Search results

How to derive policy implications from five future scenarios of transformed research and innovation (R&I) systems? This paper analyzes methodological and content issues of five future scenarios of transformed R&I systems. The aim of this paper is to provide an outlook on strategic policies capable of facilitating or moderating these transformative changes in R&I practices is discussed in light of overarching intentions to foster “responsible” ambitions (in Europe and beyond, discussed as responsible research and innovation, RRI).

The paper elaborates a four-step methodology to assess the scenario’s policy implications: first, by articulating the scenario implications for six core dimensions of R&I systems; second, an RRI assessment framework is developed to assess in each scenario opportunities and limitations for transforming R&I systems towards responsibility goals; the third involves a cross-scenario analysis of similarities and differences between the scenarios, allowing the identification of robust policy options that make sense in more than one scenario. The last analytical step includes again the richness of the individual scenario assessments aiming to provide a broader outlook on transformative policy orientations.

The paper concludes with outlining the contours of a future-responsible R&I system together with some suggestions for transformative policy orientations that aim to govern the R&I system towards such a future, as a source of inspiration and reflection.

The analysis is based on five future scenarios that do not systematically cover future developments external to the R&I system.

An outlook of strategic policies capable of facilitating or moderating these transformative changes in R&I practices is discussed in light of the overarching European Union goal of encouraging the performance of RRI.

This paper provides inspirational anticipatory strategic intelligence for fostering the responsible ambitions of research with and for society.

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.

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the theory building of transformative university by delivering two conceptual models for legitimizing entrepreneurial university with a transformative role in quadruple helix for sustainability governance structures as being nominated as “responsible facilitator.” This chapter draws many theoretical insights sourced from Entrepreneurial University (Etzkowitz, 1988), Institutional Theory (Scott, 1987), quadruple/quintuple helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009a, b) and Responsible Innovation (Owen, Macnaghten, & Stilgoe, 2012) in order to frame the resulting conceptual models of transformative university for sustainability and quadruple helix for sustainability governance. The conceptual models offer a new paradigm discussion for the changing role of universities in knowledge economy and opens up for further investigation of quadruple helix actors namely as transformative university, society, industry and government for strategic capital, social capital, economic capital and culture–human capital interventions in sustainability governance. The second model illustrates the key interventions of quadruple helix actors in four pillars of capital delivering concrete examples of activities. The originality of this chapter lies in its discourse articulating a multilayered approach for the institutionalization of entrepreneurial university embedded in a responsible innovation ecosystem based on individual, organizational and macro-level perspectives. Quadruple helix actors are nominated as “responsible facilitator,” “hybrid hub,” “agile regulator” and “pressure beneficiary” roles for their relevant place in sustainability governance structure.

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.

Sustainable development challenges have been gaining increased attention from scholars across a wide range of disciplines and governments and business leaders of developed and developing countries. In this chapter, we present selected Latin American socioeconomic indicators, and we note that much progress is needed to achieve the region's many sustainable development goals. We bring forth contributions from different streams of innovation studies for addressing grand challenges, and we discourse on how they push the sustainable development mandate forward. Innovation scholars have highlighted the need to elaborate novel transformational approaches to innovation for addressing such pressing grand challenges. Some scholars have also proposed that while the innovation systems framework is well-suited for addressing sustainable development challenges, it must first be profoundly and radically transformed to account for the novel ways of innovating and integrating a diversity of systemic economic actors and social stakeholders who have conflicting visions, interests, norms, and expectations. We present the different foundational strengths and weaknesses of the innovation systems framework and we discuss the pertinence for its profound and radical transformation. We conclude by organizing these different, yet complementary views of innovation in a conceptual framework while discussing the implications for Latin America and future research.

Many of the ethical issues of additive manufacturing (AM) are not well known or understood, and there remains a policy vacuum that needs to be addressed. This paper aims to describe an approach that has been applied successfully to other emerging technologies, referred to as the responsible research and innovation (RRI) framework programme. A case is then made for the application of this approach in the AM industry with an illustration of how it might be used.

The research uses an RRI approach referred to as AREA, an acronym for Anticipate, Reflect, Engage and Act, to assess the ethical implications of AM. For the anticipation phase, horizon scanning was done to explore the ethical issues of AM based on extant literature, while reflective analysis was carried out all through the work to reflect on the data being collected and the research process. The engage phase involved interviews with five participants from small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) involved in 3D printing.

The findings indicate that although AM appears to pose a threat to intellectual property rights, many in the industry do not care about this issue. As AM becomes mainstream, intellectual property will likely become a big problem. Also, very little is known about the health impacts of AM. This study shows that AM can be hazardous.

Only users at SME level were sampled. Other researchers might test the usefulness of AREA at the enterprise level.

The research demonstrates how the AREA framework may be useful in information systems and social science research by enabling a more anticipatory and reflective research process.

The paper responds to the need for a novel approach to identifying ethical issues of AM.

This chapter, based on a sociological approach, addresses the ethical issues of surveillance research from the perspective of the profound transformations that science and innovation are undergoing, as part of a broader shift from modern to post-modern society, affecting also other major social institutions (such as government, religion, family, and public administration). The change occurring in the science and technology system is characterised by diminishing authority, uncertainty about internal mechanisms and standards, and a declining and increasingly difficult access to resources. Such changes, also related to globalisation and new digital technologies, have transformed the way research is conducted and disseminated. Research is now more open and its results more easily accessible to citizens.

