scholarly journals Evaluating researcher and stakeholder perspectives on socially responsible research and innovation practices in research performing organisations

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Eric A. Jensen ◽  
Lars Lorenz

The European Commission-funded GRRIP (Grounding RRI Practices) project aims to embed sustainable Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) practices in five research performing organisations (RPOs), focusing on the marine and maritime sector. The project’s goal is to achieve institutional and cultural change through a cycle of evaluation, evidence-based interventions and further evaluation. For this purpose, a set of three surveys were designed and implemented in the first part of the project (2020) to establish a baseline measurement of RRI-related practices within the project partner institutions and their stakeholders. Each survey was specifically designed to target a relevant category of people for each of the five RPOs implementing RRI actions. These five institutions are research departments and centres linked to the marine and maritime sector in Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France and the UK. This paper presents the design of these survey-based evaluation instruments and the linked datasets generated by their implementation.

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Klimburg-Witjes ◽  
Frederik C. Huettenrauch

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malene Vinther Christensen ◽  
Mika Nieminen ◽  
Marlene Altenhofer ◽  
Elise Tancoigne ◽  
Niels Mejlgaard ◽  
...  

Abstract After a decade of efforts to mainstream Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) across Europe, the policy momentum is now uncertain. We explore how 217 organisations perceive responsibility in relation to their work, what mechanisms they apply to promote responsible practices, and what hindrances to promoting RRI they observe. Most organisations are unfamiliar with RRI but employ diverse perceptions of responsibility and mechanisms to promote it nonetheless. Civil society organisations are primarily outward oriented; collaborating with others and hosting science events. Private companies are more internally focussed and more likely to formalise this effort in strategies and internal guidelines. Universities resemble private companies, while private and public funders use funding-specific tools to incentivise responsible practices. Our results suggest that RRI is still poorly institutionalised and that some areas lack attention among actors in the research and innovation systems. Future policy endeavours might benefit from addressing deficits and tapping into existing perceptions of responsibility.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annapurna Mamidipudi ◽  
Nina Frahm

This article aims to reflect on the role of Science, Technology and Society (STS) research(ers) in co-constructing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in the Global South. By reporting on RRI research in the Global South, here the Indo-Dutch NWO-MVI project on rice straw burning in Punjab, we make an argument for approaching RRI as a symmetric process of knowledge production mobilised by local actors and researchers alike. For STS researchers to responsibly engage with local innovation systems, their activities need to go beyond knowledge provision and towards facilitating the ownership and circulation of local meanings and means to responsibly innovate. Rather than understanding RRI as a fixed framework to govern innovation practices, this article reflects on RRI as an approach that combines research with intervention. We propose that following the principle of symmetry can turn RRI into a productive tool for the mobilisation of embedded local principles that can organise innovation systems in a responsible way. In particular, symmetry allows the re-location of meanings and practices of innovation as well as the re-negotiation of multiple notions of responsible governance.


Author(s):  
Malene Vinther Christensen ◽  
Mika Nieminen ◽  
Marlene Altenhofer ◽  
Elise Tangcoigne ◽  
Niels Mejlgaard ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mónica Figueras-Maz ◽  
Gema Revuelta

La investigación responsable incluye, más allá de la ética en el contenido y el proceso, la implicación de múltiples actores y público, un acceso más fácil a los resultados científicos, la perspectiva de género, y la educación científica. El movimiento RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) pretende que la investigación e innovación estén orientadas a conseguir resultados sostenibles, éticamente aceptables y socialmente deseables y que todo el proceso y las prácticas que comportan la investigación e innovación estén alineados con los valores, las necesidades y las expectativas de la sociedad. La investigación en comunicación, y específicamente, en audiencias y recepción, no se escapa de esta tendencia. En esta nueva concepción, se da un paso adelante respecto a la ética y se atribuye la responsabilidad no sólo al investigador sino que se avanza hacia el concepto de corresponsabilidad. En definitiva, con el impulso inicial de la Comisión Europea, se aboga por una investigación inclusiva y sostenible. Este artículo pretende, por un lado, plantear un breve repaso a la evolución y actualidad de los estudios de audiencia y recepción desde la perspectiva de las rupturas epistemológicas vividas y de los distintos retos a los que se enfrenta (conceptuales, metodológicos y éticos) y, por otro, entender el origen, evolución y tendencias del concepto de RRI para, finalmente, ver cómo puede aplicarse al estudio de la audiencia y recepción. El artículo tiene la vocación de convertirse en un texto que pueda ayudar a los investigadores del campo de la comunicación, y específicamente de las audiencias, a reflexionar sobre cómo poder incorporar la RRI a su trabajo.Responsible research includes, beyond ethics in the content and process, engagement of multiple actors and the public, access to scientific results, gender perspective, and scientific education. The RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) movement aims to create a society where research and innovation practices are oriented towards achieving sustainable, ethically acceptable and socially desirable results related to the values, needs and expectations of society. Research in communication, and specifically in audiences and reception, does not escape this trend. In this new conception, a step forward with respect to ethics is taken and the responsibility is attributed not only to the researcher but also to the concept of co-responsibility. In short, with the initial impulse of the European Commission, an inclusive and sustainable research is advocated. This article intends, on the one hand, to present a brief review of the evolution and actuality of audience and reception studies from the perspective of the epistemological ruptures experienced and the different challenges it faces (conceptual, methodological and ethical) and, on the other hand, to understand the origin, evolution and trends of the concept of RRI and, finally, to see how it can be applied to the study of the audience and reception. The article has the vocation to become a text that can help researchers in this field to reflect on how to incorporate the RRI into their work.


2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. C04 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjoleine G. van der Meij

This commentary shares a personal ‘learning curve’ of a science communication researcher about the impact of (playful) tools and processes for inclusive deliberation on emerging techno-scientific topics in the contemporary era of two-way science and technology communication practices; needed and desired in responsible research and innovation (RRI) contexts. From macro-level impacts that these processes are supposed to have on research and innovation practices and society, as encouraged by the RRI community, the author discovers more about ‘micro-level’ impacts; through conversations with peers of her department Athena (VU University, Amsterdam), as well as through experiencing the SiP 2015 conference in Bristol. Based on that, she defines several ‘impact-spheres’: a modular set of flexibly defined micro-level impacts that events in RRI contexts can have on both academic and non-academic participants, with respect and relationship development as focal assets to aim for; individual (micro-)changes that potentially build up towards an ‘RRI world’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document