RRI requires doing the best science for the world, not only the best science in the world.

Given the potent and pervasive nature of modern technologies, this paper lays out the complexities involved in achieving responsible design. In order to do this we will first compare an emerging policy-oriented programme of research known as RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) with initiatives in HCI. A focus on the similarities and differences may highlight to what extent responsibility is already and successfully embedded within the concerns and practices of design and use, and what may yet need to be incorporated for responsible design. The paper then discusses the challenges of 'naturalising' the very ambitious programme of RRI within specific design activities and concerns, through the lens of four analytic concepts: reflexivity; responsiveness; inclusion; and anticipation. Finally, we make a case for a pragmatic, 'unromantic', but engaged reinterpretation of RRI for HCI.

EC policy reveals a strong conviction that CSO's main function in EUfunded research and innovation projects is to take care of the 'societal perspective', which would not be adequately represented otherwise. With this, CSOs are supposed to be the main advocates of RRI in project consortia and are supported by all kinds of EC policy measures to fulfil this role. This conviction is not only problematic due to definition problems concerning CSO as such. Empirical data about the role of CSOs in high-tech/high-innovation research projects and the distribution of RRI activities among consortia members reveal that the role of CSOs is much more multi-faceted (data providers, providers of access to the research field, providers of specific domain expertise etc.) than currently assumed. Furthermore, RRI policies of the EC have managed to sensitise all other actors in consortia to the societal perspective: universities and companies are likewise active to promote and realise RRI perspectives in project consortia with CSO not really standing out among them. These findings have at least two interesting implications: (1) CSOs have far more to offer than being just the 'moral voice' of society in research and innovation; their contribution is multi-faceted and beneficial in many respects. (2) The RRI policy of the EC is even more successful than expected: it is not just one actor type that is supposed to introduce RRI keys and elements in consortia; we can observe something like RRI diffusion among different types of consortia members with all of them active in supporting RRI perspectives in their research work.

No abstract

No abstract