Responsible Research Is Not Good Science: Divergences Inhibiting the Enactment of RRI in Nanosafety

Hove, Lilian van; Wickson, Fern

doi:10.1007/s11569-017-0306-5

Cited by 22 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In pursuit of inclusivity and clarity in discussions on critique in R(R)I, this article aims to resolve some ambiguity around the notion of critique. 12 For this purpose, generative critique is delineated with a case study of critique of and in the neurosciences. By latching on discussions relevant for the neurosciences, this article makes a third contribution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Van Lente et al's recent paper on 'Responsible innovation as a critique of technology assessment' [6] sparked discussions in R(R)I communities before it was published. Heated discussions have also revolved around the claim that R(R)I is itself in need of critique [7,8], especially in light of forecasts of 'the end of RRI' ( [9], p. 253) due to difficulties of putting it into practice [10][11][12][13]. Some sceptics consider R(R)I as an immunisation against public critique of science and innovation [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This question has been part of the initial STIR decision protocol[138], but published STIR studies have not addressed how reflections on the affective aspects of decision-making figure into decisionmaking processes 12. Ibo van de Poel called for developing a language comprehensive for actors outside R(R)I circles during the event on 'Challenges for Responsible Innovation' on the 12th of September 2019 in Leiden that was attended by the author of this article.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

Smolka

2020

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourses on Responsible Innovation andResponsible Research and Innovation, in short R(R)I, have revolved around but not elaborated on the notion of critique. In this article, generative critique is introduced to R(R)I as a practice that sits in-between adversarial armchair critique and co-opted, uncritical service. How to position oneself and be positioned on this spectrum has puzzled humanities scholars and social scientists who engage in interdisciplinary collaborations with scientists, engineers, and other professionals. Recently, generative critique has been presented as a solution to the puzzle in interdisciplinary collaborations on neuroscientific experiments. Generative critique seeks to create connections across disciplines that help remake seemingly stable objects in moments when taken-forgranted ways of seeing and approaching objects are unsettled. In order to translate generative critique from the neurosciences to R(R)I, socio-technical integration research (STIR) is proposed as a practice of generative critique in interdisciplinary R(R)I collaborations. These collaborations aim to account for societal aspects in research and technology development. For this purpose, a variety of approaches have been developed, including STIR and video-reflexive ethnography (VRE). STIR and VRE resemble each other but diverge on affective, collaborative, and temporal dimensions. Their juxtaposition serves to develop suggestions for how STIR could be modified on these dimensions to better enact generative critique in interdisciplinary R(R)I collaborations. In this way, the article contributes to ongoing discussions in R(R)I and in the engaged programme in science and technology studies more broadly on the dynamics of positioning in collaborative work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

Smolka

2020

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response to European Commission Horizon 2020's call for 'science-for-and-with-community', academia have recognized the need to conduct 'responsible research and innovation' via engaging with communities to combat today's complex health challenges (Jacob, 2013). Hence, universities have given higher priority to community engagement in the aim of better aligning health research and innovation development to meet the societal values, needs and expectations (Trencher et al, 2017;van Hove and Wickson, 2017).…”

Section: Research Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature Review on Relationship Building for Community-academic Collaboration in Health Research and Innovation

Chak

2018

MATEC Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to European Commission Horizon 2020’s call for ‘science-for-and-with-community’, scholars have recognized the need to conduct ‘responsible research and innovation’ and engage more with communities to combat today’s complex health challenges. Hence, higher priority has been placed to cooperate with communities in health research and innovation development to better match societal values, needs and expectations. Accordingly, the approach of community-based participatory research (CBPR), the ‘gold standard’ within the community-engaged research spectrum, is the most widely discussed. However, it is seldom achieved in reality, as it requires establishment and maintenance of open, transparent, trustful and ongoing relationships between community partners and academia to succeed. Paradoxically, despite of the significance of quality collaborative relationship to the quality and success of community-academic collaboration, the key elements to achieve it were seldom discussed.Herein, the literature review aimed to (1) discuss the previous experiences and challenges in building and sustaining community-academic collaborative relationships; (2) examine the relationship building strategies for quality collaborative relationships; and (3) identify the potential research gaps for future research.Focusing on the area of health research and innovation, peer-reviewed articles, books and grey literature related to building and sustaining relationships in community-academic collaboration published between 1998 and 2018 were identified using the Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar bibliographic databases and Google search engine. Literature available in full-texts and English language with a focus on relationship aspects of community-academic collaboration were examined. Previous literature suggested thatacademics and community members encountered common challenges in experiencing inequitable relationships, distrust, divide between academia and community, uncommon norms of power sharing, dissemination of results and lack of resources for maintaining long-term relationships. Two approaches of relationship building: (1) personal qualities and competence, and (2) actions for relationship building from the beginning to the end stages of collaborative relationship were discussed. Literature revealed that the ways that academics approach, collaborate, communicate with and maintain in the community had significant impact on both current and future collaborative relationships. In addition, academics differed in acceptance and readiness towards community engagement, which could be attributed to the differences in personal qualities and competence. Future research should target on identifying the factors contributing to such individual differences and compare its impact on the quality of relationship with community, so as to better cultivate individuals’ readiness and capacity towards community engagement and effective relationship building with community.

show abstract

“…However, translating RRI into practice has proven to be anything but straightforward (Macnaghten et al 2014;Fisher and Rip 2013;Owen et al 2013;Ribeiro et al 2016). Existing scholarship on the issue points to substantial challenges in aligning RRI policy with research and innovation practices (Solbu 2018a;Åm 2019a, b;Davies and Horst 2015;Blok and Lemmens 2015;Glerup et al 2017;van Hove and Wickson 2017).…”

Section: Introduction: Training For Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Responsible Research Is Not Good Science: Divergences Inhibiting the Enactment of RRI in Nanosafety

Cited by 22 publications

References 29 publications

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

Literature Review on Relationship Building for Community-academic Collaboration in Health Research and Innovation

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About