Search results

This paper aims to investigate the intersection between crowdfunding (CF), open innovation (OI) and responsible innovation (RI) and identify the emerging trends and gaps in research and new paths for CF research in the future. In addition, this paper proposes a conceptual framework and propositions.

This paper is structured in line with the systematic literature review protocol. After reading all the titles, keywords and abstracts, 172 papers focused on OI and RI were selected for this research. Finally, 27 papers that are based on dimensions related to responsible OI were selected for the study.

Due to CF's multidisciplinary nature, the scientific literature on the role of CF in endorsing responsible OI for shared value co-creation appears fragmented and redundant. Several emerging trends and gaps of research and new paths for CF research in the future arise regarding research methodology and theoretical perspective.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study investigating the intersection between CF OI and RI.

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.

Policy-oriented responsibility initiatives are institutional attempts to make innovations more responsible. One such initiative is offered by the European Commission’s responsible research and innovation (RRI) keys (public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access and ethics). This study is conducted in the context of an EU Horizon 2020 project and focuses on the introduction of RRI keys to innovation projects of the additive manufacturing (AM) industry. This study aims to understand how these RRI keys are perceived and adopted by industry project partners.

The authors use an ethnographic study based on “participant observation”, supported by interviews and workshops with AM industry experts. In particular, the analysis covers two specific innovation use cases – one in the medical field, and second in the automotive field, in the context of the EU project. The analysis, based on ethnographic data, is inductive and interpretative.

The authors take a critical approach towards the implementation of RRI policy keys as measurable indicators, and argue that they are not easy tools to implement. The authors portray how RRI keys were understood and welcomed by industrial organisations, and how their implementation raised controversies. The authors also found that RRI keys are difficult to understand. They are not easy to measure and report, and this contrasts with earlier proposals of how RRI keys should be governed or implemented. The governance, meaning the dialogue between stakeholders both internal and external to the organisation, was time-consuming and required constant organisational learning.

Due to the insightful ethnographic methodology, the authors could well underline the faults and difficulties of the application of policy-oriented responsibility in innovation. The findings illustrate the difficulty of implementing RRI in an industry that mainly operates business-to-business. This can help future policymakers to find more successful ways of pushing industry and innovators to be more responsible. It can also suggest better ways of reaching higher organisational learning for the purpose of more responsible innovations.

This study aims to investigate how living lab (LL) activities align with responsible research and innovation (RRI) principles, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital transformation (DT) processes. The study seeks to define a framework termed “responsible living lab” (RLL), emphasizing transparency, stakeholder engagement, ethics and sustainability. This emerging issue paper also proposes several directions for future researchers in the field.

The research methodology involved a literature review complemented by insights from a workshop on defining RLLs. The literature review followed a concept-centric approach, searching key journals and conferences, yielding 32 relevant articles. Backward and forward citation analysis added 19 more articles. The workshop, conducted in the context of UrbanTestbeds.JR and SynAir-G projects, used a reverse brainstorming approach to explore potential ethical and responsible issues in LL activities. In total, 13 experts engaged in collaborative discussions, highlighting insights into AI’s role in promoting RRI within LL activities. The workshop facilitated knowledge sharing and a deeper understanding of RLL, particularly in the context of DT and AI.

This emerging issue paper highlights ethical considerations in LL activities, emphasizing user voluntariness, user interests and unintended participation. AI in DT introduces challenges like bias, transparency and digital divide, necessitating responsible practices. Workshop insights underscore challenges: AI bias, data privacy and transparency; opportunities: inclusive decision-making and efficient innovation. The synthesis defines RLLs as frameworks ensuring transparency, stakeholder engagement, ethical considerations and sustainability in AI-driven DT within LLs. RLLs aim to align DT with ethical values, fostering inclusivity, responsible resource use and human rights protection.

The proposed definition of RLL introduces a framework prioritizing transparency, stakeholder engagement, ethics and sustainability in LL activities, particularly those involving AI for DT. This definition aligns LL practices with RRI, addressing ethical implications of AI. The value of RLL lies in promoting inclusive and sustainable innovation, prioritizing stakeholder needs, fostering collaboration and ensuring environmental and social responsibility throughout LL activities. This concept serves as a foundational step toward a more responsible and sustainable LL approach in the era of AI-driven technologies.

The purpose of this study is to analyze reported good institutional responsible research and innovation (RRI) practices from an organizational and learning perspective to discuss the usefulness of RRI as a broad umbrella concept.

This study connects neo-institutional and translation accounts of diffusion to different modes of learning and discusses reported best practices from 12 reports, including in total 23 organizations in the research system worldwide, in light of this theoretical framework. This study categorizes the good practices identified in the reports and discusses how the nature of the practices influences the potential learning from them. The authors then apply the results from the discussion of this study to current policy developments on RRI.

The two most often mentioned good practices overall are organizational policies and the establishment of organizational units, but the type of good practices recommended differs across the various aspects of the RRI umbrella concept. This diversity within the RRI construct is a practical argument against the effectiveness of RRI as an umbrella concept.

This study is novel in the fact that the authors, building on Wæraas (2020), systematically relate types of good practice to neo-institutional theory and translation perspectives explicitly combined with learning approaches and apply this approach in the field of research organizations. The policy implications from the empirical and theoretical analyses are novel and timely in these early phases of the EU funding framework programme Horizon Europe and can also be relevant for the increasingly important umbrella concept of Open Science.

