renamed in accordance to presented scene ("Holding Trusting Conversations")	Page 15, line 540 in revised manuscript
#1	For the presentation of the outcomes, perhaps, including in a more direct way observations and comments of the reactions of other participants in the process, could strengthen even further the authors’ conclusions on the role of the local champion. As it is, the commentaries and their interpretation is subjective and influenced by the researcher’s predispositions, ideas, and emotions. I understand that this is inevitable in a qualitative context, but a triangulation by observing the reactions and comments of other participants could strengthen even more the outcomes and further support the argument for deep scaling. Consider enhancing your data with evidence addressing power dynamics.	As the study is based on one major champion of the community, the comment from reviewer has been adressed in "study limitations and future research" as the current study did not account for power relations more than in parts of described scenes.	Page 20, line 783 in revised manuscript
#1	Answering important questions such as how tension resolution eventually enabled deep scaling, or how local priorities were truly considered, is important in the context of ethnographic research and ethics.	We agree, but focusing on power relations further are seen as transfering the current focus of the paper from deep scaling conditions on champion level, to strategic and political concerns. These, we find, could be explored in upcoming studies instead. However, an introductory piece to the discussion has been added under "5.1 Connecting empirical methodology with conceptual contribution" as a way of describing the relation between approach and discussed concepts".	Page 16, line 596 in revised manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall the paper is interesting and makes a contribution to the increasing literature on living labs. That being said, I recommend revising the paper as follows:

In the Introduction, after line 46, it is important to explain more the concept of deep scale as it is a new concept and it will help readers understand better the scope of the study.

I would also recommend adding some examples of local champions from literature in order to exemplify their importance and influence in such contexts.

After the authors have argued about their study (lines 78), it is necessary to formulate very clearly the aim and objectives of this study (and this should also be revised in the Abstract)

I strongly advise the authors to reconsider the structure of their work. It is much preferable to include subsections 1.1 and 1.2 in their own section: e.g., 2. Literature review or 2. Theoretical background.

The structure of section 4 should be reconsidered; it is better to conform to the principles of academic writing and ensure that the section is a Discussion per se. Ensure that all results are described in the Results section and provide a substantive discussion of findings; focus on bringing forward the strongest messages from the study and explain its importance and novelty in relation to the existing literature. Also, remove “A Framework for Scaling Deep”.

It is finally necessary to explain clearly the limitations of the study.

Author Response

Before moving onto actions taken by authors, we want to communicate a massive thank you for the fruitful comments as they assisted us in making this paper a better version of its' former self. Thank you very much for your time and effort.

Best regards,

Authors

#2	In the Introduction, after line 46, it is important to explain more the concept of deep scale as it is a new concept and it will help readers understand better the scope of the study.	A description of the concept "scaling" deep has been added to the introduction. "Scaling deep goes beyond expansion or influencing systemic structures per se, and instead entails deeper understanding of values and relationships in striving for meaningful change [28]. Thereby, scaling deep pivots lived realities and embedded knowledge of people instead of generalizing contextual specificity."	Page 2, line 47 in revised manuscript
#2	I would also recommend adding some examples of local champions from literature in order to exemplify their importance and influence in such contexts.	Examples of community champions already exist in the end of the literature section, just before the Methods section.	Page 5, line 209 in revised manuscript
#2	After the authors have argued about their study (lines 78), it is necessary to formulate very clearly the aim and objectives of this study (and this should also be revised in the Abstract)	Aims and objectives added to the latter part of the introduction, and is now described through the abstract as well.	Page 2, starting at line 85 in revised manuscript
#2	I strongly advise the authors to reconsider the structure of their work. It is much preferable to include subsections 1.1 and 1.2 in their own section: e.g., 2. Literature review or 2. Theoretical background.	The formerly lengthy introduction has now been restructured and re-presented in a literature section	Page 3, line 92 in revised manuscript
#2	Ensure that all results are described in the Results section and provide a substantive discussion of findings; focus on bringing forward the strongest messages from the study and explain its importance and novelty in relation to the existing literature. Also, remove “A Framework for Scaling Deep”.	The strongest overall contribution has been presented under the discussion, and a former hiccup regarding titles of results has now been corrected and relate accordingly to headlines in the discussion.	Title re-named at page 14, line 540 in revised manuscript, examples from result section now available under all discussion subheadings.
#2	It is finally necessary to explain clearly the limitations of the study.	Study limitations now presented under "5.8 Study limitations and future research".	Page 20, line 783 in revised manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on scaling deep the activities of living labs. The authors applied design ethnographic approach.

