The Conceptualization of RRI: An Iterative Approach
- 292 Downloads
To stimulate research and innovation (R&I), to contribute to the solution of societal challenges and to align R&I with societal values, the European Commission has launched the governance framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). RRI figures in many high-level EU policies as a means to promote smart growth, and a growing community of R&I practitioners from both the public and private sectors appears committed to it. Although debates on what RRI precisely entails have not reached closure yet, RRI provides an interesting avenue to explore ways of making R&I more societally germane. While recognizing the usefulness of keeping critical reflection on RRI’s meaning alive, we suggest that to make the step from theorizing to implementation, RRI could benefit from a clearer conceptualization. This chapter presents the iterative trajectory in conceptualizing RRI followed as part of RRI Tools, one of a number of EC-funded research projects and support acts aimed at fleshing out what RRI can and should be, and the conceptualization of RRI that this led to. It suggests that RRI is best captured if in R&I governance attention is paid to the five p’s of Purpose, Products, Processes, Preconditions and People, and that further elaborations on the meaning of RRI should happen in dialogue with attempts at practicing RRI.
- Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schon. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Oxford: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and David Guston. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Edward Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., Tjard de Cock Buning, Anneloes Roelofsen, and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2009. Evaluating interactive policy making on biotechnology: The case of the Dutch ministry of health, welfare and sport. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 29 (6): 447–463.Google Scholar
- Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. 2009. Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT.Google Scholar
- Cavallo, D. 2000. Emergent design and learning environments: Building on indigenous knowledge. IBM Systems Journal 39(3.4): 768–781.Google Scholar
- Collingridge, David. 1980. The social control of technology. London: Francis Pinter.Google Scholar
- European Environment Agency. 2002. Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896–2000. www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
- Fisher, Erik, Cynthia Selin, and Jameson Wetmore, eds. 2008. Presenting futures: The yearbook of nanotechnology in society. Dordrecht: Springer Science.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Tow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Grin, John, and Armin Grunwald, eds. 2000. Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society: Towards a repertoire for technology assesment. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
- Haywood, Benjamin K., and John C. Besley. 2014. Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 92–106.Google Scholar
- Houghton, John, and Peter, Sheehan. 2006. The economic impact of enhanced access to research findings. vuir.vu.edu.au/472/. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
- Klaassen, Pim, Frank Kupper, Michelle Rijnen, Sara Vermeulen, and Jacqueline Broerse. 2014. D1.1: Policy brief. RRI tools project. Amsterdam: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Kuhlman, Stefan, Ralf Lindner, Sally Randles, Bjørn Bested, Guido Gorgoni, Erich Griessler, Allison Loconto, and Niels Mejlgaard. 2016. Navigating towards shared responsibility. doc.utwente.nl/102432/1/RES_AGorA_ebook.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
- ———. 2015a. D1.3: Report on the quality criteria of Good Practice Standards in RRI. RRI tools project. Amsterdam: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Kupper, Frank, Pim Klaassen, Michelle Rijnen, Sara Vermeulen, Remco Woertman, and Jacqueline Broerse. 2015b. D1.4: A catalogue of good RRI practices. RRI tools project. Amsterdam: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
- Oftedal, Gry. 2014. The role of philosophy of science in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): The case of nanomedicine. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (5).Google Scholar
- Palm, Elin, and Sven Ove Hansson. 2006. The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73(5): 543–558.Google Scholar
- Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2007. From bioethics to human practices, or assembling contemporary equipment. In Tactical biopolitics art, activism, and technoscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Regeer, Barbara, and Joske Bunders. 2009. Knowledge co-creation: Interaction between science and society. Den Haag: DeltaHage.Google Scholar
- Rip, Arie, Thomas Misa, and Johan Schot. 1995. Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
- ———. 2011. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, ed. M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft. VS Verlag: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
- Swierstra, Tsjalling. 1997. From critique to responsibility; The ethical turn in the technology debate. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 3 (1): 45–48.Google Scholar
- Van den Hoven, Jeroen (ed.). 2013. Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
- Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream, 1–69. London: Demos.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., B. Wynne, and J. Stilgoe. 2005. The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar
- World Economic Forum. 2016. The global risks report 2016. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2016. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.