Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review

The aim of this study is to provide a discussion on the definitions and conceptual dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation based on findings from the literature. In the study, the outcomes of a literature review of 235 RRI-related articles were presented. The articles were selected from the EBSCO and Google Scholar databases regarding the definitions and dimensions of RRI. The results of the study indicated that while administrative definitions were widely quoted in the reviewed literature, they were not substantially further elaborated. Academic definitions were mostly derived from the institutional definitions; however, more empirical studies should be conducted in order to give a broader empirical basis to the development of the concept. In the current study, four distinct conceptual dimensions of RRI that appeared in the reviewed literature were brought out: inclusion, anticipation, responsiveness and reflexivity. Two emerging conceptual dimensions were also added: sustainability and care.

[1]  Jan Youtie,et al.  The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model , 2015 .

[2]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[3]  Andrew D Maynard.  The (nano) entrepreneur's dilemma. , 2015, Nature nanotechnology.

[4]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society , 2012, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[5]  Jason Chilvers.  Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology - Summary Report , 2010 .

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

[7]  Steven M. Flipse,et al.  The Why and How of Enabling the Integration of Social and Ethical Aspects in Research and Development , 2013, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[8]  Jacqueline McGlade,et al.  The Innovation Union: a perfect means to confused ends? , 2012 .

[9]  Nidhi Gupta,et al.  Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production , 2014 .

[10]  R. L. Mahajan,et al.  Midstream Modulation of Nanotechnology in an Academic Research Laboratory , 2006 .

[11]  Richard Owen,et al.  Governance of new product development and perceptions of responsible innovation in the financial sector: insights from an ethnographic case study , 2014 .

[12]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  The Oxford Principles , 2013, Climatic Change.

[13]  Leon Hempel,et al.  Towards a social impact assessment of security technologies: A bottom-up approach , 2013 .

[14]  Catherine Flick,et al.  The empathic care robot: A prototype of responsible research and innovation , 2014 .

[15]  Arie Rip,et al.  Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[16]  A. Rip,et al.  The past and future of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[17]  Risto Karinen,et al.  Toward Anticipatory Governance: The Experience with Nanotechnology , 2009 .

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

[19]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity , 1993 .

[20]  Ray Quay,et al.  Anticipatory Governance , 2010 .

[21]  V. Beekman,et al.  Responsible research and innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development , 2014 .

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

[23]  P. Schaper-Rinkel,et al.  The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology , 2013 .

[24]  Sara Helen Wilford,et al.  What is required of requirements? , 2016, SIGCAS Comput. Soc..

[25]  Marina Jirotka,et al.  Towards a closer dialogue between policy and practice: responsible design in HCI , 2014, CHI.

[26]  Robert Caverly,et al.  Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society , 2013 .

[27]  Stevienna de Saille.  Innovating Innovation Policy: The emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ , 2015 .

[28]  V. Blok,et al.  The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation , 2015 .

[29]  Helge Torgersen,et al.  Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? , 2013, Futures.

[30]  Gemma Galdon-Clavell.  (Not so) smart cities?: The drivers, impact and risks of surveillance-enabled smart environments , 2013 .

[31]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[32]  Daan Schuurbiers,et al.  Erratum to: What Happens in the Lab Does Not Stay in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[33]  R. V. Schomberg.  Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields , 2011 .

[34]  Simone van der Burg,et al.  Imagining the Future of Photoacoustic Mammography , 2009, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[35]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Keep it complex , 2010, Nature.

[36]  Nikolas Rose,et al.  The Human Brain Project: Social and Ethical Challenges , 2014, Neuron.

[37]  M. Kearnes.  Performing synthetic worlds: Situating the bioeconomy , 2013 .

[38]  Daan Schuurbiers,et al.  What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[39]  Bernd Carsten Stahl,et al.  From computer ethics to responsible research and innovation in ICT: The transition of reference discourses informing ethics-related research in information systems , 2014, Inf. Manag..

[40]  P. Shapira,et al.  Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development , 2011 .

[41]  Barbara Adam,et al.  Future matters: futures known, created and minded , 2008 .

[42]  Shannon L. Spruit,et al.  Just a Cog in the Machine? The Individual Responsibility of Researchers in Nanotechnology is a Duty to Collectivize , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[43]  Michael Friedewald,et al.  Minimizing Technology Ricks with PIAs, Precaution, and Participation , 2011, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[44]  David H. Guston,et al.  Real-time technology assessment , 2020, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[45]  Alessandra Marasco,et al.  Logistics innovation in Seaports: An inter-organizational perspective , 2013 .

[46]  Bernd Carsten Stahl,et al.  Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework , 2013 .

[47]  Niels Mejlgaard,et al.  Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences , 2012 .

[48]  Christopher Groves,et al.  Future ethics: risk, care and non-reciprocal responsibility , 2009 .

[49]  René von Schomberg,et al.  From the Ethics of Technology Towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy & Knowledge Assessment , 2007 .

[50]  Douglas K. R. Robinson,et al.  Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology , 2009 .

[51]  Michael Friedewald,et al.  Integrating privacy and ethical impact assessments , 2013 .

[52]  Kelly Laas,et al.  “Broader Impacts” or “Responsible Research and Innovation”? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering , 2014, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[53]  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.

[54]  Matthias Kaiser,et al.  Responsible techno-innovation in aquaculture: Employing ethical engagement to explore attitudes to GM salmon in Northern Europe , 2015 .

[55]  Mads Borup,et al.  The sociology of expectations in science and technology , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[56]  Luigi Pellizzoni,et al.  Responsibility and Environmental Governance , 2004 .

[57]  Les Levidow,et al.  EU Research Agendas: Embedding What Future? , 2014 .

[58]  Armin Grunwald,et al.  Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods , 2009 .

[59]  Frank Kupper,et al.  The application of neurogenomics to education: analyzing guiding visions , 2013 .

[60]  Ulrike Felt,et al.  Within, Across and Beyond: Reconsidering the Role of Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe , 2014 .

[61]  Ellen-Marie Forsberg,et al.  Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility , 2015 .

[62]  Roop L. Mahajan,et al.  MIDSTREAM MODULATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IN AN ACADEMIC LABORATORY , 2006 .