Abstract is correctly prepared and includes all the necessary information.

Introduction: This section includes the background of the study. The authors also explained their study objectives. They also included an in-depth analysis of the living labs.

Materials and Methods: The authors described the project that was the base for observation of the leader role in a living lab. They also described in detail the ethnographic approach applied in the study.

Results: The authors use extensive quotes stemming from their research. I suggest to change the order in 3.1-3.5 and give the summary and then present the quotes or at least give a brief introduction in 3.1 that there are quotes so that the reader is prepared for the quotes.

Discussion: This section is divided into 6 sub-sections. A Framework for Scaling Deep: This section is very informative and clearly shows the contribution of the study to the knowledge about the processes happening in the living labs.

Conclusions: This section perfectly summarizes the study and clearly demonstrates its limitations and future study needs.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing this paper.

Best regards,

Authors

#3

I suggest to change the order in 3.1-3.5 and give the summary and then present the quotes or at least give a brief introduction in 3.1 that there are quotes so that the reader is prepared for the quotes.

Order is kept, and we refer to the methods section where the structure of results are presented as an introduction for the reader on what to expect in the following section.

Page 6 -> 11 in revised manuscript

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study highlights the important role of community champions and deep engagement in enhancing the effectiveness of living labs. The research topic is of practical relevance; however, the core methodology and depth of conclusions require further elaboration. The following comments are provided based on the content of the manuscript:

Line 26: The abstract does not sufficiently highlight the novelty of the study, nor does it clearly specify the experimental methods adopted. The term “a design ethnographic approach” is vague and should be more clearly defined, including its theoretical basis and specific procedures.

Line 68: The introduction outlines many limitations in existing studies, which this research aims to address. However, the discussion remains theoretical. It is recommended to elaborate on how the experimental design responds to these gaps and what specific practical considerations were taken.

Line 184: The introduction is relatively lengthy and lacks clear focus. The explanation of technical terms could be condensed, and repetitive content should be removed.

Line 209: The logic in this section is somewhat disorganized, and transitions between paragraphs are unclear. It is suggested that the author restructure the section by adding subheadings to clarify the logical flow.

Line 218: The description of the study area is brief, lacking essential background information such as population size and geographical area. Supplementing this information and clarifying the relevance of the chosen site to the research objectives would enhance the scientific rigor of the study.

Line 235: The methodology section remains limited to theoretical discussion, with significant overlap with the introduction. It is advisable to emphasize the practical aspects of the methods, specifying the experimental procedures and data collection methods.

Line 248: As key figures in the study, the “champions” should be described in terms of their selection criteria, sample size, and other background information; the same applies to other participants as well.

Line 284: The manuscript mentions five meetings in total but does not provide sufficient detail on the specific content of each meeting or their respective roles in the research process. It is recommended to elaborate on the themes, participants, and contributions of each meeting to demonstrate the rationale and scientific validity of the research design.

Line 347: The conclusions drawn in the discussion section lack strong linkage to the actual experimental process. It is recommended to strengthen the analysis based on the experimental data.

Author Response

First and foremost we would like to personally thank you for the time consuming and fruitful effort you made in reviewing our paper. It is worth a tremendous amount to learn through an outside perspective in this manner. You really assisted us in making this paper a better version of its' former self, and we want to thank you very much for your that.

