This policy report is based in Epinet WP2 and complements WP1 reporting on the EPINET Integrated Assessment Framework as a Tool for RRI . We present key findings from the empirical research we conducted and was designed to be an instrument of observation and reflexivity in reference to the interdisciplinary innovation assessment cases conducted as part of the Epinet project. In particular, we report on the procedural conditions in carrying out these cases as the basis on which our policy recommendations rest

Dijk, Niels van

Gunnarsdottir, Kristrun

Gutwirth, Serge

Hildebrandt, Mireille

Wynne, Brian

Lancaster E-Prints

EPINETFunded under FP7-SiS-2011-1.1.1-4Grant Agreement 288971Deliverable D8.3-1 (delivery date, month 36)Observations and ReflexivityResponsibilising Interdisciplinarity and IntegrationSummary of findings and policy recommendationsRapporteur: Kristrún Gunnarsdóttirk.gunnarsdottir@lancaster.ac.ukPartners: Lancaster University, UK Kristrún Gunnarsdóttir (rapporteur); Brian WynneVrije Universiteit, Brussels Niels van Dijk; Serge Gutwirth; Mireille HildebrandtThis policy report is based in Epinet WP2 and complements WP1 reporting on the EPINETIntegrated Assessment Framework as a Tool for RRI. We present key findings from theempirical research we conducted and was designed to be an instrument of observationand reflexivity in reference to the interdisciplinary innovation assessment cases conductedas  part  of  the  Epinet  project.  In  particular,  we  report  on  the  procedural  conditions  incarrying out these cases as the basis on which our policy recommendations rest.1Objectives and aims of the studyWork Package 2 was designed to  be  an agency of  observation and  reflexivity inreference to the interdisciplinary innovation/technology assessments, i.e., the case studiesconducted for EPINET.1 We attended workshops and meetings and analysed documentsproduced by the study teams. We also conducted interviews with team members to hearabout  their  expectations  and  reflections  on  the  experience  of  working  on  thoseassessments.2 Our focus has centred on the procedural conditions in carrying out thiswork, conditions we take to be indicative of the kinds of things that can and should beexpected in bringing together expertise across disciplines and professions, not to mention,geographical  locations.  More  specifically,  we observe  these conditions  in  reference  tointerdisciplinarity and integration being called upon to improve the culture of innovationand accountability in Europe.The  Epinet  project  proceeds  against  a  backdrop  of  recent  implementations  andmainstreaming  of  approach  to  innovation  governance,  referred  to  as  ResponsibleResearch  and  Innovation  (RRI).3 This  is  evident  in  directives  requiring  that  researchprojects funded by the Horizon 2020 programme embed actions on gender, ethics, scienceeducation,  open  access  and  public  engagement.  It  is  evident  in  calls  for  institutionalchange  to  foster  more  inclusive  and  sustainable  innovation.  For  example,  the  RRIapproach is anticipating greater involvement by  all societal actors throughout the entireresearch  and  innovation  process:  researchers,  innovators,  policy-makers,  businesses,citizens  and  CSOs.  It  calls  for  interdisciplinary  solutions  and  integrated  frameworks,conducive to better and more balanced assessments. However, little if any attention is paidto the practical and procedural conditions of realising such goals. 1 We refer here to WP3, wearable sensors for health and self care, fitness and wellbeing; WP4, autonomy in robotic systems for care and companionship; WP5, synthetic/in-vitro meat, WP6, the future smart grid; plus, the cross-cutting case of Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA).2 We thank and phrase our colleagues for their bravery in playing along with this exercise and us here—to engage a self-critical and all-round critical reflection for the greater good by providing us with important clues to mutual learning and reflexivity.3 See https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation .1Shaping the objectives and aims of this study:The Horizon 2020 programme is mainstreaming Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)RRI directives require that research projects funded by the programme embed actions on gender, ethics, science education, open access and public engagement.RRI directives require interdisciplinarity and integrated solutions, conducive to better and more balanced assessments of science, technology and