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

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.</p

Social labs as an inclusive methodology to implement and study social change:the case of responsible research and innovation

The embedding and promotion of social change is faced with a paradoxical challenge. In order to mainstream an approach to social change such as responsible research and innovation (RRI) and make it into a practical reality rather than an abstract ideal, we need to have conceptual clarity and empirical evidence. But, in order to be able to gather empirical evidence, we have to presuppose that the approach already exists in practice. This paper proposes a social lab methodology that is suited to deal with this circularity. The methodology combines the defining features of social labs emerging from the literature such as agility and real-world focus with established theories and approaches such as action research and experiential learning. Thereby it enables the parallel investigation and propagation of RRI. The framework thus constructed provides a theoretical embedding of social labs and overcomes some of the known limitations of the constitutive approaches

Ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies - On the implementation of responsible research and innovation

Open Access articleResearch and innovation in emerging technologies can have great benefits but also raise ethical and social concerns. The current discourse on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a novel attempt to come to conceptual and practical ways of dealing with such concerns. In order to effectively understand and address possible ethical and social issues, stakeholders need to have an understanding of what such issues might be. This paper explores ethical issues related to the field of emerging information and communication technologies (ICTs). Based on a foresight study of ICT that led to the identification of eleven emerging technologies, we outline the field of ethical and social issues of these technologies. This overview of possible problems can serve as an important sensitising device to these issues. We describe how such awareness can contribute to the successful deployment of responsible practice in research and innovation

Research and Innovation Processes revisited - Networked Responsibility in Industry

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how relationships between different actors are being shaped, in order to allow industry to come to acceptable and desirable uses of Research and Innovation (R&I) that address societal challenges. Design/methodology/approach – Building on existing notions of responsibility proposed in the literature, the paper develops a theoretical account of “networks of responsibility” which capture the interlinked nature of responsibility relationships. The usefulness of the approach is evaluated by exploring two cases of R&I in industry deploying a qualitative research approach that involves interviewing and document analysis. For this, a multinational company from Germany was involved, as well as a small and medium-sized company from Denmark. Findings – The study surfaced 68 responsibility relationships involving a range of different objects, subjects, authorities, and norms. By describing overlaps in objects, subjects, and other aspects across relationships, the theoretical model proved adequate in untangling and displaying interrelatedness of responsibilities. Furthermore, the analysis surfaced characteristics of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) that are already in place in the R&I processes of two innovative companies, such as anticipation, foresight, and stakeholder engagement. Not all aspects of responsibility outlined in the theoretical model could be extracted from the interview data for every responsibility relationship, pointing to the need for further research. Originality/value – The paper offers a novel theoretical approach to understanding and analysing responsibility allocations in R&I in industry. It demonstrates the reliability of this theoretical position empirically. It is practically important because it supports policy development on an organisational as well as societal level

The ethical implications of HCI’s turn to the cultural

We explore the ethical implications of HCI’s turn to the ‘cultural’. This is motivated by an awareness of how cultural applications, in our case interactive performances, raise ethical issues that may challenge established research ethics processes. We review research ethics, HCI’s engagement with ethics and the ethics of theatrical performance. Following an approach grounded in Responsible Research Innovation, we present the findings from a workshop in which artists, curators, commissioners, and researchers explored ethical challenges revealed by four case studies. We identify six ethical challenges for HCI’s engagement with cultural applications: transgression, boundaries, consent, withdrawal, data, and integrity. We discuss two broader implications of these: managing tensions between multiple overlapping ethical frames; and the importance of managing ethical challenges during and after an experience as well as beforehand. Finally, we discuss how our findings extend previous discussions of Value Sensitive Design in HCI

Ethics and Nanopharmacy: Value Sensitive Design of New Drugs

Although applications are being developed and have reached the market, nanopharmacy to date is generally still conceived as an emerging technology. Its concept is ill-defined. Nanopharmacy can also be construed as a converging technology, which combines features of multiple technologies, ranging from nanotechnology to medicine and ICT. It is still debated whether its features give rise to new ethical issues or that issues associated with nanopharma are merely an extension of existing issues in the underlying fields. We argue here that, regardless of the alleged newness of the ethical issues involved, developments occasioned by technological advances affect the roles played by stakeholders in the field of nanopharmacy to such an extent that this calls for a different approach to responsible innovation in this field. Specific features associated with nanopharmacy itself and features introduced to the associated converging technologies- bring about a shift in the roles of stakeholders that call for a different approach to responsibility. We suggest that Value Sensitive Design is a suitable framework to involve stakeholders in addressing moral issues responsibly at an early stage of development of new nanopharmaceuticals

