Transforming Scientists’ Understanding of Science–Society Relations. Stimulating Double-Loop Learning when Teaching RRI

Abstract

The problem of developing research and innovation in accordance with society's general needs and values has received increasing attention in research policy. In the last 7 years, the concept of "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) has gained prominence in this regard, along with the resulting question of how best to integrate awareness about science-society relations into daily practices in research and higher education. In this context, post-graduate training has been seen as a promising entrance point, but tool-kit approaches more frequently have been used. In this paper, we present and analyze an experiment-in the format of a Ph.D. course for early-career researchers-deploying an alternative approach. Drawing on Argyris and Schön's (1974) framing of reflective practice, and their distinctions between espoused theories and theories-in-use, the analyzed course endeavored to stimulate double-loop learning. Focusing on dislocatory moments, this paper analyses how the course tried to teach participants to reflect upon their own practices, values, and ontologies, and whether this provided them with the resources necessary to reflect on their theories-in-use in their daily practices.

“Who is going to believe me, if I say ‘I'm a researcher?’” — Scientists' role repertoires in online public engagement

“…The latter becomes especially relevant in relation to contested science discussed in the digital public sphere. Double-loop learning is particularly useful here, for this allows individuals to revisit their model-in-use and adapt it to what is required in the boundary interaction [Hesjedal et al, 2020]. Therefore, and following the idea of reflective practice, scientists who experience challenges in interacting with publics online should learn to ask themselves during interactions with citizens: 'How do I regard my interaction with publics online, and how does this perspective influence my actual engagement practices?…”

“…Moreover, support structures should be established that may help scientists become reflective practitioners in the digital public sphere. Teaching and training of early-career researchers may provide a valuable first step to this regard [Hesjedal et al, 2020;Salmon, Priestley and Goven, 2017]. It is important to emphasise a need for diversity in roles repertoires rather than searching for a single best role repertoire in the digital public sphere -be it that these role repertoires are aligned to the scientists' intended contribution and expectations of online science-society interactions.…”

“…We belief that reflective practice can bring a valuable learning opportunity here, for it makes explicit underlying conflicts or differing values and worldviews, and reveals possible directions for change. As such, the digital public sphere might actually present an opportunity, for online interactions provide valuable opportunities for scientists to be exposed to numerous social, economic, political or cultural perspectives on their contested field of science -and might stimulate participants to rethink their existing assumptions and activities [Hesjedal et al, 2020]. As such, the digital public sphere can facilitate and elicit appreciation of reflective practice, for it may provide scientists with insights into why their interaction with citizens is unfulfilling, experienced as hollow or even hostile; and instead provide directions for learning and rewarding interactions with citizens online.…”

Towards the reflective science communication practitioner

“…Reflective practice is thus conceived as a dynamic process that is continuously modified by the changing context, rather than a permanent state, fixed process, or accumulation of thoughts. Different types of learning are useful in the context of reflective practice as a strategy to excite reflectivity [Hesjedal et al, 2020]. Single-loop learning is characterised as becoming aware of the problem or challenge in the, in this case, specific science communication situation; whereas double-loop learning 'includes a feedback loop that allows individuals' and organizations' experience to result in reconsideration and revision of the mental model' [Hesjedal et al, 2020[Hesjedal et al, , p. 1636].…”

“…Reflective practice has mostly been operationalised in academic contexts, in practice-oriented fields such as management, nursing and social work [Askeland and Fook, 2009;Dubé and Ducharme, 2015;Jones and Stubbe, 2004], and for educational purposes to obtain certain professional skills or insights [Boud and Walker, 1998;Hesjedal et al, 2020;Karnieli-Miller, 2020]. More related to the practice of (science) communication, scholars describe how work on reflection and reflective practices in journalism studies tends to be focused on formal education and to some extent the field of ethics, and not so much on the core journalistic practices of news gathering, selecting, editing, and publishing itself [Ahva, 2012;Niblock, 2007;Ramaker, van der Stoep and Deuze, 2015;Salmon, Priestley and Goven, 2017].…”