Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity

The concept of ‘responsible innovation’ (RI) or ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI) is rapidly gaining currency. However, a persistent critique is that without more concrete elaboration, the interpretive flexibility of the concept is so broad as to effectively render it meaningless. The articulation of quality criteria and indicators therefore seems crucial for RRI to be understood and operationalized by researchers, research funders, innovators and other relevant stakeholders. In this paper, we specifically draw on our knowledge and experience from the transdisciplinary research community, combined with recent multi-stakeholder deliberative work on the concrete case of nanoremediation, to make an offering on the challenge of articulating quality criteria and approaches to evaluate RRI. In doing so, we present an iteratively arrived at set of quality criteria, designate significant elements of each of these, and then develop an evaluative rubric of performance indicators across them. While the cri...

[1]  Howard Gardner,et al.  Assessing Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier: An Empirical Exploration of "Symptoms of Quality" , 2003 .

[2]  Ellen-Marie Forsberg,et al.  Institutionalising ELSA in the moment of breakdown? , 2014, Life sciences, society and policy.

[3]  Karen Barad.  Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning , 2007 .

[4]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Public values and public failure in US science policy , 2005 .

[5]  R. V. Schomberg.  A vision of Responsible Innovation , 2013 .

[6]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: The contribution of critically systemic thinking , 2000 .

[7]  Aliya Kuzhabekova,et al.  Corporate social responsibility for nanotechnology oversight , 2011, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[8]  M. Gorman,et al.  A framework for responsible innovation , 2013 .

[9]  John Ziman,et al.  Is science losing its objectivity? , 1996, Nature.

[10]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research , 2011 .

[11]  A. Stirling.  Emancipating transformation: from controlling ‘the transition’ to culturing plural radical progress , 2015 .

[12]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments , 2006 .

[13]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[14]  Laurens Landeweerd,et al.  Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’ , 2014, Life sciences, society and policy.

[15]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[16]  Gry Oftedal.  The role of philosophy of science in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): the case of nanomedicine , 2014, Life Sciences, Society and Policy.

[17]  Anna L. Carew,et al.  The TD Wheel: A heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research , 2010 .

[18]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials , 2007 .

[19]  A. Brent,et al.  Assessing the sustainability performances of industries , 2005 .

[20]  Catherine P. Slade.  Public Value Mapping of Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine , 2011 .

[21]  D. Stokols,et al.  Gauging the Transdisciplinary Qualities and Outcomes of Doctoral Training Programs , 2005 .

[22]  R. V. Schomberg.  A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2013 .

[23]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions , 2007 .

[24]  Bernadette Bensaude Vincent,et al.  The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science’: , 2014 .

[25]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation , 2011 .

[26]  F. Wickson,et al.  Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality , 2006 .

[27]  Veronica Mansilla.  Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration , 2006 .

[28]  Mary Stewart,et al.  Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis: The Case of Power Generation in South Africa , 2005 .

[29]  Deana D. Pennington,et al.  Transdisciplinary Research, Transformative Learning, and Transformative Science , 2013 .

[30]  Niels Bohr,et al.  Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics , 1996 .

[31]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[32]  F. Székely,et al.  Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility:: Metrics for Sustainable Performance , 2005 .

[33]  D. Guston.  Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Reseach , 2000 .

[34]  T. Seager,et al.  Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[35]  Roland Clift,et al.  Decision support methodology for complex contexts , 2008 .

[36]  David Isaacs,et al.  The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter , 2005 .

[37]  Robert Lee,et al.  Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK , 2011 .

[38]  Ference Marton,et al.  Phenomenography-a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality , 1986 .

[39]  Maja Horst,et al.  Mapping ‘Social Responsibility’ in Science , 2014 .

[40]  Matthias Bergmann,et al.  Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization , 2012 .