Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change

Abstract

In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points to further unpacking what 'opening up' to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the 'how' of opening up in light of the 'why' to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI's emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS' coexistence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship.

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

“…Shelley-Egan et al . [ 229 ] criticize such instumentalization of participants as demonstrating that in Open Science ‘publics operate as citizen scientists collecting or systematizing data without necessarily reflecting on or critiquing the broader institutional and societal frameworks for uptake’. In summary, these findings point towards a biased inclusion of populations invited to participate in Citizen Science projects, which tends to perpetuate the divide between experts and publics and raises questions of representation and equity: Whose voices are represented in Citizen Science projects, and for which reasons?…”

From Responsible Research and Innovation to responsibility by design

“…Since the start of the discussion of RRI (Von Schomberg 2012;Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013), much conceptual and empirical research has been undertaken to clarify its conceptual basis, feasibility, operationalisation, and practical, social, and political implications. The adoption of RRI frameworks by several research funders (Owen 2014;de Saille 2015) most notably the European Commission (European Commission 2011; European Commission 2012; European Commission 2013), has led to intense reflection on RRI by a community of scholars (Gerber et al 2020;Shelley-Egan, Gjefsen, and Nydal 2020;Forsberg et al 2018;Lente, Swierstra, and Joly 2017;von Schomberg and Hankins 2019). However, the discussion of both the definition and the operationalisation of RRI is still open.…”

Citizen science impact pathways for a positive contribution to public participation in science

“…Although RRI is currently "one of the most visible, influential and disputed governance approaches" [Bauer, Bogner and Fuchs, 2016, p. 56], it remains ill-defined in how it works in practice [Bauer, Bogner and Fuchs, 2016]. While the terminology of RRI has diminished within current high-level European Union discourse about science policy, with Open Science taking its place [Gerber et al, 2020;Shelley-Egan, Gjefsen and Nydal, 2020], the RRI discourse was central to the development of the logic model that we describe here.…”