Responsible Research And Innovation Principles Research Articles

Toward institutionalization of responsible research and innovation: insights from case studies of technological centers in Spain

ABSTRACT The frameworks governing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) are heterogeneous and constantly evolving and adapting. We build upon this adaptability to explore the potential development of RRI in Research and Technology Organizations. We explore these issues through a case study of nine Spanish technological centers to analyze the level of commitment to the RRI philosophy. We develop a process-maturity framework to evaluate and understand how these organizations engage with RRI principles. The development of the proposed framework has provided the centers involved with a learning experience as regards their developments and practices in this area. The findings allow us to obtain a holistic and comprehensive view of the responsible behavior of these centers in their innovative activity. Likewise, the results allow us to bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and organizational reality at a meso-level. This process maturity framework is intended to be used as an evaluation methodology and management system.

Reflexive, relevant and interactive: a STEM student-centred pedagogical approach for responsible research and innovation (RRI) training in higher education

ABSTRACT Background Whilst Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles are increasingly informing and shaping Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) research narratives and practices, the training of higher education (HE) STEM students in RRI is still developing, creating a mismatch between training provision and sector practices and expectations. Purpose Training of HE STEM students in RRI principles is a key component of the long-term changes RRI frameworks hope to achieve. However, little is known about postgraduate (PG) students’ awareness of, perceptions of and attitudes towards RRI, despite the pedagogical implications. This paper offers grounded insights and recommendations to shape this emerging area of pedagogical research and practice. Sample Forty-nine PG STEM students with a range of nationalities enrolled in six UK higher education institutions. Most students had not received prior formal RRI training, although a small number of students who had received some RRI training were selected for comparative purposes. Design and methods An exploratory, small-scale student-led, mixed-methods study that investigated PG STEM students’ engagements with RRI. Key objectives were to assess awareness and knowledge base; explore attitudes towards RRI; gauge the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RRI engagement; identify student preferences in relation to RRI training. Results The data points to the importance of individual characteristics and cultural backgrounds in shaping students’ engagement with RRI, as well as the significance of the context of student engagement with RRI. Although generally unaware of formal RRI frameworks, respondents provided examples of RRI that were drawn from national/cultural contexts. The perceived relevance of RRI varied with training level (Masters’ or PhD). A preference for interactive training in RRI was expressed, with some students commenting on the challenge of becoming reflexive practitioners. Conclusions This study provides important evidence to inform the pedagogical approach to RRI in HE STEM training, which the authors argue ought to be supported, reflexive, relevant, and interactive.

Editorial Presentation - Perspectives on innovation governance: challenges and dilemmas

Editorial Presentation - Perspectives on innovation governance: challenges and dilemmas

The presence of Responsible Research and Innovation in the perspectives of Dutch policy officers regarding innovation with quantum technology

The European Union strives to align research and innovation to the values, needs and expectations of society to address societal challenges. To support this alignment the European Union endeavours to make Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) part of the governmental policies on science and technology of its member states. If the European Union is effective in this endeavour, then principles that are common in the field of RRI should play a significant role in the perspectives that belong to the member states’ policy officers for research and innovation. In this paper we empirically check this by conducting a Q-method study on Dutch policy officers working on quantum technology-related policies. In this study we found four perspectives on innovation among these policy officers. In all these perspectives some of the RRI principles are present in merely a weak manner, or even absent, casting substantial doubts on whether RRI has become part of the EU member state governmental policies on science and technology.

Governing gene-edited crops: risks, regulations, and responsibilities as perceived by agricultural genomics experts in Canada

ABSTRACT This paper explores the role and responsibilities of agricultural genomics experts in governing gene editing (GE) for food and agriculture, engaging with the frameworks of technological determinism and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). We interview agricultural genomics experts in Canada to study expert views on risks, benefits, and regulatory challenges of GE crops and the extent to which agricultural genomics experts exercise the RRI principles of anticipation, reflexivity, deliberative inclusion, and responsiveness. Agricultural genomics experts wield power in food systems both in shaping the applications of technology and as advisers influencing policy and governance. Their resistance to RRI principles, especially deliberative inclusion and responsiveness, and exercises of discursive closure are challenges for responsible governance of GE crops. The study offers empirical and theoretical contributions, working across Science and Technology Studies and food systems research.

