Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review

Schuijff, M.; Dijkstra, Anne M.

doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00167-3

Cited by 45 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our analyses suggest RI had a low profile within these research communities prior to 2013. It is important to note that there may well be practices in universities that potentially align with anticipatory, reflexive and deliberative approaches advocated by RI, but which may not be specifically labelled as such (Glerup et al, 2017;Schuijff and Dijkstra, 2020). In their recent review, Schuijff and Dijkstra (2020) note that where such approaches are observed, these tend to be aligned with just one of the RI dimensions described by Stilgoe et al (2013) rather than all four in an integrated manner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But while there have been informative studies of micro practices of RI (e.g. Glerup et al (2017), see also Schuijff and Dijkstra (2020) for a recent review) there has been surprisingly little engagement between scholars of RI and that considerable body of scholarship relating to institutionalisation and the dynamics of organisational change (Genus and Iskandarova, 2018;Randles, 2017). Furthering this exchange is important in terms of providing a theoretically-informed analysis of the dynamics and extent of RI translation within organisations to date (Doezsma et al, 2019;Wedlin and Sahlin, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the institutionalisation of responsible innovation (RI) over the last decade at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and universities funded by it as a focal point for RI in the UK. Drawing on organisational theory we identify factors influencing the dynamics of RI institutionalisation, including forces of legitimation, entrepreneurship and decoupling. We report significant institutionalisation at the EPSRC prior to 2013, when it published its RI policy. Notwithstanding instances of experimentation and assimilation since, we report limited institutionalisation within research communities in universities as RI has encountered competing institutional logics, responsibility norms and epistemic practices. Our findings suggest an ongoing and dynamic process of translation that reflects RI's status as a performative and contested discourse 'in the making'.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RRI emphasises how the acceptability, sustainability, and desirability of an innovation can be enhanced through two-way interaction between stakeholders (De Saille, 2015; Von Schomberg, 2014). Although, scholars have recognized the importance of RRI, it is still a concept in development and much remains unclear about how to operationalise it and how it can stimulate the development of socially robust innovations (Leeuwis & Aarts, 2016;Schuijff & Dijkstra, 2020).…”

Section: The First Objective Of This Dissertation Is To Create An Ovementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dit laatste punt wordt ook wel het creëren van 'maatschappelijk robuuste' innovaties genoemd. Er is echter nog veel onbekend over hoe stakeholders deze processen in de praktijk kunnen brengen en hoe de interacties daadwerkelijk bijdragen aan legitimiteit en maatschappelijk robuuste innovaties (e.g., Binz et al, 2016;Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011;Schuijff & Dijkstra, 2020).…”

Section: (Summary In Dutch)unclassified

“…Taking into account these two dimensions in RRI, there is general agreement among scholars, that responsible forms of innovation should be aligned to social needs and include relevant actors in two-way consultation (De Saille, 2015). However, RRI is still a concept in development, and much remains unclear of how to put it into practice (Schuijff & Dijkstra, 2020). This dissertation addresses how to bring RRI in practice by studying how stakeholder interactions can lead to more socially robust innovations, which can increase legitimacy as well.…”

Section: Introduction | 21 20 | Chaptermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Connect and affect

Jansma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Present-day societies are facing grand societal challenges, such as dealing with climate change, depletion of natural resources, ageing populations, and more recently, the outbreak of a pandemic disease. These challenges transcend national borders and threaten people, communities, and the planet as a whole (George et al., 2016). Often, scientists and policymakers have pinned their hopes on technological innovations as (part of) the solution for addressing those challenges (e.g., Groen & Walsh, 2013; European Commission, 2011; Van den Hoven, 2014). However, the development and implementation of such solutions are not always successful. There are various aspects that may hinder success of technological innovations, because many different stakeholders need to be mobilised, who all have their own interests and stakes that affect their perceptions of the challenge at hand and the desirability of technological change (

show abstract

The societal roles and responsibilities of plant scientists in the context of genome‐edited crops

So,

Habets,

Testerink

et al. 2024

Plants People Planet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societal Impact StatementThe societal debate on the use of genome‐edited crops has been polarised from the start. While policymakers struggle to democratically resolve this dilemma, plant scientists have been criticised for taking up advocative roles and thereby risking further polarisation. This study demonstrates how plant scientists themselves perceive their roles and responsibilities. Indeed, those scientists active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and there seems to be an underlying, persistent—and very traditional—view on roles and responsibilities of scientists within the community. Critical reflection on this view is required for better democratic dialogue and decision‐making. More interdisciplinary interaction could facilitate this reflection.Summary In this paper, we examine how plant scientists from Wageningen University and Research (WUR) demarcate their roles and responsibilities in relation to the societal impact of their research, in response to calls for public legitimacy of their research, and within the societal debate on the governance of genome‐edited crops (GE crops) in Europe. We analysed 16 semi‐structured interviews, 5‐day journals, and (social) media contributions of plant scientists at WUR. Our study demonstrates that the perceived roles and responsibilities of the interviewees were aligned with the ideal of the scientist as value‐free, as separate from society, and as producing knowledge that leads to unproblematic societal benefits through industry. When confronted with the polarised debate on the governance of genome editing (GE) technology, the reflexivity that our respondents had demonstrated in general, tended to be dispersed. Respondents rarely considered the GE crop debate, or their own position, to be value‐based. Those respondents active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and they struggled to recognise the validity of viewpoints other than their own. We hypothesise that this decreased reflexive capacity is a product of the long‐term polarisation of the GM/GE debate, mediated by both their conceptual alignment with the linear model of innovation and their limited interactions outside of their field. In order to better align the perspectives of social and natural scientists on the topic of science‐responsibility, and to constructively contribute to the debate on GE crops, we argue for more interaction between the these two communities.

show abstract

Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review

Cited by 45 publications

References 60 publications

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

Connect and affect

The societal roles and responsibilities of plant scientists in the context of genome‐edited crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About