scholarly journals (Re-)designing higher education curricula in times of systemic dysfunction: a responsible research and innovation perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina C. Tassone ◽  
Catherine O’Mahony ◽  
Emma McKenna ◽  
Hansje J. Eppink ◽  
Arjen E. J. Wals
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Responsible Research

scholarly journals Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in Higher Education (HE) Practice. RRI as a Tool for Research, Reflection, and Curricula Innovation

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (7) ◽  
pp. 2-5
Author(s):  
Réka Matolay ◽  
Andrea Toarniczky ◽  
Judit Gáspár
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Teaching Practices ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Business And Management ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Pedagogical Approaches

Our special issue provides insights into how the principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) can fertilise our educational practices in business and management higher education. The articles in the issue analyse teaching practices from various fields of business and management through the lenses of RRI and take us to Bachelor’s, Master’s and MBA levels of HE. As an introduction to this set of conceptual and research articles, we are providing a brief overview of RRI and a conceptual framework of pedagogical approaches as well as a comparative outline of the articles.

scholarly journals Social Innovations in Educational Sciences: Analysis of Current Research and Policy Documents

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alise Oļesika ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Transfer Of Knowledge ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Societal Needs ◽  
Innovation Approach ◽  
Responsible Research

The Guidelines for Science, Technology Development and Innovation for 2021–2027 developed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia focus on promoting research excellence and increasing the social and economic value of research. Considering the previously mentioned, higher education institutions’ goal is not only the transfer of knowledge but also the creation of economic and social value, which communicates to society through learning and research results. Social innovation as a driver of social change promotes societal openness and active participation in socio-economic processes. The introduction of new forms of social innovation as Responsible Research and Innovations (RRI) can bridge the gap between science and societal needs by engaging in social debate and policy decisions in society and fostering collaboration between scientists from different sectors. The study aims to analyze Social Innovation’s essence and the academic and administrative definitions and dimensions of the Responsible Research and Innovation approach. In order to achieve the aim of the study, a systematic literature analysis was performed. The study reveals the main features of Social Innovation and the perspective of Responsible Research and Innovation implementation in higher education in the institutional and processual dimensions.

Impact of Global Rankings and Policies of Higher Education in Transforming University Systems to Create Value in the Society

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4.26) ◽  
pp. 314
Author(s):  
Pragyan Ranjan Gharai ◽  
Jayant Kumar Panigrahi ◽  
Biswajit Das ◽  
Ipseeta Satpathy
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Value Creation ◽  
University Education ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
University System ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
University Systems ◽  
The University ◽  
Responsible Research

This research study is an exploratory study of value co-creation in the university education system in the context of its socio-eco-cultural conditions. Dynamic internationalisation of higher education and glocal economy radically influence the research outcome and it has implications to the global ranking of the universities. Internationalisation and ranking of higher education institutions are entwined and mutually influence. The global International ranking initiated in December 2003 by the finance ministry of UK become proxy to determine the quality of a university in recent times. National and regional socio-eco-political factors have also transformed the functioning of universities with respect to international student recruitments.  International students majorly contribute towards the fund for the university and economy of the country. University has mainly four key dimensions like student education, knowledge transfer, problem-solving, serving the society and economy. Even though the university is considered as a system, based on systems theory, harmonisation with the basic purposes of the university is human value. The societal need is to recuperate the vital inputs like students, teachers and the fund necessary for optimal performance of the university. The mechanism is evident from the Triple Helix Model [1], and Interdependence Model [2]. It led to research studies and models for university-industry linkages in a knowledge economy. SKIN (Simulating Knowledge Dynamics in Innovation Networks) model attempts to improve our understanding of the complex processes in modern innovations, used by scholars to find solutions to complex challenges. Value creation in the university systems and the perception by peers deviate as per the quality of supply inputs. Research findings indicate that parameters used for ranking and accreditations enforce universities to focus on the value creation in the system, improving year after year. The findings emphasise to collaborate with researchers, educators, professionals and policymakers to empower universities to be able to meaningfully contribute to practical, need-based societal issues and elevate interest of scholars, professionals, policy makers and the industry. A holistic approach is needed for a trans-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach in university curriculum that addresses the gap between research and education for co-creating values in the university system. Recently embedding Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) within the university system has started, which is a complex process. Achieving the objective in the changing structures, culture and practice of university system requires the forces of change being exerted by transposing the larger societal needs. In this research presentation, the authors have underscored blatantly a couple of main points. Firstly how the key findings for universities need to adapt in line with the international rankings and strengthen for value creation; which can transform universities; making them more responsible towards demands of society. The study thrives with reference to responsible research and innovation system as the key driver.  Secondly, the authors have highlighted the complexity and challenges universities are facing and how these could be addressed. The scrupulous approach to the facets of RRI, the new knowledge in the times of new global socio-economic environment gives a tangible and strong relevance to the implementation of responsible research and innovation. 

