Reflexive Governance for Research and Innovative Knowledge

Design-Driven Conflicts: Exploring the Contribution of Design for Constructing Social Controversies from a Theoretical Standpoint

“…In particular, the focus of the next part is network construction under the condition of conflict and disagreement. Our premise is that construction processes, along with utilizing the creative and productive function of controversies, are necessary for meaningful changes in the dominant discourses [87]. As such, in response to the third objective of the paper, we further investigate what steps are necessary and how these steps could be implemented properly for the effective utilization of conflict in a social context.…”

“…For example, when there are diverse actors, the facilitator is often confronted with a sea of meanings, aspirations, and convictions which makes synthesizing and sorting ideas a highly complicated process [82]. Another concern is about the willingness of actors and their right to participate in the first place [87], which refers to the issue of power. In particular, such a problem is more common when one actor takes a position that belongs to the other authorities (e.g., in the problematization process, defining the obligatory passage points is a researcher's responsibility).…”

“…In particular, such a problem is more common when one actor takes a position that belongs to the other authorities (e.g., in the problematization process, defining the obligatory passage points is a researcher's responsibility). Therefore, the issue requires a creative approach to change the power relation and include marginalized actors within the network [87,104]. In addition, creating an interactive context in order to deal with (lack of) trust and transparency requires an 'iterative' mindset that gradually increases trust and transparency between actors [11,67].…”

Assessment of Responsible Innovation

“…What she points out is that often science (and innovation) cannot be totally implemented without a whole series of other inputs and measures often generated by institutional mechanisms, which then raise the question of the criteria for decision-making. The question of "framing" of research trajectory appears for many scholars to be inextricable from the ontology of products and processes (Gianni & Goujon 2018;Goffman 1974;Maesschalck 2017).…”

“…Several authors have also suggested that, when implementation does not appear evident or easy, it might be sensible to shift up the reflection to a meta-level (Stahl et al 2013; or to a second order (Gianni & Goujon 2018;Maesschalck 2017) in order to question the framing that drives the overall scientific process. A meta-level reflection can help in addressing the apparent clash between normative drivers and the practical obstacles pertaining to a specific field because it suggests a reflection on the broader meaning of a normative concept, so to find alternative ways to promote its uptake.…”