Best regards,

Authors

#4	Line 26: The abstract does not sufficiently highlight the novelty of the study, nor does it clearly specify the experimental methods adopted. The term “a design ethnographic approach” is vague and should be more clearly defined, including its theoretical basis and specific procedures.	Abstract now containing a short theoretical basis for design ethnography, and presents the novelty of the study.	Page 1, line 9 -> 25 in revised manuscript
#4	Line 68: The introduction outlines many limitations in existing studies, which this research aims to address. However, the discussion remains theoretical. It is recommended to elaborate on how the experimental design responds to these gaps and what specific practical considerations were taken.	Paper now presents a section (5.1) that connects the empirical methodology with conceptual contribution through presented relevance of the method according to former studies.	Page 16, line 596 in revised manuscript
#4	Line 184: The introduction is relatively lengthy and lacks clear focus. The explanation of technical terms could be condensed, and repetitive content should be removed.	Introduction has been shortened and majority of paragraphs has been brought into the literature section under "2.X...". Furthermore, repetative content has been iterated or removed.	Page 3 -> 5 in revised manuscript
#4	Line 209: The logic in this section is somewhat disorganized, and transitions between paragraphs are unclear. It is suggested that the author restructure the section by adding subheadings to clarify the logical flow.	Subheadings has been added in the Methods section to clarify logical flow.	Page 5, line 221 -> page 11, line 372
#4	The description of the study area is brief, lacking essential background information such as population size and geographical area. Supplementing this information and clarifying the relevance of the chosen site to the research objectives would enhance the scientific rigor of the study.	Study area description has been added in order to make clear the context relevance of the study. (See subheadings below "3. Methods".	Page 5, line 221 in revised manuscript
#4	Line 235: The methodology section remains limited to theoretical discussion, with significant overlap with the introduction. It is advisable to emphasize the practical aspects of the methods, specifying the experimental procedures and data collection methods.	Practical details regarding data collection and analysis has been added, especially under 3.3 and 3.4	Page 8, line 297 -> page 10, line 358
#4	Line 284: The manuscript mentions five meetings in total but does not provide sufficient detail on the specific content of each meeting or their respective roles in the research process. It is recommended to elaborate on the themes, participants, and contributions of each meeting to demonstrate the rationale and scientific validity of the research design.	Detail on specific content added to each meeting, as well the role of each meeting in relation to the research process.	Page 8, line 309 -> page 8, line 331
#4	Line 347: The conclusions drawn in the discussion section lack strong linkage to the actual experimental process. It is recommended to strengthen the analysis based on the experimental data.	A new section added to the discussion under 5.1 that addresses the connection between research findings, conclusions, and the design ethnographic approach. Additionally, each discussed theme now contains examples from the empirical findings to enhance discussion further by connecting findings and literature.	Page 16, line 596 in revised manuscript

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall quality of the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version, with notable enhancements in structural organization and the elaboration of details. My main concerns at this stage relate to the limited sample size and other key factors that may affect the generalizability of the findings. I recommend that the authors further improve the readability of the figures and clearly articulate the limitations of the study in the conclusion section.

Author Response

First and foremost, thank you for the review. We hope that actions taken by us as authors are appreciated by the reviewer.

"I recommend that the authors further improve the readability of the figures..."

We have removed figures 2, 3, and 4 to address the recommendation to improve the readability of the figures further. These figures were brought into the method section to show concrete examples of our approach; however, based on comments from Reviewer 4, we have decided to remove them again. As there were no comments regarding figures 1 and 5 in our last revision, we hope this is an improvement in line with what Reviewer 4 is recommending.

"...and clearly articulate the limitations of the study in the conclusion section."

In the last revision, we added "5.8 Study limitations" in the section before "6. Conclusion", and wrote two sentences in "6. Conclusion" addressing the major concern regarding study limitations (sample size). In this revision, we added minor refinements to the text, and hope that this is sufficient in relation to the comment. Otherwise, please let us know.

Best regards,

Authors