scholarly journals Ensuring durability of community-university engagement in a challenging context: Empirical evidence on Science Shops

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Vargiu ◽  
Mariantonietta Cocco ◽  
Valentina Ghibellini
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Boundary Spanning ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Strategic Assets ◽  
Responsible Research

Universities’ community engagement is confronted with growing pressure from increased competition and marketisation of knowledge, along with widespread adoption of New Public Management measures. This context is notably challenging for forms of engagement that are based on such principles and practices as cooperation, knowledge democracy and public value. Within this framework, this article identifies competencies and strategies that may ensure durability of community-university partnerships. The article presents the results of two different, yet coherently connected, research endeavours on Science Shops in Europe. Science Shops are a unique way to organise relationships between science and society mainly by responding to research questions arising from citizens and/or Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), usually by means of a participatory methodology and active involvement of students. Empirical evidence for this article was gathered by means of a wide range of different techniques, such as structured questionnaires, focus groups, interviews, direct observation and document analysis. In the first research effort, a questionnaire was delivered to European Science Shops in order to produce mainly descriptive statistics prior to progressing to case studies and focus groups which would generate more in-depth knowledge and understanding. The second study program was connected to formative and summative evaluation of a European Commission funded project aimed at embedding Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in Higher Education curricula through Science Shops (namely EnRRICH – Enhancing Responsible Research and Innovation through Curricula in Higher education). Participatory evaluation was carried out mainly on pilot projects run by project partners. Results are discussed in the light of relevant literature regarding possible strategic assets that may enable Science Shops and Community Engagement units to overcome observed fragility and ensure durability. This can be pursued through systematic mobilisation of specific knowledge, competencies and abilities. Combinatory capacity and boundary spanning are pinpointed as specific components of Science Shops’ action, which – we maintain – are also key strategic assets to consolidate their role and ensure durability. The distinction between the ‘instrumental/operational’ and ‘strategic’ function of boundary spanning is introduced in order to analytically develop this argument.

scholarly journals Contextualizing Security Innovation: Responsible Research and Innovation at the Smart Border?

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Klimburg-Witjes ◽  
Frederik C. Huettenrauch
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Border Security ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Security Technologies ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Societal Needs ◽  
Responsible Research

AbstractCurrent European innovation and security policies are increasingly channeled into efforts to address the assumed challenges that threaten European societies. A field in which this has become particularly salient is digitized EU border management. Here, the framework of responsible research and innovation (RRI) has recently been used to point to the alleged sensitivity of political actors towards the contingent dimensions of emerging security technologies. RRI, in general, is concerned with societal needs and the engagement and inclusion of various stakeholder groups in the research and innovation processes, aiming to anticipate undesired consequences of and identifying socially acceptable alternatives for emerging technologies. However, RRI has also been criticized as an industry-driven attempt to gain societal legitimacy for new technologies. In this article, we argue that while RRI evokes a space where different actors enter co-creative dialogues, it lays bare the specific challenges of governing security innovation in socially responsible ways. Empirically, we draw on the case study of BODEGA, the first EU funded research project to apply the RRI framework to the field of border security. We show how stakeholders involved in the project represent their work in relation to RRI and the resulting benefits and challenges they face. The paper argues that applying the framework to the field of (border) security lays bare its limitations, namely that RRI itself embodies a political agenda, conceals alternative experiences by those on whom security is enacted upon and that its key propositions of openness and transparency are hardly met in practice due to confidentiality agreements. Our hope is to contribute to work on RRI and emerging debates about how the concept can (or cannot) be contextualized for the field of security—a field that might be more in need than any other to consider the ethical dimension of its activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document