Supporting responsible research and innovation within a university-based digital research programme: Reflections from the “hoRRIzon” project

Integration of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles into a research project is key to ensure outputs are ethically acceptable and socially desirable. However, translating RRI principles into practice is challenging as there are no recipes that fit all projects. Drawing on interviews and case studies with researchers, external partners and support staff associated with two linked programmes of research addressing trustworthy autonomous systems and the ethical use of personal data, this reflective paper provides a bottom-up perspective on RRI as it is understood and “done” within the focussed, often relatively short, research projects that largely comprise the research programmes. Existing RRI frameworks and tools were found to provide useful resources for use in supported RRI activities. However, effective use is dependant on facilitation by experienced staff, and time pressure and timing within a project can limit the application of RRI. Research institutions and funding bodies could provide more practical and sustained support for RRI practice – throughout the research lifespan - including incentives for RRI and clearer RRI/RI roles and career pathways, helping to develop an embedded community of RRI practice throughout the digital research community and beyond.

Defining success in community-university partnerships: lessons learned from Flint

ABSTRACT The success of responsible research and innovation (RRI) work is as much about the process of partnership as it is about the products and outcomes. In this paper, we present lessons learned from the first three years of a participatory modeling (PM) research project based on RRI principles and focused on the transformation of the food system in Flint, Michigan through identification of leverage points. Participatory modeling is a type of community engaged research that seeks to build representations of a system collaboratively between researchers, decision-makers, and community members. We discuss the challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned from the Flint Leverage Points Project (FLPP) using the four ‘Ps’ framework–purpose, processes, partnerships and products. We argue a carefully designed participatory modeling process can serve to build lasting partnerships across community-university boundaries.

Nuclear dating: sharing experiences, knowledges and views on Responsible Research and Innovation in the nuclear field

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been a central pillar of the European H2020 research framework. A social lab organized within the European project NewHoRRIzon explored ways to stimulate further integration of RRI principles (public engagement, open access, gender, ethics, science education) in the nuclear research. Under the title “Nuclear Dating”, a pilot action was designed in this lab with the aim of creating awareness of RRI among Early Career Researchers, providing a venue for experimenting interdisciplinary collaborations and stimulating their reflexivity to the wider social, ethical, and environmental issues surrounding their research. Through a joint effort of organizers and participants, this paper shares insights from this first of a kind event in the nuclear R&D landscape.

Adoption of Responsible Research and Innovation in Citizen Observatories

An ethos of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been promoted in the last decade, especially within European research. The broad objective is to ensure that research and innovation activities align with society’s needs and expectations. In parallel, citizen observatories seek to mainstream citizen science as a valid paradigm for scientific investigation but additionally as a model for increasing societal participation in local democracy and policy definition. This paper explores how precepts of RRI have permeated research in citizen observatories. The methodology adopted is that of a scoping review. Results confirm a relatively simple adoption of RRI principles. However, the adoption is uneven and shallow, perhaps reflecting the ongoing evolution of both RRI and the citizen observatory model. It is recommended that the diverse actors charged with the definition, design, validation, and deployment of citizen observatories unambiguously integrate, promote, and report on how the RRI principles are reflected in their activities.

