Living labs (LLs) have emerged as an interface for higher education institutions to collaborate with companies, citizens, non-profit and government organizations to address a variety of problems around social challenges and sustainable development. In this systematic literature review, we summarize the existing knowledge on how universities shape and manage the LLs they are associated with and how they align with their core missions of education and research and—in particular—their social missions. Following PRISMA guidelines for a systematic literature review (SLR), we analyzed journal articles, conference papers, and book chapters published between 2008 and 2020, capturing 93 university-governed LL experiences from across the world. Our findings show that LLs are developing from bottom-up initiatives, often at the fringe of higher education institutions, towards more self-standing entities implementing strategies to undertake social outreach activities. LLs require their host universities to intensify the relationships with their stakeholders and work on capacity building and focus on inter- and transdisciplinary research methodologies. Finally, our literature review points to the need for further research on the hybrid governance approaches displayed by LLs, particularly looking at the roles and responsibilities of academics involved in managing LL initiatives.

University‐based boundary organisations provide academics with an environment where they can interact with a wide variety of societal partners to produce knowledge and work on research projects, often of a transdisciplinary nature. This environment, however, implies that their researchers may be confronted with multiple and sometimes conflicting demands coming from various stakeholders. In this study, we focus on one such case, a Real‐world Laboratory (RwL), set up by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. This RwL focuses on urban sustainable development challenges. Drawing on boundary work literature, we analyse the boundary work strategies employed by the lab's leading researchers to manage such demands as part of a RwL research project. We observe that the managing researchers buffer several types of boundaries in order not to compromise the transdisciplinary nature of the RwL. They appear to utilise four types of boundary devices when managing boundaries: language, people, objects, and spaces. We conclude that, to reduce tensions, the managing researchers should acknowledge the presence of boundaries early on in their RwL research project, that is, during its conception phase.