Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI

Klaassen, Pieter; Rijnen, M.C.J.A.; Vermeulen, Sara; Kupper, Frank; Broerse, Jacqueline E W

doi:10.4324/9781315457291-5

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a great diversity of understandings of responsibility (Christensen et al, 2020). Several authors juxtapose academic or scholarly understandings of RRI with understandings and practices in the policy domain, in particular within the EU/EC (Rip, 2016;Burget et al, 2017), sometimes denoted aRRI (for academic RRI) and pRRI (for policy RRI), respectively (Klaassen et al, 2018). In these juxtapositions, these authors have tended to describe the tensions between the exploratory, experimental and learningoriented aRRI and the more managerial and outcome-oriented pRRI, typically with a normative preference for the former.…”

Section: Evaluating Responsibility and The Entry Of Indicator Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating tools and indicators in territorial RRI

Völker

Mazzonetto²,

Slaattelid

et al. 2023

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionBy a series of calls within the Horizon 2020 framework programme, the EU funded projects intended to deploy Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) at a territorial level, in regional research and innovation ecosystems. This paper presents efforts to document and evaluate the achievements in TRANSFORM, one of these projects.MethodsEvaluative inquiry and theoretical reasoning.ResultsNoting the need for a general principle to be interpreted, adapted and translated in order to be rendered meaningful at a local level, we studied precisely these multiple territorial translations of RRI, the organizational and institutional orderings with which they co-emerge and the challenges that come with these translations. An important shared feature is that RRI work does not start from zero, but rather builds on pre-existing relationships and repertoires of collaboration. The RRI project is hence a way to continue ongoing work and follow pre-set purposes, aims and objectives, as a form of “maintenance work”. In this very human sense, RRI is deployed with a logic of care in the regional context, while the Horizon 2020 calls and proposals above all are formulated in a logic of choice, to be assessed by indicators.DiscussionWe warn against undue standardization of RRI by toolification and use of quantitative indicators, and recommend that RRI performance is monitored by methods of evaluative inquiry.

show abstract

Section: Evaluating Responsibility and The Entry Of Indicator Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating tools and indicators in territorial RRI

Völker

Mazzonetto²,

Slaattelid

et al. 2023

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of RRI has evolved from converging streams of thought and practice and is structured around different discourses. The policy/administrative and scholarly/ philosophical discourses are two of these (Burget, Bardone, & Pedaste, 2017;Klaassen, Vermeulen, Kupper, & Broerse, 2018). While there are major differences between the two, the origins can be identified at the science-policy level in the need and desire for new science governance mechanisms.…”

Section: Responsible Research and Innovation As An Example Of Europea...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there neither is nor has there ever been clarity or clear consensus within the discourses on the definition and meaning of RRI (Burget et al, 2017; Rip, 2016), the distinctions between them are clear (Burget et al, 2017; Klaassen et al, 2018). The policy discourse on the level of the EC mainly centres around five (originally six) keys (ethics, gender, open access, science education, public engagement and – the former key of governance) while the scholarly discourse centres around more-abstract notions of responsibility, reflexivity, responsiveness, integrity, sustainability and social desirability of technology and innovation.…”

Section: Empirical and Theoretical Background Of The Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Research governance for change: funding project-based measures in the field of responsible research and innovation (RRI) and their potential for organisational learning

Wicher,

Frankus

2023

TLO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to look at the implementation of project-funded research governance and its potential to induce organisational learning on responsible research and innovation (RRI). This paper analysed what types of organisational learning and change can take place within organisations of an Europe-funded project and to what extent. This paper examined whether and how change occurs and how it is shaped and co-produced with other orderings. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on materials and evidence collected while working on the internal evaluation of a Horizon 2020-funded project. Analysis of the results of the mixed methods evaluation design was used to characterise occurrences of organisational learning and change. Findings The authors identified different forms of learning (single-loop learning, double-loop learning, reflexive and reflective learning and situational learning). The extent of learning that could lead to long-lasting organisational change was limited. This was due to the project-based and organisational design, the key-based definition of RRI and the indeterminacy of what constitutes learning and change – both at the level of funding and performing the project. For organisational change to occur, the authors argue for governance mechanisms based on reflexive learning that consider a range of structural conditions and measures. Originality/value Organisational learning plays an important role in change processes, which has so far been given too little consideration concerning the governance and implementation of RRI through project-based funding. The authors argue for a restructuring of governance and funding mechanisms to create more space for reflexivity and learning.

show abstract

“…A Responsible Innovation (RI) approach aims to ensure that research and innovation benefits society by placing processes of stakeholder engagement, anticipatory governance, and reflexivity at the core of both research questions and research methods (Ribeiro, Smith & Millar, 2017;von Schomberg, 2013). In practice this can be notoriously difficult to accomplish (Klaasen, Rijnen, Vermeulen, Kupper & Broerse, 2018), with challenges such as who to engage with, what to anticipate, and how to measure success (Yaghmaei & van de Poel, 2021). Other challenges than the simply procedural are rooted in broader questions around politics and power imbalances ( van Oudheusden, 2014), values (Boenink & Kudina, 2020) and conceptual questions of what 'responsibility' means (Pellizzoni, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%