Mapping the RRI landscape : An overview of organisations, projects, persons, areas and topics

Increased attention in politics and academia coincided with a rapid expansion of the RRI discourse. As a consequence, the proliferation of RRI approaches and projects has made it harder to maintain an overview of the discourse. Accessing and keeping track therefore is difficult, especially for newbies, of which there are many now that RRI is being engrained in R&I policies. To untangle the RRI discourse a landscape study was undertaken providing a comprehensive overview of the main contributors, the terms RRI is perceived and the areas it is being applied to. Deploying a qualitative research methodology 536 persons emerged from the sources, affiliated to 246 organisations that reside in 89 different countries. Of these, 312 are authors and 168 involved in 18 RRI projects. Also, the study revealed 14 areas of application, 17 features and 4 methods in relation to which RRI is currently being addressed. Furthermore, the analysis shows which actors act as hubs in the different thematic or regional segments that together make up the discourse. Lastly, the study hints towards future directions of the discourse that are relevant to both policy-makers and RRI researchers. Well-represented areas and terms of addressing may be interpreted as important and therefore in need of further attention, while underrepresented areas represent opportunities for further research or justify further policy attention

Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation in Research Projects

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) aims to achieve societally desirable outcomes and marketable products of innovative processes. In recent years RRI has become a key factor in national and international Research and Innovation (R&I) policy and funding. As a consequence, actors involved in R&I are required to implement it. However, while on a conceptual and theoretical level RRI has been discussed in depth, on a practical and empirical level it remains largely underdeveloped. To contribute to the bridging of this gap between policy/theory and practice, this research assesses how RRI can be conceptualised and implemented in research projects in a way that allows it to reach its objectives. To attain an in-depth understanding of the implementation of RRI, a qualitative research strategy is deployed using a case study approach. As cases, three research projects are selected from the Netherlands Responsible Innovation (MVI) programme, which is the first programme to fund dedicated RRI projects. Analysis within and across the cases is supported by an analytical model based on a relational conceptualisation of responsibility. The model enables describing and analysing how the overarching aims and requirements of RRI translate into responsibilities taken and ascribed by R&I actors involved in projects. Building on an in-depth review of eight accounts of RRI and deploying the analytical model, this research provides a better understanding of the relationships between RRI and the targeted R&I, RRI and further instances of RRI beyond it, and RRI and its academic context. Furthermore, it identifies a number of key components that affect the outcomes of RRI, namely: the status of researchers implementing RRI as societal stakeholders, the role of interdisciplinary collaboration as a strategic means to defend (societal) interests, and the role of authorities such as funders in incentivising and sanctioning RRI. Lastly, the research reflects novel barriers and enablers that are relevant to implementing RRI. On the one hand, meeting the aims of RRI may be problematic due to academic and societal aims of researchers being in tension with each other, and to the manner, researchers defend their societal interests, which also may negatively influence the implementation of RRI. On the other hand, consideration of the R&I stage in projecting an impact and involving R&I actors, as well as making RRI rewarding to researchers throughout academic careers enables effective implementation of RRI. Based on the insights gained, recommendations are made for policymakers, funding bodies and researchers concerning the current lack of alignment between societal and academic interests when implementing RRI, capacitating and motivating actors to implement RRI, and ensuring alignment of RRI activities over time.UK research project Framework for RRI in ICT (FRRIICT) (EPSRC Grant No. EP/J000019/1) FP7 research project Governance of REsponsible innovATion (GREAT) (GA no. 321480

How do surgeons' probability estimates of operative mortality compare with a decision analytic model?

The aim of this study is to compare surgeons' estimates of operative mortality of patients with an abdominal aneurysm ( = dilation of the aorta) with the operative mortality derived from a decision analytic model and to determine how surgeons use clinical information. Four experienced surgeons are asked to estimate, among other things, the operative mortality of 137 patients. Results concerning the accuracy of surgeons' estimates show that surgeons' average operative mortality estimates are quite accurate as compared to the calculated mortalities. The standard deviations of surgeons' estimates are lower than the standard deviation of the model, however, indicating that the surgeons are not as good in distinguishing the high and low risk patients. Furthermore, surgeons show substantial inconsistencies in the weighing of the clinical information, and also differ from the model in how clinical information is weighed. Finally, when comparing the operative mortalities of the patients who died and those who did not, the model shows a modest, but higher discrimination than the surgeons. Physicians' performance seems to be influenced by the difficulty of the task (i.e. the unpredictability of the event and the multidimensionality of the task). In order to improve physicians' probability estimates, the calculations of the decision model can be used as learning tool