Developing a Self-Reflection Tool to Assess Schools’ Openness

In 2015, the EU Educational Policy document “Science Education for Responsible Citizenship” introduced the concept of Open Schooling as a promising approach to transform schools into innovation hubs within their local communities. In an open school environment, external ideas need to challenge traditional internal views and, in turn, to benefit its students as the community it serves. Such engaging environments may vitally contribute to their community when students’ projects introduce real needs into a community outside of school, present them publicly, and enrich local expertise. Additionally, such school environments may foster learner independence—and interdependence—through collaboration and through the provision of opportunities for learners to understand and interrogate their place in the world. In our study, it was realised in the framework of the European Union–supported Coordination Action called “Open Schools for Open Societies” (OSOS), and we have analysed the development process of a large number of schools with a Self-Reflection Tool (OSOS-SRT), focusing on the organisational change during the implementation of the Open Schooling approach. Rooted in the theory of RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) principles, the tool has shown its potential to analyse the openness level of each school. In this study, we are presenting the validation of the proposed instrument and empirical data from the overall transformation process. The school environments were evaluated for one full academic year by completing two measurements, one before their involvement and one after their engagement in the transformation journey. Participating schools achieved an average increase of 11.34% in their openness levels, while based on the first measurement the lowest performers achieved a 35–45% increase while the higher scorer still reached a small but significant increase in the recorded openness levels. Our findings could act as a reference point for educational policy actions to support school development through cooperation and continuous interaction with external stakeholders. Consequences for school management, development plans, and teachers’ professional development are discussed.

The Experience of a Master's Class

The concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) has increased in popularity in the context of European Commission policy since 2010; promoting inclusive and sustainable research and innovation. The present paper introduces a curriculum development effort following the RRI principles in higher education in order to demonstrate the potential positive influence of an RRI-inspired course design on the self-perception of students related to their own reflexivity and inclusiveness competencies. The paper first outlines the use of the RRI approach in higher education, with a special focus on two areas, reflexivity and inclusiveness. The development of a marketing-related subject will then be introduced, described and evaluated. With the aid of a master’s course, the selection of appropriate learning/teaching methods and related assessment practices will be introduced in relation to the competencies of reflexivity and inclusiveness. The results of a quantitative study are also presented, as students evaluated their own competency development in relation to reflexivity and inclusiveness topics at the end of the semester, with the help of an online survey. According to the main findings, the student perception was that course development served the aim of competency development well, and the various teaching methods supported inclusiveness, which also assisted the improvement of reflexive thinking.

Co-Creation, Reflection, and Transformation. The Social Impact of a Service-Learning Course at the University of Szeged

This paper highlights three aspirations, which are shared by the diverse concepts and practices of responsible research and innovation (RRI): co-creation, reflexivity, and transformation. The authors analyse a service-learning (SL) initiative at the University of Szeged, Hungary, based on the model by Chupp and Joseph (2010). This provides a typology of SL practices and identifies four main approaches to the social impact of SL: traditional, critical, social justice oriented, and institutional change-focused approach. The authors also use this model to analyse the effects of their initiative with regard to the RRI principles of co-creation, reflexivity, and transformation. They provide evidence that their SL course may reach beyond its traditional (student-learning-based) effects in the Hungarian context, and embrace social justice and critical approaches. While the authors also found certain instances of institutionalisation, embedding critical SL into a Hungarian university and inducing significant institutional transformation seems to be a long way away.

Multiple futures for society, research, and innovation in the European Union: jumping to 2038

ABSTRACT We contribute to the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) literature in two ways: (i) we consider how societal aspects are taken into account in research and innovation (R&I) activities in four fundamentally different scenarios, as opposed to analysing current practices; and (ii) put the emphasis on the political conditions of the interactions among the actors, as opposed to focussing on RRI principles and instruments. In the Kingdom of RRI citizens participate directly in decision-making processes; Fortress Europe depicts a libertarian system; Failed Democracy is a populist regime; while Benevolent Green Eurocrats describes a technocratically coordinated strong state. The scenarios offer novel insights into the nature and repercussions of possible policy problems, that is, efficacy; efficiency; legitimacy of R&I activities; societal involvement; equity; and freedom of research. Meaningful interactions between lay people and professional actors in an innovation system can be safeguarded even in the harshest ideological and political framework.

