Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and often conflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so. While developed within the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable to initiatives at the knowledge–policy interface, which require a pluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. We argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human nature-relations and NCP

No abstract

The concept of 'responsible innovation' (RI) or 'responsible research and innovation' (RRI) is rapidly gaining currency. However, a persistent critique is that without more concrete elaboration, the interpretive flexibility of the concept is so broad as to effectively render it meaningless. The articulation of quality criteria and indicators therefore seems crucial for RRI to be understood and operationalized by researchers, research funders, innovators and other relevant stakeholders. In this paper, we specifically draw on our knowledge and experience from the transdisciplinary research community, combined with recent multistakeholder deliberative work on the concrete case of nanoremediation, to make an offering on the challenge of articulating quality criteria and approaches to evaluate RRI. In doing so, we present an iteratively arrived at set of quality criteria, designate significant elements of each of these, and then develop an evaluative rubric of performance indicators across them. While the criteria and rubric we present were initiated through the specific context of our work on advancing RI in the research, development and use of nanoparticles for environmental remediation, we believe that they can serve as a useful example for how evaluative criteria and approaches can be developed and offer a helpful frame for sponsoring and structuring the ongoing conversations on quality criteria and indicators that are necessary if RRI is to reach its full potential.

In this paper, we present a study of Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspectives on public engagement, specifically focusing on the gap between theory and practice. In aiming to develop a conceptual map of this gap, we identify five top topics of tension. These are related to the general questions of: “Why should we do public engagement?,” “Who should be involved?,” “How should it be organised?,” “When should it be done?” and “Where should it be grounded?” We employ nanotechnology as a paradigmatic case to help us explore these tensions. In practice, the choices one makes in relation to one topic of tension may influence the choices available for others. Enhanced awareness of the presence of these tensions, as well as their interconnections, can help build reflexive capacity and make visible the various alternative routes available for STS practitioners working in the “age of engagement.”