From Responsible Research and Innovation to responsibility by design

Stahl, Bernd Carsten; Akintoye, Simisola; Bitsch, Lise; Bringedal, Berit; Eke, Damian; Farisco, Michele; Grasenick, Karin; Guerrero, Manuel Alejandro; Leach, Tonii; Nyholm, Sven; Ogoh, George; Rosemann, Achim; Salles, Arleen; Trattnig, Julia; Ulnicane, Inga

doi:10.1080/23299460.2021.1955613

Cited by 41 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a proactive attitude does not imply accountability but rather an expansion of the spheres of influence and interest of the scientist. Even if a mechanism could be devised to hold scientists accountable for broader safety issues, studies into the implementation of RRI have shown that legal requirements, much like the formalization of safety protocols, narrow the scope of attention and impede reflection, thinking about long-term consequences, and reaching out to stakeholders [ 47 ]. Such a strategy would thus effectively work contrary to the aims of SbD in directing attention to uncertain and unpredictable impacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling

Krouwel

Dierickx

Heesterbeek

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, Safe-by-Design (SbD) has been launched as a concept that supports science and engineering such that a broad conception of safety is embraced and structurally embedded. The present study explores the extent to which academics in a distinctively relevant subset of science and engineering disciplines are receptive towards the work and teaching practices SbD would arguably imply. Through 29 interviews with researchers in nanotechnology, biotechnology and chemical engineering differences in perceptions of safety, life-cycle thinking and responsibility for safety were explored. Results indicate that although safety is perceived as a paramount topic in scientific practice, its meaning is rigorously demarcated, marking out safety within the work environment. In effect, this creates a limited perceived role responsibility vis-à-vis safety in the production of knowledge and in teaching, with negligible critical consideration of research’s downstream impacts. This is at odds with the adoption of a broader conception of, and responsibility for, safety. The considerations supporting the perceived boundaries demarcating scientific practice are scrutinized. This study suggests that implementing SbD in academia requires systemic changes, the development of new methods, and attention for researchers’ and innovators’ elementary views on the meaning of and responsibility for safety throughout the innovation chain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling

Krouwel

Dierickx

Heesterbeek

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, we should bring ethical discussions more to the forefront, highlighting the social responsibility of psychological research, its public communication and the integrity of its products. Such ethical discussions are partly implemented within the approaches of “ELSI – Ethical, Legal and Social Issues of Research” (Lohse et al, 2020; Rehmann-Sutter, 2011) and “RRI – Responsible Research and Innovation” (Stahl et al, 2021). These approaches have been established in the last decade and have been promoted by some funding institutions, such as the European Union.…”

Section: Psychological Humanities In the Wake Of The Replication Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Metascience Is Not Enough – A Plea for Psychological Humanities in the Wake of the Replication Crisis

Malich

Rehmann‐Sutter

2022

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The replication crisis led to the rise of metascience as a possible solution. In this article, we examine central metascientific premises and argue that attempts to solve the replication crisis in psychology will benefit from a tighter integration of approaches from the psychological humanities. The first part of our article identifies central epistemic merits that metascientific endeavors can contribute to psychology. However, we argue secondly against the widespread claim that metascience is the only way to deal with the replication crisis in psychology and point to major epistemic problems: the one-sided notion of a singular scientific method, the homogenizing view of psychology, and the exclusion of practices of theorizing. As a possible compensation for such shortcomings, we introduce, third, the reflective and pluralistic approach of psychological humanities. In so doing, we show how psychological humanities can serve as an important complement to the objective of improving psychological research. Psychological humanities contribute to a more precise determination of validity, to ethical considerations, and a better understanding of psychology’s objects in regard to replication. Accordingly, we argue for the integration of psychological humanities into both metascience and psychology to provide a better basis for addressing epistemic and ethical questions.

show abstract

“…The ISO 56003 recommends debating the consequences and impacts of the research for all stakeholders [16], as mentioned in the introduction. In this context, the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) emerges [29][30][31][32]. Thapa et al [7] mentioned that science and innovation have as their central objectives socioeconomic transformation and social development.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Research Partnerships through ISO 56003 Guidelines, RRI Concepts, and Ex Post Facto Cases

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to evaluate improvements in opportunities for research partnerships focused on innovation, considering the ISO 56003 guidelines, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) concepts, and the experiences of the authors of this article, who are researchers in various areas (ex post facto). The results presented arise from structured debates and discussions. As a result of the analysis and reflections carried out, some improvement opportunities in most of the partnerships established among research groups can be visualised. Partners in a research group often debate aspects related to technical knowledge associated with the research and contractual procedures in detail; however, they do not equally emphasise other important partnership management aspects, such as the analysis of the research impacts on all stakeholders, the definition and adoption of a governance policy to better conduct the interaction among members, and other actions that can enhance the partnerships. This article can be characterised as a synthesis of lessons learned, in addition to a presentation of guidelines mentioned in the literature. This knowledge can be useful to other researchers in planning new partnerships or evaluating existing ones. For deciding whether to enter into a partnership or withdraw from it, the information presented here is of great value.

show abstract

From Responsible Research and Innovation to responsibility by design

Cited by 41 publications

References 55 publications

Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling

Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling

Metascience Is Not Enough – A Plea for Psychological Humanities in the Wake of the Replication Crisis

Evaluating Research Partnerships through ISO 56003 Guidelines, RRI Concepts, and Ex Post Facto Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About