What’s in a name? Perceptions and promotion of responsible research and innovation practices across Europe

Abstract

After a decade of efforts to mainstream Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) across Europe, the policy momentum is now uncertain. We explore how 217 organisations perceive responsibility in relation to their work, what mechanisms they apply to promote responsible practices, and what hindrances to promoting RRI they observe. Most organisations are unfamiliar with RRI but employ diverse perceptions of responsibility and mechanisms to promote it nonetheless. Civil society organisations are primarily outward oriented; collaborating with others and hosting science events. Private companies are more internally focussed and more likely to formalise this effort in strategies and internal guidelines. Universities resemble private companies, while private and public funders use funding-specific tools to incentivise responsible practices. Our results suggest that RRI is still poorly institutionalised and that some areas lack attention among actors in the research and innovation systems. Future policy endeavours might benefit from addressing deficits and tapping into existing perceptions of responsibility.

Defining ‘Responsible’ in Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of Quadruple Helix Innovation in the Energy Sector in the Tampere Region

“…It specifically focuses on how actors, as explained in the Quadruple Helix, perceive their roles in promoting RRI, define the concept of 'responsible', and understand the social innovation processes. The focus on investigating the perception and practices of stakeholders in RRI is mainly because there is dearth of empirical evidence on how RRI is perceived and practised by the main actors (e.g., see Blok, et al, 2015;Christensen et al, 2020). The analytical framework of the study is guided by the Quadruple Helix framework that postulates the dynamic participation and interaction of university, industry, government, and the public in innovation processes.…”

“…As shown in Table 10.1, the four major actors show subtle differences in their perception of responsibility in the context of RRI (Christensen et al, 2020). The major differences appear to rest on their implementation approach of RRI.…”

“…In other words, they synchronise principles of responsibility in their strategies and policies. Therefore, business and industries define RRI as an effort to find sustainable solutions that are environmentally friendly, ethically acceptable, socially valuable processes of research and innovation (Chatfield et al, 2017;Christensen et al, 2020;Dreyer et al, 2017;Martinuzzi et al, 2018).…”

“…Citizens or civic organisations focus on collaborating with others, hosting science events, engaging in campaigns and advocacy to influence policies (Christensen et al, 2020). Therefore, citizens view their role in RRI as continuous engagement and a two-way communication between experts, stakeholders, and citizens (e.g., Owen et al, 2013;Von Schomberg & Blok, 2019); they define the concept of 'responsible' in relation to cocreating the future with the public and civil society organisations with which they deliberate on issues of science and technology (Burget et al, 2017;Chatfield et al, 2017;Christensen et al, 2020;de Saille, 2015). Empirical studies show that public policy agents or governments have been concerned about research practices and its results.…”

Addressing Climate Change in Research and Innovation Projects. A tool for Anticipatory Carbon Footprint Calculation

“…RRI has come a long way, efforts to make it operational are bearing more and more fruit. Unfortunately, after 10 years of promoting it, the concept of RRI is still quite unknown, poorly institutionalized, considered unclear, and hard to operationalise and evaluate (Malene Vinther Christensen, Mika Nieminen, Marlene Altenhofer, Elise Tancoigne, Niels Mejlgaard, Erich Griessler, 2020). However, many academics and scientists are still betting on the continued relevance of RRI (Gerber et al, 2020b).…”