More democratic research and innovation

Braun, Róbert; Grießler, Erich

doi:10.22323/2.17030304

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This line of argument stands in tension with the simultaneously made arguments that build on the reciprocity between research and those who provide data (Kaye et al., 2015; Titmuss, 1971) or that underline the importance to supplement informed consent models with attempts for deliberation, participation and representation (Gould, 2019). These arguments are in line with the currently widespread claim for more inclusive forms of research, manifested in frames such as Responsible Research and Innovation (Braun and Griessler, 2018; Felt, 2018). Indeed, in our analysis, we did only examine the voices of rather institutionalized actors as spokespersons for larger sets of people – be they affected by rare diseases, biobankers, or science policy actors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Negotiating the reuse of health-data: Research, Big Data, and the European General Data Protection Regulation

Starkbaum

Felt

2019

Big Data & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before the EU General Data Protection Regulation entered into force in May 2018, we witnessed an intense struggle of actors associated with data-dependent fields of science, in particular health-related academia and biobanks striving for legal derogations for data reuse in research. These actors engaged in a similar line of argument and formed issue alliances to pool their collective power. Using descriptive coding followed by an interpretive analysis, this article investigates the argumentative repertoire of these actors and embeds the analysis in ethical debates on data sharing and biobank-related data governance. We observe efforts to perform a paradigmatic shift of the discourse around the General Data Protection Regulation-implementation away from ‘protecting data’ as key concern to ‘protecting health’ of individuals and societies at large. Instead of data protection, the key risks stressed by health researchers became potential obstacles to research. In line, exchange of information with data subjects is not a key concern in the arguments of biobank-related actors and it is assumed that patients want ‘their’ data to be used. We interpret these narratives as a ‘reaction’ to potential restrictions for data reuse and in line with a broader trend towards Big Data science, as the very idea of biobanking is conceptualized around long-term use of readily prepared data. We conclude that a sustainable implementation of biobanks needs not only to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, but must proactively re-imagine its relation to citizens and data subjects in order to account for the various ways that science gets entangled with society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Negotiating the reuse of health-data: Research, Big Data, and the European General Data Protection Regulation

Starkbaum

Felt

2019

Big Data & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, EU-funded projects in particular have brought together “important elements of opening up science and innovation to societal actors through an institutionalized concept and the promotion of concrete structural changes” (Mazzonetto and Simone 2018 : 2). Work on RRI – both conceptual and practical – implemented through the European Commission’s Framework Programmes (FP) has delivered a plethora of methods, theories and practices of RRI (Braun and Griessler 2018 ). As noted by Jack Stilgoe in a policy brief for the MORRI (Monitoring the evolution and benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe) project, aspirational agendas such as the RRI agenda now need to be coupled with measurable indicators (Stilgoe 2018 : 2).…”

Section: Comparing Prescriptive Actions For Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change

Shelley-Egan

Gjefsen

Nydal

2020

Life Sci Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points to further unpacking what 'opening up' to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the 'how' of opening up in light of the 'why' to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI's emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS' coexistence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship.

show abstract

“…Increasingly, researchers are requested to explicitly address collaboration in their research proposals (Braun & Griessler, 2018;European Commission, 2018;Perkmann et al, 2013;Rolfe et al, 2018). Reasons underpinning these policy-driven requests are the expectations that societal challenges can be met through integrated research approaches (Graham et al, 2006(Graham et al, , 2019Macq et al, 2020;Powell et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, the idea is that actors outside the university strengthen and develop their ability to translate research outputs into practice. Emanating from a democratic rights-based perspective, ideas of empowerment often constitute the origin of motivations for collaboration with citizens, making efforts to change positions of strength related to influence over the research process from researchers to partners outside the university (Bammer, 2019;Braun & Griessler, 2018;Mockford et al, 2012;Stilgoe et al, 2014). Others advocate for collaboration as a means of systems thinking, strengthening the quality of research through an increase in researchers' understanding of actors outside the university, their expectations, issues, contexts, and challenges as well as their opportunity for and ability to be involved in research processes (Fritz et al, 2019;Graham et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scrutinizing the collaboration criterion in research: how do policy ambitions play out in proposals and assessments?

Jönsson

Iwarsson

2022

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a commission by one of the Swedish Research Council, which has high ambitions to strengthen the collaboration between academia and society, this study aimed to reveal how researchers describe the collaboration with partners outside the university in research proposals. Globally, collaboration is advocated to bridge research-practice gaps and address complex societal challenges. This study scrutinizes how the collaboration criterion was operationalized in all research proposals submitted to The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare in 2016. A content analysis of 381 proposals and related assessments was used to identify patterns and categories. Preliminary results were subjected to discussion in a workshop with 34 researchers representing granted proposals in the material, followed by further analysis. Comparisons were made between granted and rejected proposals. The applicants had made diverse interpretations of the collaboration criterion specified in the calls under which the proposals were submitted. The few that described theoretical underpinnings for collaborative approaches used a diversity of concepts but none of them frequently. Collaboration overlapped with other sections in the proposals. There is a need to develop theoretical awareness and conceptual clarity regarding collaboration and embed collaboration in research. In the context studied, collaboration with actors outside the university does not appear to be crucial for funding.

show abstract

More democratic research and innovation

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Negotiating the reuse of health-data: Research, Big Data, and the European General Data Protection Regulation

Negotiating the reuse of health-data: Research, Big Data, and the European General Data Protection Regulation

Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change

Scrutinizing the collaboration criterion in research: how do policy ambitions play out in proposals and assessments?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About