Living Labs as catalysts for experiential learning in law enforcement training: Insights from the TENACITy project

TL;DR

Living Labs can help law enforcement officers learn by doing, combining real-world practice with training and reflection.

Contribution

The study introduces Living Labs as effective pedagogical tools for experiential learning in law enforcement training.

Findings

Living Labs support experiential learning through active engagement and reflection.

Officers learned best when sessions included real-life examples and peer dialogue.

Living Labs should be intentionally designed to combine innovation with education.

Abstract

Living Labs have become established in European research as environments for user-centered innovation and co-creation. Yet, their potential as pedagogical infrastructures remains underexplored. This study investigates how Living Labs can foster experiential learning within EU-funded security research, focusing on the Horizon Europe project
TENACITy, which integrates Living Labs into law enforcement training, offering a unique opportunity to examine how such settings can enhance adult and professional learning.

A qualitative research design was applied, combining semi-structured interviews with officers from Passenger Information Units (PIUs) who participated in Living Lab sessions and document analysis of project materials, including Deliverable D4.1
Training Methodology and Curricula. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in participants’ accounts, interpreted through the theoretical lenses of experiential learning, andragogy, transformative learning and communities of practice.

Five interrelated dimensions of learning were identified: (1) active engagement and concrete experience, (2) processing and dialoguing, (3) linking experience to theory and practice, (4) testing and applying new knowledge and (5) preparation, support, and learning conditions. These dimensions demonstrate how Living Labs operationalize Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, embody Knowles’ principles of self-directed and problem-centered learning, align with Illeris’ holistic model integrating cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions, and reflect Wenger’s emphasis on collective meaning-making. Limitations included tool immaturity, reliance on synthetic datasets, and uneven facilitation.

Living Labs represent hybrid ecosystems that combine innovation and learning. When intentionally designed and pedagogically facilitated, they can strengthen professional capacity building by linking technological development with authentic, reflective, and collaborative learning. The findings suggest that Living Labs should be embedded as integral, sustained components of training in EU-funded research projects, reinforcing the reciprocal relationship between innovation and education.

This article examines how Living Labs (collaborative environments where individuals test new tools and ideas in real-world settings) can also be used for professional learning. The study focused on the experiences of Passenger Information Unit officers who participated in Living Lab activities as part of the Horizon Europe project TENACITy, which aimed to develop data-driven tools to enhance border security and risk assessment. Through interviews with the participating officers, the study revealed that Living Labs are beneficial both for testing technology and for facilitating professional learning among colleagues. Officers indicated that they learned most effectively when sessions were well-organized, included real-life examples and provided opportunities for reflection and dialogue with peers. The research demonstrates that such environments encourage participants to connect theory with practice, experiment in a safe space and share knowledge within a community. The findings suggest that future European projects could use Living Labs more intentionally as training spaces, ensuring that innovation and professional education go hand in hand.