The backbone and the bridges: Central influence and collaborative integration in Living Labs scholarship

Over the past two decades, Living Labs have gained significant traction in both academic and practitioner communities. While the concept has been applied across diverse domains, concerns persist about its theoretical coherence and structural fragmentation. This study investigates the intellectual landscape of Living Lab research through network analysis, with a focus on two key hypotheses: the Central Influence Hypothesis (H1) and the Collaborative Integration Hypothesis (H2). H1 posits that a small set of authors and seminal publications form the backbone of the field, exerting disproportionate influence on its development. H2 explores whether scholarly collaboration in the field is characterized by cohesive sub-networks or significant structural disjunctions that limit interdisciplinary integration. Using a dataset of 2,358 unique publications, we construct and analyse co-authorship networks to identify central figures, collaboration patterns, and gaps in scholarly cohesion. Findings reveal that while the field is anchored by a concentrated group of influential authors, it remains structurally fragmented, with low cross-cluster integration and limited knowledge exchange across disciplinary or geographic boundaries. These dynamics present both opportunities and risks for the future of Living Labs: while core communities provide stability and shared vocabulary, the lack of broader connectivity may hinder theoretical advancement and practical innovation. We conclude by outlining strategic implications for research and practice, advocating for more inclusive, interdisciplinary, and longitudinal approaches to consolidate and expand the Living Labs knowledge base.