Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting

Abstract

Abstract:In the last decade, the term Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has rapidly attracted the attention of policy-makers and researchers of Europe, mainly due to its promotion by the European Commission (EC). The concretion of this framework of RRI has been articulated by the EC around six key areas: governance, public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, and open science and ethics. The indicators to measure these dimensions have been proposed recently. In our opinion the set of indicators available so far has two weaknesses: a lack of context-based indicators and a need for hierarchical ordering. Our aim is to provide tools for policy-and decision-makers that might need to identify the more important indicators in a specific context. In this work, we explored how the multicriteria analysis technique Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) can be used to prioritize indicators for RRI by involving experts in the specific context. The AHP method allowed weighting indicators according to experts in the different areas and producing four different options to select indicators. The method of AHP can be an appropriated instrument to select the most suitable indicators for RRI policies and initiatives.

Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain

“…The synthesis of AHP combines multidimensional measurement scales into a single one-dimensional scale of priorities. The method is one of the most extended multicriteria decision making techniques that have been used in the areas of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) [38,39] and RRI [6]. It adapts very well to the hierarchy of indicators proposed by the EU and has the advantage of being easy to explain to experts assessing the indicators.…”

“…Our aim was to identify those that best fit specific policies. We used the "Best in class" criterion, that is, selecting the most relevant indicator in each area and category [6]. In this case, the reduced list of indicators would include nine indicators from the original list of 52.…”

“…We use a multicriteria method based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This method has been tested and its usefulness in prioritizing indicators in participatory environments has been demonstrated [6].…”

AMICAI: A Method Based on Risk Analysis to Integrate Responsible Research and Innovation into the Work of Research and Innovation Practitioners

“…From a methodological point of view, however, quantifying and prioritizing the innovation-based problems is not an easy task, otherwise numerous methods would have been established in the day-to-day work of practitioners. With the analytic hierarchy process, another quantifying and prioritizing methodology for prescriptive decision-making has already been proposed, which might be an easy and useful tool for application in the field of RRI (Monsonís-Payá et al 2017). Quantification in general and as defined by AMICAI, for example, entails, in particular, uncertainties resulting from over-and underestimation of the assigned numerical values.…”

Indicators for Fostering Environmental Sustainability in the Context of Responsible Research and Innovation

“…In the work referred to the authors put forward a framework for the indicators with two dimensions: Perception and Performance, the latter further divided into Process and Outcomes. Then, indicators are suggested for the six key areas and the two dimensions (Monsonís-Payá et al 2017;Strand et al 2015).…”