other societal innovations.Interdisciplinarity and integration are treated as pre-given in accounts of what the RRI approach is in practice.The EPINET cases were comprised of various combinations of expertise, including: Ethics (situated/communicative)Knowledge assessment (pedigree analysis)Law (legal analysis, legal concepts)Media and digital cultures (media analysis)Multi-scale integrated assessmentsRisk and uncertainty analysisSocio-technical evaluation (ethnography/document analysis)Vision assessment (document analysis)They proceeded on the bases of common assumptions observed in the discourses onresponsible innovation.4 Those discourses focus on the turn toward futures and futuring,and what to expect of visions as key considerations in assessments. They focus on theintegration of different groups and networks, of coming together to produce reflexive,responsive and anticipatory outcomes for deliberation. They evaluate institutions aspart of their assessments, e.g., if structural and/or procedural changes are needed. And,they proceed on the assumption that efforts to  govern complex systems should not bedeterred by complexity.We highlight below the areas in which our research has been focussed in observing thework  on  these  cases,  and  we  present  key  findings  as  the  bases  for  policyrecommendations. Implications for policy are focussed in two topical domains:1. The  organisational  and  working  conditions  under  which  to  orchestrate  differentdisciplines  and  study traditions,  expertise  and experience,  to  improve upon thepractices of evaluating new-emerging domains of innovations.2. The current  political  climate in  which European innovation policies proceed andpreside, where choices are made about the constitution of advisory bodies, aboutrelevant  methods  of  assessment,  where  innovation  priorities  are  defined  andpursued.These topics are  directed at the Commission's  DG Research,  DG-Connect,  and otherrelevant  directorates,  innovation  and  research  funds/agendas/programmes  –  and  theiradvisory bodies – in matters of Responsible Research and Innovation.4 See Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds) (2013). Responsible Innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; EPINET Integrated Assessment Framework as a Tool for RRI. We also discuss elsewhere so-called Responsible Innovation (RI) and RRI, among other works-in-progress approaches that aim to encourage greater responsibility and accountability in innovation practices and networks (see Gunnarsdóttir, K. and Dijk, N. van, in preparation).2Key policy considerations:What actually happens when we get down to the business of bringing people together across disciplines, institutions and national borders in an attempt to achieve interdisciplinarity and integration in assessing new-emerging domains of innovation?What are the novelties engendered by interdisciplinarity as a response to the intensifying demands that new-emerging innovations should be integrated with societal affairs?Policy considerations1. Interdisciplinarity and integration are taken for granted in accounts of whatthe RRI approach is in practice.Explanation/findings:  Interdisciplinarity  and  integration are  treated  as  pre-givens  inmandates  to  implement  and  mainstream  RRI,  and  in  RRI/RI-type  targeting  of  policydevelopments that prioritise innovation objectives and funding. Very little is said however,about  what  to  expect  of  bringing  disciplines  together  and  integrating  methods  andapproaches. The definitional looseness of these two terms and the fact that they are notqualified in Horizon 2020 documents, encourages idealisations and risks raising unrealisticexpectations.5 For example,  one can argue that  interdisciplinarity stands for  collaboration(narrowly  conceived),  or  that  it  approaches  a  radical  recasting  of  disciplines (method,approach,  output).  One can argue that  integration is achieved when one thing is  looselycombined with another. It can also suggest a merger, a mash-up, a sense of homogeneityand  consensus.  There  is  a  lot  of  interpretative  leeway,  but  our  findings  show  thatinterdisciplinarity – in some form or to some degree – is the result of hard labour, not a pre-given. What is achieved within a team in terms of interdisciplinarity is typically fragmentedand partial, involving disciplinary boundary work, identity politics, labour divisions, short-termentanglements,  all  of  which achieve some level  of  interdisciplinarity  and integration  and,importantly,  produce novel  insights.  