Roadblocks to responsible innovation: Exploring technology assessment and adoption in U.S. public highway construction

Abstract

U.S. Public Highway Construction Industry professionals are responsible for assessing and adopting new technology that can improve the cost and quality of roadways. This paper investigates features of the technology assessment and adoption process in the U.S. public highway construction industry that both facilitate and hinder responsible innovation. Often technological innovations are incongruent with current specifications, i.e., regulatory construction standards, whereby specification reform serves as a precursor to implementation. We examine this aspect of technology assessment and adoption through a novel application of Kingdon's theory of policy agenda setting to a highly technical state bureaucratic institution using a case study on Intelligent Compaction. Specification reform relating to Intelligent Compaction is occurring in nearly a quarter of U.S. states. Analysis of interviews with industry professionals revealed that institutional incentives for supporting innovations were not the main drivers for adoption, and there exists a conservative culture that inhibits change. Individuals that go against this grain by championing change do so based on their personal character, ideological affiliations and a perceived sense of social obligation, which coincides with the principles set forth in the responsible research and innovation literature. These individuals, whom we identify as Kingdon's policy entrepreneurs, appear to present themselves in four roles in this industry: explorer, pioneer, gatekeeper, and leader. Our findings indicate that alignment of these roles creates an environment conducive to responsible technology assessment and adoption, and therefore greater societal benefit. Ultimately, we hope this study will benefit U.S. Highway Construction Industry regulatory environments by enhancing identification of specification processes, key roles, and personal/ethical ideologies that may be conducive to fostering a culture of responsible innovation.

Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India

“…A process broker typically has thorough knowledge of the institutional system. She can use this knowledge to act as a gatekeeper (Kimmel, Toohey, & Delborne, 2016), enhance democracy and solicit public participation in policymaking (Gilad & Alon-Barkat, 2018;Nelson & Svara, 2015), manipulate rules to push a policy proposal (Zahariadis & Exadaktylos, 2016), de-escalate conflict and prevent coalitions from blocking policy decisions (Ingold & Varone, 2011), or institutionalize ideas and avoid policy reversal (Meijerink & Huitema, 2010). In the absence of a clear policy direction, she can also steer the policy from a statement of intent to an implementation plan by facilitating learning about various alternatives, or by driving her own agenda (Meijerink & Huitema, 2010;Pedersen, Hjelmar, & Bhatti, 2018).…”

Raising Awareness of Researchers-in-the-Making Toward Responsible Research and Innovation

“…The main characteristics of the Generation Z discussed in the previous section have pointed out that in case of applying science education in practice, we should not think of classic classroom teaching and traditional classroom solutions only but more modern techniques, too. In order to address this challenge, we analyzed the methods that were used to incorporate RRI thoughts into practice (see, e.g., Arentshorst, de Cock Buning, & Broerse, 2016;Deák & Lukovics, 2014;Fisher, 2007;Flipse & Osseweijer, 2013;Imreh-Tóth & Imreh, 2014;Kimmel, Toohey, & Delborne, 2016;Okada, 2016;Panzda & Ellwood, 2013;Pavie & Carthy, 2014;Ravesteijn, Liu, & Yan, 2015;Schuurbiers, 2011). We found that the methodological logic of Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) method seems to be a good solution, though it has been tested only among active researchers.…”

Emerging patterns in the academic literature on responsible research and innovation

“…Ethics and ideology are interconnected and many ethical issues of our time are inevitably developed from and around ideological values [55,56]. The discussion of ideology in RRI is scattered throughout the sample and is mostly found in the context of engagement, as actors or stakeholders involved in participatory action either potentially carry ideological biases that contribute to the low productivity of engagement practices [18,57], or can be infected by the ideological aims of RRI [13]. Also, risk and scenario anticipation, namely in fields of emerging science and technology with high uncertainty levels, appear to be rich in ideological visions of the future [15,17].…”