Exploring the readiness of publicly funded researchers to practice responsible research and innovation in digital agriculture

ABSTRACT Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been highlighted as necessary for the governance of digital agriculture. The current study explores the readiness of publicly funded researchers in Ireland to engage in RRI activities in digital agriculture. In-depth one-to-one interviews were carried out with 15 scientists and research funders to understand how perceived emergent risks in digital agriculture are being addressed and to reflect on the extent to which responses align with RRI principles. Thematic Analysis identified three themes: (1) Cultural impacts: Addressing unintended consequences of technology; (2) Farm-level impacts: Ensuring user-friendly technologies; and (3) Perceived roles and responsibilities of scientists. There was evident alignment to the values underpinning RRI; however, an integrated RRI approach in digital agriculture may encounter challenges. There is a need to consider how RRI exercises and dimensions are framed, introduced and subsequently supported in science and academia.

Risk governance and 'responsible research and innovation' can be mutually supportive

Risk governance (RG) is concerned with processes and principles to improve the management of risk. When implemented to deal with risks from new technologies, it must also contribute to enhancing innovation, rather than constraining it, in such a way that innovation itself can also contribute to reducing risks. To increase its relevance to some of the challenges that managers face, RG must constantly adapt to the objectives and priorities of organisations, as well as their supporting values. One of these priorities in Europe and elsewhere is that organisations develop research and innovation in a way that is 'responsible'. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is thus defined by the European Commission Horizon 2020 programme as ‘an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation, with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation’. This article addresses the difficulties of implementing RRI principles in the practice and suggests that an analogy can be made between processes in place for RG and processes that could be developed for RRI. It further suggests that RG could be used to support the development of RRI. The practice of RG can offer relevant ways to assess and manage RRI and provide guidance for the development of procedural and normative RRI. Embedding RRI in practice is a challenge that requires considerations at the organisational and individual level. This article concludes by suggesting questions that researchers can consider to ensure that their work is in line with expectations from both effective RG and RRI.

RRI and Patenting: a Study of European Patent Governance

This paper addresses the topic of patenting related to the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Focusing on patents in the field of biotechnology, we assess to what extent current patenting practices of the European Patent Organization, and more specifically of its executive body, the European Patent Office (EPO) align with RRI principles. We first argue for including patenting as a relevant topic in the context of RRI and then provide an operationalisation of RRI principles that functions as an analytic tool in the article. We find that the dimensions of RRI currently do not have a strong position in the EPO. Subsequently, we discuss the potential for improving the alignment of the EPO with RRI principles. We conclude the article with some final reflections on the applicability of RRI to the policies and practices of the European Patent Organization.

Steering research and innovation through RRI. What horizon for Europe?

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is gaining momentum worldwide and is envisaged as a needed tool to properly govern controversial innovative technology (i.e. genome editing, AI). Europe is considered a leader in fostering such approach, notably through its institutionalization. Even so, the future of European Research and Innovation (R&I) seems to be designed without a central role for RRI. After long effort and so much public EU money to support projects to ground RRI principles and practices in key contexts for the flourishing of science and technology in Europe, such as the industrial realm and regional settings, this counter-intuitive decision could undermine the leadership of Europe in prioritizing civil and human rights and needs, values and expectations of its citizens when steering science and technology, that European R&I strongly need to go further.

First Line Steps in Requirements Identification for Guidelines Development in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) considers the impact of research and development on those who are likely to be directly or indirectly impacted by those activities, and provides a direction for the future of research practices in science and technology for the greater good. In the practical world of the lab or research group therefore, guidelines to assist researchers and scientists in the application of those RRI principles are needed. However, this paper is not concerned with the creation of guidelines themselves, but presents an RRI approach to identifying the requirements for guidelines. This is a first step that is often overlooked or presented as a fait accompli and yet it provides an essential factor in the eventual success or failure of guidelines, created for any purpose. What is required in a set of guidelines however, is not only dictated by the preferred outcome, but is also reflected in the process of its creation. Therefore, an RRI approach to identifying those requirements should also practice what the resulting RRI guidelines preach. Whilst initially developed for the production of guidelines for researchers in an EU RRI project, these approaches and principles can be applied across all disciplines when a set of guidelines need to be developed. The approach taken here, utilized several steps in its implementation. Firstly, through a review of the literature and an examination of guideline development in several research projects, a set of indicative requirements were created. A workshop/focus group with researchers from a range of disciplines, career stages and institutions led to the production of the second iteration, which then received further input from both experts in the field of RRI, philosophy and ethics. This led to the creation of the table of requirements for guidelines. By utilizing the core principles of RRI and through a critical and reflexive approach, this work presents a new technique for identifying first line steps in the creation of guidelines. The practical and flexible nature of this approach means that researchers and policy-makers are invited to use this method in their own guideline development.

