Global challenges, Dutch solutions? The shape of responsibility in Dutch science and technology policies

Molen, Franke van der; Ludwig, David; Consoli, Luca; Zwart, Hub

doi:10.1080/23299460.2019.1603569

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of our study are contextualized by many factors that are specific to the political and innovation culture of the Netherlands [39]. The governance approach to bioeconomy in this country focuses on co-creating a long-term vision that informs short-term action, on facilitating bottom-up, regional clusters and on promoting radical innovation through stimulating the cooperation between players with vested interests and frontrunners [37].…”

Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands

Lynch

Klaassen

et al. 2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years there has been increasing attention to the transition toward a bioeconomy. From comparable transitions toward sustainability, we know that transitions require integral, inclusive approaches toward developing a long-term strategy, focusing not only on technological innovation, but also on involving the public. This is not easy. Public engagement encompasses diverse forms of public and civil society participation, and it is crucial to understand the specificities of these interactions and their effects on potential transition pathways. We present a conceptual-analytical paper where the focus lies on understanding sense-making practices in the construction of publics in the bioeconomy. Using a case-study approach, this article describes five partialities of the constructed public in the bioeconomy and analyzes the orchestration, productive dimensions and effects of these constructions. Our analysis offers a new perspective on, and appreciation of, the partiality of different forms of public participation, and varying degrees in which possibilities of system change in the bioeconomy transition are inclusive or exclusive toward differentially constructed publics. This offers an alternative, constructive way of exploring actor dynamics and politics in system change. We aim to contribute to a more nuanced and integral interpretation of public engagement in sustainability transitions, which is relevant to actors from academia, policy, industry and other spheres relevant to the bioeconomy transition.

show abstract

Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands

Lynch

Klaassen

et al. 2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, relevant innovations in this region also include new social practices, institutions, designs and technologies emerging from local needs in the context of social exclusion and inequality. Such social arrangements, comprising creative grassroots solutions based on new social relations, are well conceptualized in social sciences as social innovations (see Moulaert et al 2014), and have recently been integrated into innovation studies as 'social technology' (see van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016). However, this aspect of innovation has received comparatively little attention in the RRI literature (Khumalo and Baloyi 2017).…”

Section: Towards An Integrative Rri Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualising responsible research and innovation from a Global South perspective

Wakunuma

Castro

Jiya

et al. 2021

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been developed in the Global North with little reference to what RRI or RRI-like practices mean in the context of the Global South. We discuss the contextual factors driving the emergence of responsible innovation practice and ways in which they can inform efforts to develop an inclusive and global conceptualization of RRI. Findings show that some activities in the Global South are comparable to those of the Global North, although important differences exist in motivations and structures. We go beyond prior framings to propose a reconfigured, inclusive theoretical framework that accounts for trans-regional differences by looking at three cases to illustrate international differences and to demonstrate an RRI continuum. Netherlands represents a more Global North concept of RRI; Malawi a Global South RRI concept and Brazil sits between these two extremes and assimilates RRI concepts from both ends of the continuum.

show abstract

“…With regards to economic goals, both national welfare and international competitiveness are stressed. This strong economic orientation has been criticised by several actors in the Dutch academic system, such as the Science in Transition network (van der Molen et al 2019). Their counter-imaginary envisions more attention to social rather than economic value creation, and a university based on democratic governance, trust and more versatile assessment criteria of research, rather than one that is bureaucratic, hierarchical and obsessed with producing publications (ibid., p. 19).…”

Section: The Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of National Sociotechnical Imaginaries

Wittrock¹,

Forsberg

Pols

et al. 2020

Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this Chapter, we give an overview of national STI imaginaries by country. We provide information on policy structure and policy culture, and other aspects of national discourses and practices that are relevant to our study. Keywords Sociotechnical imaginaries • Responsible research and innovation • STI policy goals • STI framing • Administrative style • Public participation 7.1 Australia Characteristic of the Australian STI imaginary is that its science and innovation systems are relatively separate. There is the political ambition to move the innovation system towards a 'systems of innovation' model to strengthen the economy, but there is a lack of effective intermediaries, and of incentives for actors in the STI system to collaborate. Particular to this imaginary is attention to the inclusion of marginalised groups to increase their welfare and economic productivity. The STI system seems to be aligned with the 'science for society' model and an accompanying 'deficit model' of science communication. However, it is pushed in the direction of the 'systems of innovation' model by policy-makers intent on increasing publicprivate collaborations, and in the direction of the 'RRI model', because of attention to inclusion of marginalised groups and a realisation of the challenges this offers for non-localised research. These different directions are not necessarily in tension, as inclusion is also considered important in the innovation system. Another characteristic of the Australian STI imaginary is the reason for public distrust in science. While many nations struggle with this phenomenon, the reason given in various national reports is scientific contributions to controversial technologies, such as nuclear energy or GMOs. The Australia report (Sehic and Ashworth 2018) claims that it is rather because of scientific contributions to an economy based on the resource-intensive sectors of industrial agriculture and mineral extraction, in a country characterised by water scarcity and fragile ecosystems. Here, it is thus not so much the technologies themselves, but the fit of the technologies with the local environment that generates controversy. The history of this imaginary seems to be similar to that of many Western countries: after the Second World War, spurred on

show abstract

Global challenges, Dutch solutions? The shape of responsibility in Dutch science and technology policies

Cited by 16 publications

References 4 publications

Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands

Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands

Reconceptualising responsible research and innovation from a Global South perspective

Overview of National Sociotechnical Imaginaries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About