IMAGINE RRI. A card-based method for reflecting on responsibility in life science research

Abstract

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become a new buzzword in science policy, pointing to a shift in the role of research in contemporary societies. While on a discursive level responsibility is easily welcomed, implementing RRI in research practice appears challenging. RRI as an agent for change must compete with other forces shaping the current research system and its institutions, such as innovation orientation, competition and indicator-driven evaluation cultures.To address these challenges, we created a new format for engaging life science researchers in reflections on the meaning of responsibility in their own research practices. In this conceptual paper, we present and discuss a card-based method: IMAGINE RRI. The method's aim is twofold. First, it is meant to empower researchers to appropriate RRI through shared reflection while connecting it to their practices. Second, it aims to enable researchers to reflect on how the institutional context of their work and the embedded values fosters or hinders responsible research practices.Supplementary material (including card design and discussion map) is available under a creative commons license at the following link: https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/view/o:690945. ARTICLE HISTORY

Responsible innovation during front-end development: increasing intervention capacities for enhancing project management reflections on complexity

“…Indeed, one of the criticisms against the STIR approach to MM has been that it is time-intensive (e.g. Felt, Fochler, and Sigl 2018). Similar to published STIR studies aimed at inducing MM (Fisher 2007;Fisher andSchuurbiers 2013, Flipse et al 2012;Flipse, Van der Sanden, and Osseweijer 2013;Lukovics and Fisher 2017;McTiernan et al 2016;Schuurbiers 2011), our modified STIR approach facilitated reflection on broader societal considerations as well as specific actions, although there appears to be a higher frequency of the former than of the latter.…”

“…12 weeks of regular interaction between the outsider and the innovator (cf. Felt, Fochler, and Sigl 2018). In innovation practice, this can be considered (too) long in terms of time investment and willingness to participate by innovation practitioners.…”

“I am Primarily Paid for Publishing…”: The Narrative Framing of Societal Responsibilities in Academic Life Science Research

“…Both group discussions and interviews built on the card-based discussion method called "IMAGINE RRI" (Felt et al 2018b). The method was specifically developed to trigger reflection about what constitutes a responsible researcher and what responsible research can look like in practice.…”

“…The study builds on 11 group discussions and 28 interviews (with a total of 112 participating researchers, amounting to 1033 pages of transcripts). The discussions and interviews build on a card-based methodological design (Felt et al 2018b) that was specifically developed to facilitate discussions about societal responsibilities in life science research. The two main interests in this methodological approach are to understand (a) how researchers narratively frame their responsibilities and (b) whether and why they delegate some responsibilities elsewhere.…”

Ends of responsible innovation

“…Meanwhile, the year 2018 has been an exciting one for JRI. The journal saw its most prolific output yet, augmenting its three regularly scheduled issues-which included, among other offerings, a special issue on brain science (Bowman et al 2018), new reflective engagement approaches (Felt, Fochler, and Sigl 2018), and empirical demonstrations of the utility of such engagements (Flipse and van de Loo 2018)-with a special supplementary issue on gene drives (Delborne et al 2018). This, the final issue of the year, contains various discussions over the 'ends' of responsible innovation, including its aims, boundaries, and conditions.…”