Managing Socio-Ethical Challenges in the Development of Smart Farming: From a Fragmented to a Comprehensive Approach for Responsible Research and Innovation

Smart farming (also referred to as digital farming, digital agriculture and precision agriculture) has largely been driven by productivity and efficiency aims, but there is an increasing awareness of potential socio-ethical challenges. The responsible research and innovation (RRI) approach aims to address such challenges but has had limited application in smart farming contexts. Using smart dairying research and development (R&D) in New Zealand (NZ) as a case study, we examine the extent to which principles of RRI have been applied in NZ smart dairying development and assess the broader lessons for RRI application in smart farming. We draw on insights from: a review of research on dairy technology use in NZ; interviews with smart dairying stakeholders; and the application of an analytical framework based on RRI dimensions. We conclude that smart dairying R&D and innovation activities have focused on technology development and on-farm use without considering socio-ethical implications and have excluded certain actors such as citizens and consumers. This indicates that readiness to enact RRI in this context is not yet optimal, and future RRI efforts require leadership by government or dairy sector organisations to fully embed RRI principles in the guidelines for large R&D project design (what has also been referred to as ‘RRI maturity’). More broadly, enacting RRI in smart farming requires initial identification of RRI readiness in a given sector or country and devising a roadmap and coherent project portfolio to support capacity building for enacting RRI. Additionally, methods (such as RRI indicators) for operationalising RRI must be adapted to the context of the national or sectoral innovation system in which smart farming is being developed.

Research and innovation processes revisited – networked responsibility in industry

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore how relationships between different actors are being shaped to allow industry to come to acceptable and desirable uses of research and innovation (R&I) that address societal challenges.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on existing notions of responsibility proposed in the literature, the paper develops a theoretical account of “networks of responsibility” which capture the interlinked nature of responsibility relationships. The usefulness of the approach is evaluated by exploring two cases of R&I in industry deploying a qualitative research approach that involves interviewing and document analysis. For this, a multinational company from Germany was involved, as well as a small- and medium-sized company from Denmark.FindingsThe study surfaced 68 responsibility relationships involving a range of different objects, subjects, authorities and norms. By describing overlaps in objects, subjects and other aspects across relationships, the theoretical model proved adequate in untangling and displaying interrelatedness of responsibilities. Furthermore, the analysis surfaced characteristics of responsible research and innovation (RRI) that are already in place in the R&I processes of two innovative companies, such as anticipation, foresight and stakeholder engagement. Not all aspects of responsibility outlined in the theoretical model could be extracted from the interview data for every responsibility relationship, pointing to the need for further research.Practical implicationsThe paper is practically relevant because it supports policy development on an organisational, as well as societal level. Moreover, the networks of responsibility model offer a fine-grained assessment of responsibilities in R&I practice by mapping existing responsibilities which supports translating RRI principles into everyday organisational practices.Social implicationsRRI sets an ambitious agenda to ensure a more social and ethical R&I. Much work is still needed to bridge the gap between these theoretical and political aspirations and daily R&I practice, especially in non-academic contexts such as industry. By offering a way to understand and untangle the complexity of responsibility relationships, the networks of responsibility model seem to offer a promising approach that can support this endeavour.Originality/valueThe paper offers a novel theoretical approach to understanding and analysing responsibility allocations in R&I in industry. It demonstrates the reliability of this theoretical position empirically. It is practically important because it supports policy development on an organisational as well as societal level.