Key Findings in the Organisational Study

Springer, 2021

This book details our findings from the RRI-Practice project on which factors act as barriers and drivers for the uptake of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles in research conducting and funding organisations. We also examine how national legislation and cultures affect work on implementing RRI for all twelve countries that have participated in the project. As such, it is relevant to anyone interested in bringing about organisational change towards RRI or similar ideals in their organisation. An executive summary can be found inside the book, which is Open Access available under the link below.

Research Policy, 2021

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'.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2023

In this chapter, we analyse the debate around the implementation of responsible research and innovation (RRI) in Higher Education, Funding and Research Centres (HEFRCs). We will illustrate some proposals about how to implement RRI in HERFCs in a good way. Open and inclusive governance is key to fruitful implementation of RRI in these organizations. Governance in this context refers to ways of steering processes in a desirable direction, in this case in the direction of responsible research and innovation that is ethically acceptable and socially desirable. We will present and assess different models of governance and aim to provide ethical governance of research and innovation (R&I) inspired by the most convincing ideas emerged in the current debate.

SpringerBriefs in Research and Innovation Governance, 2018

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has emerged in recent years, especially in Europe, as a science policy framework that (a) seeks to align technological innovation with broader social values and (b) supports institutional decisions concerning the goals and trajectories of research and innovation under conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance. Rather than relying simply on consumer choice and market mechanisms on the one hand, or risk-based regulation on the other, RRI seeks to determine what constitute the goals, purposes and trajectories of (and alternatives to) technoscience and innovation, and thus the directions towards which these should be oriented, suggesting that these should be underpinned by shared public values. In addition to this overall philosophy of RRI, the European Commission has focused on five constituent policy keys (sometimes called pillars) of RRI that have their historical roots in the Science-in-Society programme; namely societal engagement, gender in research, open access, science education, and ethics. Action on these keys is seen as integral to an RRI approach and to Europe's ability to respond to societal challenges. A further issue in the European context concerns how to 'federate' the RRI community in the EU and promote institutional changes to foster RRI in research institutions (a topic addressed at the European Commission RRI conference in Rome November 2014). This implies engaging stakeholders, research organisations, universities, funding agencies and public authorities in RRI.

The environment in which public research organizations operate is changing at an increasing pace, creating the demand that they to adapt. However, these organizations are structured to operate in relatively steady environments and they do not have the tools to function in situations that are in constant flux. This paper presents a framework for conducting an institutional analysis of public research organizations; the framework is based on novel science and innovation policies and the trends that have recently been documented in the organization and management of science.

Relations

In last years, the European Commission has promoted an approach that seeks to anticipate and assess potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation, with the aim to foster the "design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation". The approach, called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), has become a crosscutting theme of Horizon 2020, the most important European research funding system. RRI has its roots in a longstanding debate on the sense of techno-scientific innovation and its power to produce both benefits and harm, producing risks, arising ethical dilemmas and controversial questions. It proposes a framework for governing the innovation process asking all actors to become mutually responsible and responsive in order to reach "socially desirable" and "acceptable" innovation goals. Years after its emergence as a policy concept, studies and reports have evaluated the efforts to mainstream RRI in the national policies, revealing that questions still remain open to discussion. In this paper we will give a brief overview of RRI approach, what it is, why and how it emerged and developed within the policy discourse in the European context. We will then review some key lessons concerning opportunities and challenges embedded in this approach, focusing on the role of science.

This paper makes a plea for more reflexive attempts to develop and anchor the emerging concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI). RRI has recently emerged as a buzzword in science policy, becoming a focus of concerted experimentation in many academic circles. Its performative capacity means that it is able to mobilise resources and spaces despite no common understanding of what it is or should be 'made of'. In order to support reflection and practice amongst those who are interested in and using the concept, this paper unpacks understandings of RRI across a multidisciplinary body of peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis focuses on three key dimensions of RRI (motivations, theoretical conceptualisations and translations into practice) that remain particularly opaque. A total of 48 publications were selected through a systematic literature search and their content was qualitatively analysed. Across the literature, RRI is portrayed as a concept that embeds numerous features of existing approaches to govern and assess emerging technologies. Our analysis suggests that its greatest potential may be in its ability to unify and provide political momentum to a wide range of long-articulated ethical and policy issues. At the same time, RRI's dynamism and resulting complexity may represent its greatest challenge. Further clarification on what RRI has to offer in practice—beyond what has been offered to date—is still needed, as well as more explicit engagement with research and institutional cultures of responsibility. Such

The public research sector is changing all over Europe. New semi-public research centers have emerged and now coexist with the traditional public research centers in the same organizational field. It is argued that these changes are mostly policy driven and that the main mechanism is the emergence of new legitimation models of what research and research centers should be for, with a strong emphasis on excellence in science, technology transfer, and service to society. Governments have changed the way they distribute resources or create research structures according to these changing models. As in many other events of the history of science and technology policy, the boundary struggles and changes are underlying issues in this paper. This transformation in the institutional environments of the research centers has instigated changes in the structure of the organizational field of research, mainly reflecting the emergence of new types of organizations and their search for management flexibility and the diversification of funding sources.

2022

ETHNA System Project – Deliverable 2.1. The report provides a comprehensive overview of governance theory and practices in the research<br> and innovation (R&I) sector related to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). The<br> report is based on findings from a review of the RRI literature related to the governance of research<br> and innovation processes, and interviews with 22 European-based experts on R&I governance in the<br> area of RRI. The purpose of the report has been to present some of the governance options - or<br> building blocks - available when constructing the ETHNA system, both conceptually and practically<br> speaking. Applying the governance framework of the EC-funded project Res-A-Gora, "The<br> Responsibility Navigator", the identified examples of governance practices were organized under the<br> following ten governance principles: inclusion, deliberation, and moderation; modularity and...

The public research sector is changing all over Europe. New semi-public research centers have emerged and now coexist with the traditional public research centers in the same organizational field. It is argued that these changes are mostly policy driven and that the main mechanism is the emergence of new legitimation models of what research and research centers should be for, with a strong emphasis on excellence in science, technology transfer, and service to society. Governments have changed the way they distribute resources or create research structures according to these changing models. As in many other events of the history of science and technology policy, the boundary struggles and changes are underlying issues in this paper. This transformation in the institutional environments of the research centers has instigated changes in the structure of the organizational field of research, mainly reflecting the emergence of new types of organizations and their search for management flexibility and the diversification of funding sources.