Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review

Burget, Mirjam; Bardone, Emanuele; Pedaste, Margus

doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1

Cited by 327 publications

(335 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

268

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Burget et al 2017;Wickson and Carew 2014;Zwart et al 2014). Moreover, the SOM account has been officially adopted by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (EPSRC 2014;Owen 2014), which also (financially) supported the authors' research .…”

Section: Stilgoe Owen and Macnagtenmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…They may also change due to choices and actions undertaken by the community members in their everyday practices. However, because RI predominantly is being introduced in a top-down manner (Burget et al 2017), this research limits itself to the former, i.e. RI as an approach that addresses perceived anomalies in the dominant innovation paradigm as discussed in academic and policy documents.…”

Section: A Pragmatic View Of Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the last years, several literature reviews of RI have been undertaken (Burget et al 2017;Lubberink et al 2017;Timmermans 2017;Wickson and Carew 2014). These were consulted to identify the different accounts of RI put forward by the RI discourse (first requirement).…”

Section: Step 1: Source Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…European Commission 2015. 3 It also is recognized as a central source of the EC account on RRI by the RI literature (Burget et al 2017;Owen et al 2012;Timmermans 2017) and EU policy documents (see, e.g., European Commission 2014; Strand et al 2015).…”

Section: European Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the VDH account suggests a broadening of the dominant paradigm's consequentialist evaluation of innovation by including moral values while the other accounts go further by also including societal values or even adopting alternative ethical theories. Although originally the accounts each were positioned as distinct by their authors, consecutive authors made efforts to unify the concept by drawing out overlapping characteristics (see, e.g., Burget et al 2017;Lubberink et al 2017;RRI Tools Project 2016;Wickson and Carew 2014). In the meantime, the concept generally is being treated as if it is unified in contemporary academic and policy debates on RI.…”

Section: General Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation

Timmermans

Blok

2018

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current challenges of implementing responsible innovation (RI) can in part be traced back to the (implicit) assumptions behind the ways of thinking that ground the different pre-existing theories and approaches that are shared under the RI-umbrella. Achieving the ideals of RI, therefore not only requires a shift on an operational and systemic level but also at the paradigm-level. In order to develop a deeper understanding of this paradigm shift, this paper analyses the paradigm-level assumptions that are (implicitly) being brought forward by the different conceptualizations of RI. To this purpose it deploys (1) a pragmatic stance on paradigms that allows discerning ontological and axiological elements shared by the RI community and (2) an accompanying critical hermeneutic research approach that enables the profiling of paradigmatic beliefs and assumptions of accounts of RI. The research surfaces the distance of four salient RI accounts from the currently dominant techno-economic innovation paradigm RI seeks to shift. With this, our contribution helps to raise the self-awareness of the RI community about their presuppositions and the paradigm level barriers and enablers to reaching the RI ideal. This insight is needed for a successful transition to responsible research and innovation practices.

show abstract

Section: Stilgoe Owen and Macnagtenmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: A Pragmatic View Of Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Step 1: Source Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: European Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation

Timmermans

Blok

2018

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Toward Responsible Human Genome Editing

Hynes

Coller

Porteus

2017

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genome editing is revolutionising the field of genetics, which includes novel applications to food animals. Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has been advocated as a way of ensuring that a wider-range of stakeholders and publics are able to engage with new and emerging technologies to inform decision making from their perspectives and values. We posit that genome editing is now proceeding at such a fast rate, and in so many different directions, such as to overwhelm attempts to achieving a more reflective pace. An alternative location for reflection is during the much slower process of taking products from the lab to market. We suggest emphasising Responsible Innovation, putting the 'I' back into RRI, and encouraging companies to embrace an RRI approach. We review some previous attempts at developing industry-relevant frameworks for RRI. We then describe two examples of genome editing in livestock; hornless cattle and disease resistant pigs, and reflect on the sorts of questions that could be considered in these two genome editing examples. This paper seeks to take forward the discussion on RRI by extending it to bringing products to market in the context of genome edited livestock.

show abstract

Responsible innovation and corporate sustainability performance: A structural equation modeling‐neural network approach

Memon,

Ooi,

Han

2023

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological innovations may bring unintended consequences despite their potential usefulness. Responsible innovation (RI) has gained increasing popularity in high‐tech nations as a means to mitigate potentially disruptive technological developments. Unfortunately, existing RI research has not sufficiently elucidated the sustainability performance of firms, leading to ambiguous theoretical underpinnings, relationships, and practical applicability. This study aims to address these concerns and provide directions for future research on RI. Based on the resource‐based view, the research introduces RI as a distinctive competency of a firm to investigate the mechanisms driving sustainability performance, measured in three areas: financial, social, and environmental. The study presents the antecedents of RI as a driving force that can enable businesses to gain a sustainable competitive advantage (SCA) and improve sustainability performance. Data were collected from 190 innovative manufacturing firms in Malaysia. First, structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to investigate the antecedents that significantly influence RI. In the second phase, artificial neural network (ANN) analysis was employed to rank the significant predictors identified through SEM. Furthermore, the RI dimensions that lead to SCA and sustainability performance were also ranked using ANN, offering practical strategic business directions for managers.

show abstract

Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review

Cited by 327 publications

References 52 publications

A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation

A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation

Toward Responsible Human Genome Editing

Responsible innovation and corporate sustainability performance: A structural equation modeling‐neural network approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About