Search results

This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up “responsibility” as an issue in science governance and funding decisions.

This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge’s insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations.

This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation.

This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab–oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting.

Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance.

This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings.

European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around “responsibility” and “solving societal challenges” or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive.

Being involved at work advances accountants' contribution to organizational success. However, scholars are not consistent in discussing involvement's implications on work–life balance (WLB). The article aims to address this issue, investigating involvement's effects on the accountants' ability to manage the work–life interplay.

Secondary data on a sample of 538 accountants were collected from the sixth European Working Condition Survey (EWCS). A serial mediation analysis was designed to obtain evidence of involvement's implications on WLB through the mediating role of work engagement and work satisfaction.

Involvement negatively affected the accountants' ability to deal with the work–life interplay. Engagement and satisfaction with work mediated this relationship. More specifically, involved accountants who were engaged and satisfied with their work conditions were less likely to report struggles between work and life.

Involvement implies an intensification of work, heralding an overlapping between work and life. Nonetheless, accountants who are engaged and satisfied with work are less touched by involvement's drawback on WLB. A precautionary approach should be taken to avoid that involvement results in workaholism, thus undermining individual well-being.

The article originally discusses involvement's implications on WLB across accountants. Being involved at work impairs the individual ability to achieve a balance between work and life, endangering well-being at work. Whilst the findings cannot be generalized beyond the accounting profession, they deliver some intriguing insights that highlight avenues for further developments.