The purpose of the study detailed here was to engage with Directors of Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) during the first year of their new Centres to form a snapshot view of the nature and type of training that was being incorporated and how this might affect the wider institution – in this case the university. Using an organisational learning lens, this paper empirically examines the work-in-progress of the responsible innovation (RI) training in CDTs to assess how new RI understandings are being created, retained and transferred within the CDTs, questioning whether this process represents a programme of “institutionalisation”.

During the past decade, RI has become increasingly embedded within the EU and UK research context, appearing with greater frequency in funding calls and policy spaces. As part of this embedding, in its 2018 funding call for CDTs, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) required RI training to be included in the programme for all doctoral students.

The paper concludes that, at present, institutionalisation is highly variegated, with the greater organisational change required to truly embed RI mindsets.

The paper provides original, empirical research evidence of RI institutionalisation in UK CDTs, and, using a “learning organisation” lens, examines areas of value to both RI and learning organisation theory.

This paper aims to look at the implementation of project-funded research governance and its potential to induce organisational learning on responsible research and innovation (RRI). This paper analysed what types of organisational learning and change can take place within organisations of an Europe-funded project and to what extent. This paper examined whether and how change occurs and how it is shaped and co-produced with other orderings.

The paper is based on materials and evidence collected while working on the internal evaluation of a Horizon 2020-funded project. Analysis of the results of the mixed methods evaluation design was used to characterise occurrences of organisational learning and change.

The authors identified different forms of learning (single-loop learning, double-loop learning, reflexive and reflective learning and situational learning). The extent of learning that could lead to long-lasting organisational change was limited. This was due to the project-based and organisational design, the key-based definition of RRI and the indeterminacy of what constitutes learning and change – both at the level of funding and performing the project. For organisational change to occur, the authors argue for governance mechanisms based on reflexive learning that consider a range of structural conditions and measures.

Organisational learning plays an important role in change processes, which has so far been given too little consideration concerning the governance and implementation of RRI through project-based funding. The authors argue for a restructuring of governance and funding mechanisms to create more space for reflexivity and learning.

Many companies invest in innovations because of the inherent benefits, and research on innovation has increased over the year. However, the vast majority of research papers deals with purely technical matters. There seem to be growing concerns over ethical issues in adopting innovations in the construction industry. This extant review of literature aims to analyse the interrelations between the concepts of ethics and innovations in construction research to understand the advances of current scientific production and future lines of research.

Thus, this work presents a bibliometric analysis covering articles obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection Database published between 1995 and May 2021. A sample size of 5,786 research papers relevant to the study was evaluated using VOSviewer software.

The results of the analysis shed light on the evolution of the connection between the two concepts. The study highlighted Heng Li as the most productive author. The country with the most publications and citations is China. The most productive institution is the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The results revealed a limited intellectual exchange and lack of cohesion characterising the two concepts (ethics and innovation), resulting in a situation whereby innovation-related researchers tend to follow personal trajectories in isolation from ethics-related researchers in the construction field.

This is probably the most comprehensive scientometric analysis ever conducted to examine the theoretical relationship between ethics and innovation in construction. This study adds to the so far limited knowledge in the field and provides insights for future research. Overall, this review may spur future research on dyad investigation of ethics and innovative related themes in construction such as ethics and sustainability, ethics and sensor-based technology and ethics and innovative safety approach.

The promotion of autonomous vehicles introduces privacy and security risks, underscoring the pressing need for responsible innovation implementation. To more effectively address the societal risks posed by autonomous vehicles, considering collaborative engagement of key stakeholders is essential. This study aims to provide insights into the governance of potential privacy and security issues in the innovation of autonomous driving technology by analyzing the micro-level decision-making processes of various stakeholders.

For this study, the authors use a nuanced approach, integrating key stakeholder theory, perceived value theory and prospect theory. The study constructs a model based on evolutionary game for the privacy and security governance mechanism of autonomous vehicles, involving enterprises, governments and consumers.

The governance of privacy and security in autonomous driving technology is influenced by key stakeholders’ decision-making behaviors and pivotal factors such as perceived value factors. The study finds that the governmental is influenced to a lesser extent by the decisions of other stakeholders, and factors such as risk preference coefficient, which contribute to perceived value, have a more significant influence than appearance factors like participation costs.

This study lacks an investigation into the risk sensitivity of various stakeholders in different scenarios.

The study delineates the roles and behaviors of key stakeholders and contributes valuable insights toward addressing pertinent risk concerns within the governance of autonomous vehicles. Through the study, the practical application of Responsible Innovation theory has been enriched, addressing the shortcomings in the analysis of micro-level processes within the framework of evolutionary game.

This case aims to study the growth, evolution, and social innovation of iThrive Games, a socially minded initiative that aims to create meaningful opportunities using technology for teens to enhance the knowledge, mindsets, and skills they need to thrive through development and across the continuum of mental disorder to wellness. iThrive's focus has been on creating “meaningful games”—that is, games that promote health and well-being of teen players. Founded in 2014 by Dorothy Batten, President of DN Batten Foundation, the organization's mission was to collaborate with game developers, partner with teens across the game development cycle (ideation to testing), and provide resources to foster teen thriving through gameplay. To do so, the organization took a unique social entrepreneurial approach. Drawing on a positive psychology framework and building the brand among key stakeholders including game developers, researchers, funders, youth, educators, and parents, the organization orchestrated a community dedicated to advancing the meaningful games field, and in doing so, have widespread impact.