Communicating through vulnerability: knowledge politics, inclusion and responsiveness in responsible research and innovation

Abstract

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has affirmed the value of 'inclusion' and 'responsiveness' as institutional virtues necessary to ensure that reflexivity towards the social priorities behind innovation processes is made possible. It is argued that this affirmation links RRI to knowledge politics in other domains (e.g. environmental justice and the politics of development). It is suggested that lessons regarding inclusion and responsiveness can be drawn from these domains, focusing on the ways in which marginalised perspectives on need and vulnerability, once articulated, can help reconstitute the public sphere in which social priorities are defined. Three case studies are used to explore how entanglements of needs, vulnerabilities, identity and agency are vital to understanding the impacts of innovation and change more generally. It is argued that social science methodologies sensitised to such entanglements are necessary to help constitute a space of inclusion and responsiveness characterised, not by assumptions about idealised rational forms of deliberation, but by styles of communication that recognise vulnerability. ARTICLE HISTORY

The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis

“…In many cases, some participants do not feel free to participate, especially as the theme may elicit ethical discussions on topics such as nanotechnology and biotechnology [36]. Otherwise, inclusion should be sensitive to the culture and the unique needs of the participants [40,41]. Another critique of inclusion is the failure of organizations to recognize the diversity of the public and institutions that can participate in the innovation process and governance of science, technology, and innovation [19].…”

A new research approach for Peace Innovation

“…5. There are also considerable barriers to RI (de Hoop, Pols, and Romjin 2016), including institutional structure (Montoya and Chauvet 2016), the lack of universality of what is considered 'responsible' (Wong 2016) and global focus undermining local innovation locally (Di Guilio et al 2016). 6.…”

Framings and frameworks of responsible innovation

“…Macnaghten (2016) reviews the work of approximately two-dozen researchers who analyze debates over genetically modified agricultural innovation in three settings in the Global South (see Macnaghten and Carro-Ripalda 2015). In the process of summarizing their findings, including their analysis of the lack of institutional responsiveness (a finding reminiscent of Anzaldo Montoya and Chauvet 2016; de Hoop, Pols, and Romijn 2016;di Giulio et al 2016), Macnaghten presents a case for responsible innovation as an 'alternative pluralistic and inclusive model for decision-making' that should be consciously brought to bear on not only emerging but also existing technological trajectories.…”