What´s that thing called RRI? By Jacqueline Broerse
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•754 views
What´s that thing called RRI? Jacqueline Broerse Director of the Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam RRI Tools Final Conference - Brussels, 21-22 November 2016 Opening Session RRI Tools: main goals and outcomes
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to What´s that thing called RRI? By Jacqueline Broerse
Similar to What´s that thing called RRI? By Jacqueline Broerse (20)
More from RRI Tools
More from RRI Tools (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
What´s that thing called RRI? By Jacqueline Broerse
- 1. RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels WHAT’S THAT THING CALLED RRI? JACQUELINE BROERSE VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT AMSTERDAM
- 2. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels Faculteit der Aard- en Levenswetenschappen2 • Science and technology important contribution to economic growth, improved health and living standards • But also ethical concerns and negative consequences for people and the environment • And mismatches: – Lack of innovation development for certain problems – Vulnerable groups in society adopt innovation less often • Increasing pleas for ‘better’ science Tracing the origin of RRI
- 3. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels 3 R&I process problem research implementation IMPLEMENTATION GAPDEMAND GAP Listen better Explain better Lack of communication
- 4. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels 4 Problem Research Implementation Science and practice join hands Responsible Research & Innovation R&I process Lack of collaboration
- 5. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels Society Corporate social responsibility Sustainable development EC Grand societal challenges Public engagement Science education Ethics and Gender Scholars Technology assessment Public engagement Research integrity Participatory action research Mode-2 science Transdisciplinarity science and society 2001 science in society 2007 science with and for society 2011 RRI Tracing the origin of RRI 5
- 6. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels Individual responsibility • Taking responsibility for acts: safeguarding research integrity and avoiding e.g. plagiarism and fraud • Consequentialist judgments – no harm (however, R&I is multi- actor and multi-level activity with unknown outcomes) Responsibility as collective process • To counter systemic irresponsibility focus should (also) be on the R&I process and variety of actors and under what conditions actors are involved 6 Shift to responsibility as ‘collective process’
- 7. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels Often-used definition of RRI: “Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).” (von Schomberg, 2011:9) 7 Process Outcome Conceptualizing RRI
- 8. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels R&I outcomes • Ethically acceptable • Environmentally sustainable • Socially desirable innovations Societal impacts Contribute to solving societal challenges e.g. 7 Grand Challenges (EU) Learning outcomes • Engaged Publics • Responsible actors • Responsible institutions Actors think and act according to principles of RRI RRI process institutionalized in academia and other relevant organizations Citizens empowered with competences to engage in RRI process effectively 8 RRI Outcomes & Impacts
- 9. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels RRI Process Requirements Variety of researchers from different disciplines and broad range of stakeholders identified All relevant stakeholders invited to participate Meaningful, addressing purpose and context Imagining plausible futures and technology paths Alignment 1st, 2nd and 3rd order learning Open to needs of others Ability to change process and paths 9
- 10. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels So, what could you do? Process requirements as criteria: • Evaluative framework to assess RRI initiatives: retrospective analysis • Self-reflection tool to help shape RRI initiatives: prospective analysis Diversity and Inclusion Engaging a variety of stakeholder groups Variety of means of stakeholder engagement Engagement of publics Attention for appropriate R&I models Institutional diversity From theory to practice 10
- 11. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels Engaging a variety of stakeholder groups Wide range Demogra phic diversity Sufficient amount Relevant voices Is there a wide variety of stakeholders involved, such that there is a diversity of values and a diversity of types of knowledge/expertise? Is there diversity in the stakeholders engaged such that all relevant voices are heard – silent as well as loud? Is there diversity within the stakeholder groups involved in terms of gender, ethnicity, socio- economic status, age, disability etc.? Are sufficiently many perspectives and participants included, such that eventual outcomes are robust? This is not a checklist, but a thinking tool! 11
- 12. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels • Inspiring practices illustrate what a strong example can look like – not all process requirements are fulfilled in each case • Catalogue is an inventory of practices across Europe, assembled with the aid of all RRI Tools Hubs • 51 completed surveys from 18 European countries 31 practices selected • This should become a living catalogue Catalogue of inspiring practices 12
- 13. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels RRI as a societal learning process ‘Learning for doing RRI’ ‘Learning for RRI governance’ ‘Learning for learning’ Classifying promising practices Researchers Business/Industry CSOs Policy makers CSOs researchers Educators Researchers 13
- 14. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels “Challenge-driven Innovation” Program by Swedish innovation agency VINNOVA. It funds R&I aimed at tackling societal challenges, involving all relevant stakeholders. Its three-stage funding scheme is implementation-oriented and has built in mechanisms for promoting responsiveness and adaptive change D&I A&R O&T Responsive- ness & Adaptive change Learning for governance 14
- 15. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels We first need to educate citizens before they can participate! RRI—that’s just old wine in new bottles… I find it difficult to grasp. What is it and why is it important? RRI is about much more than only research! It is too demanding for researchers! Science needs to become Responsible? So scientists are irresponsible now?! 15 RRI is the end of ‘true’ science!! Workshops in 30 countries > 400 participants This is only for applied research, not basic science
- 16. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels • RRI is not a concept most researchers are familiar with • They relate it mostly to outcomes – societal benefits – not so much to the research process itself • We encountered a few proponents, but mostly met scepticism • Low urgency for ‘better’ science for society! 16 RRI in higher education and research institutions