In  short,  we observe disciplinary approximations  anddistantiations  which  require  diligent  attention  and  care  in  ongoing  teamwork  and  in  theleadership of that work.Recommendation: Develop pathways towards much clearer understandings of what is meantby interdisciplinarity and integration—of what is sufficient and adequate in that respect in thework  of  'interdisciplinary'  advisory  bodies  and  research  teams  who  are  asked  to  deliverinterdisciplinary  solutions  and  integrated  frameworks  for  better  and  more  balancedinnovation/technology assessments.2. Interdisciplinarity  and  integration  are  responsibilised  without  adequateattention to procedural conditions or provisions (requirements, supports) toimprove those conditions.Explanation/findings: The first thing to encounter when people are brought together acrossdisciplines  and geographical  distances,  are  the procedural  conditions  endemic  in  gettingwork  done.  Therefore,  we  argue,  potential  shortcomings  and  complications  should  beexpected and prepared for. There are limits to participation. Personal and inter-personal,professional  and  institutional  dynamics  will  test  those  limits  (contracts,  funds,  accidents,availability,  etc).  There are  barriers to communication,  the  stress text  of  resilience,  weargue, when team members are rarely co-present and grappling with communication hurdlesto achieve a degree of disciplinary approximation and dynamism in keeping a shared study5 Gunnarsdóttir, K. and Dijk, N. van (in preparation). Responsibilising Interdisciplinarity and Integration in Horizon 2020: Teamwork, Leadership and the 'Sufficient Assessment'. Journal article for submission in Journal of Responsible Innovation. (EPINET Deliverable D8.6, April 2015).  http://neicts.lancs.ac.uk/pdf/Responsibilizing-Interdisciplinarity-and-Integration.pdf (May 2015).Dijk, N. van. and Gunnarsdóttir, K. (2014). Documentation of case study progress with focus on disciplinary orientations and method, and interdisciplinary approximations and distantiations. (EPINET Deliverable D2.2, Dec 2014).  http://neicts.lancs.ac.uk/pdf/EPINET-WP2_D22.pdf (Dec 2014).Gunnarsdóttir, K., van Dijk, N. (2013, discussion paper). Disciplinarity and value commitments: Interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and innovation assessment (Based on EPINET working paper, Deliverable D2.1, Dec 2012).  http://neicts.lancs.ac.uk/pdf/Disciplinarity-and-Value-Commitment.pdf (Feb 2013).3environment alive. Expectations of interdisciplinarity are manifested in the many ways inwhich a journey of  working together,  tests the limits of  learning,  knowledge creation andsharing in a  process of integration, and  in dealing with organisational, interpersonal andcommunicational phenomena that can be described and explained effectively but are notvery predictable.  Consequently,  any  team crossing disciplines  and national  borders  willhave to find adequacy and sufficiency in and through  a test of the imagination,  i.e.,  ofworking with others intellectually as exploratory action. Against that, we observe that itis in the actual execution of teamwork and leadership – which has been set up to achieve anidealistic goal of interdisciplinarity and integration – that know-how can come up short  inbuilding and sustaining momentum because crucial details of guidance are missed.Recommendation:  Develop criteria and minimal requirements for leadership and proceduraldesign in order to support and improve upon logistics and mediation in teamwork. The followingis suggestive of prominent areas to be mindful of in this respect, not a complete index: Are provisions in place that require and support structural leadership with built-in processes of time-lined commitments?  (e.g., always knowing when a team ismeeting next,  what  needs doing in-between, who is  following up on what andwhen they will be in touch about it) Are  provisions  for  face-to-face  meetings adequate?  (e.g.,  sustained  and/orfrequent co-presence, especially in the early stages of teamwork, is crucial for adeepening of relationships and intellectual investments) Are provisions for innovative uses of ICTs adequate for sustained long-distancecommunication?  (e.g., structured, regular teleconferencing, online bulletins, blogsand tweets help cultivate a sense of participation and belonging)Recommendation:  Encourage  built-in  tools  of  observation  and  reflexivity  to  support  thecultivation of  new relationships across disciplines,  professions and other actors involved ininterdisciplinary integration projects, while guarding academic and intellectual freedoms. Are adequate provisions in place to accommodate professional commitmentsand academic expectations,  alongside the requirement of interdisciplinarity inH2020-funded  research  and  innovation  governance? (e.g.,  joint  panels  atconferences help develop and sustain momentum and necessary dynamism toengender novel thinking about shared questions and concerns; Joint academicwriting deepens the intellectual development and helps cement interdisciplinarityand integration of some scope or degree). Are  adequate  provisions  in  place  to  explicitly  observe  and  reflect  upondisciplinary approximations and convergences necessary to achieve somedegree  or  form  of  interdisciplinarity  and  integration?  (e.g.,  to  use  built-inagreements of  common concern to  work against  and follow up on,  or  build-in'moments in reflexivity' with a team as a mutual learning environment).43. Innovation  policies  on  the  integration  of  ELSA expertise  should  addressissues  of  disciplinary  inclusion/exclusion  and  other  imbalances  ininterdisciplinary practice 6Explanation/findings:  We  observe  that  a  carefully  considered  orientation  to  practice  anddisciplinarity  is  strongly  suggestive  of  pathways  towards  not  only  better  teamwork  andleadership  but  more  balanced  assessments.  A  key learning  is  how  selectively  andpragmatically experts learn in approximating other disciplines and there remains a senseof unease with unfamiliar scholarly and methodological terrains. However, a committedengagement in an interdisciplinary exercise in innovation/technology assessment – which isby definition exploratory – will also help in developing a sustained dialogue with innovatorsand research leaders,  whose visions  and products that  team is  evaluating—ideally,  withthem. The point of the exploratory exercise is to state the obvious perhaps, that if we confrontthe fact that the making of contemporary technologies navigates multiple sites, then gaininga good sense of the nature and the extent of this multiplicity is better facilitated by engagingwith  people  across  the  relevant  disciplines,  occupations  and  experiences.  It  cultivatesthinking about  the material  at  hand in  multi-dimensional  ways that  can lead to new andinspiring insights as long as this work is adequately facilitated in the sense referred to above.We  argue  that  the novelties  engendered  here  by  achieving  some  degree  or  scope  ofinterdisciplinarity are key in responding to the intensifying policy demands that new-emerginginnovations should be integrated with societal affairs, and should be brought to the source ofchoosing  and  prioritising  innovation  objectives  as  part  of  an  anticipatory  approach  toinnovation governance.Recommendation:  Develop criteria and requirements for a much broader disciplinary andexperiential base of existing advisory bodies to innovation policy or in creating new suchbodies.Recommendation:  Develop criteria and requirements for  policy impact assessments thatappreciate the value of exploratory action in order to put to the test different constitutions ofactors, method and approach in providing policy advice; Develop proactive tools of mediationto mitigate and curb foreseeable power-struggles in the execution of the work of such bodies.6 The history of advisory bodies indicates tendencies toward a rather narrow disciplinary and professional focus. Oneexample here is the role of the advisory group ISTAG over the past two or so decades in advising on where to spendthe money and what to prioritise in matters of ICT-based innovations. Another example is to look more critically at the development of industrial policy and the promises of innovation, in particular, in relation to addressing and solving the 'societal challenges'. These advisory activities are now integrating to some extent ELSA and related orientations but should be thoroughly infused with a much broader disciplinary and experiential base.5Policy Impact Assessment ?What is the impact on innovation futures of different models of providing policy advice?What could be achieved with refigurations of actors, method and approach?

Observations and reflexivity : responsibilising interdisciplinarity and integration

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/74276/1/WP2_Policy_Report.pdf

Observations and reflexivity:responsibilising interdisciplinarity and integration

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lancaster E-Prints