- 17. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels • Increasingly university boards put emphasis on ‘societal engagement’ and ‘contributing to society’ in their mission statement – need to equip researchers for the future • However, perceptions and lack of competences of scientists on RRI are reflected in culture, structure and practice in HERIs • Therefore embedding RRI in HERIs requires a transition fundamental change in culture, structure and practice 17 PARADIGM SHIFT or SYSTEM CHANGE RRI in higher education and research institutions
- 18. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels ‘Niches’ Innovative experiments in which actors create alternative practices (deviant from regime) ‘Regime’ Dominant structure, culture and practice of system Regime Landscape Niche ‘Landscape’ Broader societal trends Embedding RRI is complex process 18
- 19. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels Research SocietyEducation Governance for RRI • Advocacy • Training • Networking • Showcasing • Mission statement • Provide support • Experiment – be reflexive and learn!! Bottom up AND top down! 19
- 20. | RRI Tools Final Conference, 21-22 November 2016, Brussels Thank you on behalf of the Athena team: Frank Kupper, Pim Klaassen, Michelle Heijnen, Sara Vermeulen, Marlous Arentshorst, Eugen Popa & Aafke Fraaije For more information about the conceptualisation of RRI, the quality criteria, and the inspiring practices visit: http://www.rri-tools.eu/workplan-deliverables 20
Editor's Notes
- Responsibility is the central term in RRI, it is seen as central for ensuring that research and innovation will indeed lead to better technologies that will contribute to solving the grand challenges identified by the EU Responsibility can however be understood in multiple ways: So far, responsibility has mainly been understood as individual responsibility that one e.g. a scientist could and should take for the consequences of his/her actions. Philosophically such an understanding of responsibility is referred to as consequentialist. However, when it concerns research and innovation individualized notions of responsibility are not sufficient as many actors and organizations are at any one time involved and acting in innovation and research processes. Furthermore, the context of innovation is highly uncertain and future-oriented, which makes consequentialist reasoning based on estimations of the results of actions (highly) problematic. As part of the move towards RRI, a shift from individual to collective responsibility has therefore been diagnosed. Increasingly, organisations and sectors, like universities, business/finance, government/policy and EU are seen as the relevant actors and institutions (who should) engage in RRI processes and not individual scientist, engineers and policy-makers alone. RRI, would then entail a process of inclusive deliberation involving a wide variety of actors. In addition the focus is less on responsibility in relation to outcome alone, and more on responsibility as responsible process and acceptable outcomes. The focus on process and outcome can be found in the known definition of RRI, and we have taken these as a starting point for our working definition.
- Begins with the question: How can we develop better technologies? Minimize harmful and unintended effects? Policy & academia: Answer Technology assessment in various forms Policy; technology assessment institutions close to policy E.g. Rathenau in the Netherlands, STOA of the EU Academia; beginning from STS, which showed the social element in the construction of science and scientific facts, the presence of power and politics even in the lab, to move towards interventionist studies with the normative goal of improving on historically evolved divisions of (moral) labor between science/technology, policy and society as producers, regulators and users and with the goal of improving reflection among actors on their interdependencies and mutual influences E.g. ILA as a methodology for including small scale farmers in biotechnology developments The EU beginning from questions and uncertainties surrounding nanotechnology and observing the presence (and continuous emergence) of complex socio-technical problems like pollution, health, social cohesion, resistance to GMO, but enthusiasm about science, distrust in experts E.g. Grand challenges RRI emerges as a collective term with a legacy from all of these discourses. Common a dedication to a broad understanding and evaluation of ‘risk’ up-stream, and realization of the need to include knowledge of variety of ‘experts’.
- Responsibility is the central term in RRI, it is seen as central for ensuring that research and innovation will indeed lead to better technologies that will contribute to solving the grand challenges identified by the EU Responsibility can however be understood in multiple ways: So far, responsibility has mainly been understood as individual responsibility that one e.g. a scientist could and should take for the consequences of his/her actions. Philosophically such an understanding of responsibility is referred to as consequentialist. However, when it concerns research and innovation individualized notions of responsibility are not sufficient as many actors and organizations are at any one time involved and acting in innovation and research processes. Furthermore, the context of innovation is highly uncertain and future-oriented, which makes consequentialist reasoning based on estimations of the results of actions (highly) problematic. As part of the move towards RRI, a shift from individual to collective responsibility has therefore been diagnosed. Increasingly, organisations and sectors, like universities, business/finance, government/policy and EU are seen as the relevant actors and institutions (who should) engage in RRI processes and not individual scientist, engineers and policy-makers alone. RRI, would then entail a process of inclusive deliberation involving a wide variety of actors. In addition the focus is less on responsibility in relation to outcome alone, and more on responsibility as responsible process and acceptable outcomes. The focus on process and outcome can be found in the known definition of RRI, and we have taken these as a starting point for our working definition.
- -Practicing a more inclusive and deliberative RRI requires considering four pairs of (intricately related) process dimensions. -The European Commission, with its identication of policy agendas, however, has provided RRI with even more concretely defined normative orientations in the form of a set of six policy keys that RRI should further
- featuring three examples of each of them to illustrate what a strong example can look like—can, as the concrete implementation of each of the process requirements might call for different things in different contexts.