Scientific research is also put under increased public scrutiny, while, at the same time, public distrust and disaffection towards science is rising. In such a context, it is more important than ever to make sure that research activities are not compromised by fraudulent and unethical practices. The legitimate expectations of citizens to enjoy their rights, including the ability to protect their private sphere, are growing. Scientific and technological development is deeply interrelated with the widespread awareness of these rights and the possibility of exercising them, but it produces also new risks, while a widespread sense of insecurity increases. The digital revolution, while improving people’s quality of life, offers at the same time new opportunities for crime and terrorism, which in turn has produced a demand to strengthen security systems through increasingly advanced and intrusive surveillance technologies. Misconduct in the field of surveillance may not only undermine the quality of research, but also further impair society’s trust in research and science as well as in the State and its institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how relationships between different actors are being shaped to allow industry to come to acceptable and desirable uses of research and innovation (R&I) that address societal challenges.

Building on existing notions of responsibility proposed in the literature, the paper develops a theoretical account of “networks of responsibility” which capture the interlinked nature of responsibility relationships. The usefulness of the approach is evaluated by exploring two cases of R&I in industry deploying a qualitative research approach that involves interviewing and document analysis. For this, a multinational company from Germany was involved, as well as a small- and medium-sized company from Denmark.

The study surfaced 68 responsibility relationships involving a range of different objects, subjects, authorities and norms. By describing overlaps in objects, subjects and other aspects across relationships, the theoretical model proved adequate in untangling and displaying interrelatedness of responsibilities. Furthermore, the analysis surfaced characteristics of responsible research and innovation (RRI) that are already in place in the R&I processes of two innovative companies, such as anticipation, foresight and stakeholder engagement. Not all aspects of responsibility outlined in the theoretical model could be extracted from the interview data for every responsibility relationship, pointing to the need for further research.

The paper is practically relevant because it supports policy development on an organisational, as well as societal level. Moreover, the networks of responsibility model offer a fine-grained assessment of responsibilities in R&I practice by mapping existing responsibilities which supports translating RRI principles into everyday organisational practices.

RRI sets an ambitious agenda to ensure a more social and ethical R&I. Much work is still needed to bridge the gap between these theoretical and political aspirations and daily R&I practice, especially in non-academic contexts such as industry. By offering a way to understand and untangle the complexity of responsibility relationships, the networks of responsibility model seem to offer a promising approach that can support this endeavour.

The paper offers a novel theoretical approach to understanding and analysing responsibility allocations in R&I in industry. It demonstrates the reliability of this theoretical position empirically. It is practically important because it supports policy development on an organisational as well as societal level.

Users’ role in co-designing products has changed: from influencing outcomes to influencing development/design; from standardizing to customising products/outcomes; from participating to engaging designers/developers. Although this participatory design (PD) approach makes users’ role more prominent it has been under-utilised for the technological development of products for people with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD). The purpose of this paper is to present a responsible research and innovation example, in conversation skills training for people with autism, using virtual reality (VR).

The PD approach was adopted during the iterative development of the virtual world and training materials. Multiple baseline design was utilised consisting of three participants on the mild/moderate end of the autism spectrum. Participants joined 15–16 sessions over four phases of structured conversations, delivered both face-to-face and virtually.

The feedback sessions revealed that the participants felt VR has the potential in providing training for people with autism spectrum disorders. Moreover, they thought delivering the training in three formats could enhance their learning, since PowerPoints, videos and chatbot would represent teaching, showing and practicing, respectively.

PD promotes a “one-size-fits-one approach”, cultivating agile, inclusive, responsive design approaches for people with NDDs, so that outcome meets their needs and preferences, while VR training allows for a wider implementation, benefiting a wider range of learners.

The RRI approach increases the inclusion of people with disabilities in the decision-making process through dialogue with “experts”, making their role more visible, fostering an ethical and sustainable innovation process, leading to more desirable outcomes.

This research seeks to identify evidence of innovation elements in the implementation of a sustainable development ecosystem in the HE environment. For the purposes of this investigation, the use of developmental evaluation has been deemed appropriate to fully explore the depths of the topic.

The research follows a qualitative approach of inductive reasoning. For the purpose of this developmental evaluation, the collection of information from several stakeholders has been pursued in the study. Both a semi-structured interview and documents analysis were used.

Different awareness levels among logistics faculty members, while the incentives given are minimal. Availability of grants and lack of tenure are some of the reasons raised. Industry is not cooperative in providing placements/internships restricting students of industry experience. Internationalisation is slow and international collaborations limited. Limited freedom in topical discussions and their implications to learning.

The research has considered possible limitations and used other methods for triangulation of the findings.

Low awareness on the implementation of pedagogical approaches for innovation. Not all faculty can be innovative (owing to current practice) neither they are incentivised to be so. Government spending is very low on R&D – 0.136 of the GDP in 2016. The industry is not ready for University-Business Collaborations, therefore achieving a low theory to practice ratio for students.

In the context in which the research has taken place (HE in Oman), there has been no evaluation (and more so developmental evaluation) previously implemented. Additionally, a longitudinal study, integrated as part of an ESD system targeted to innovation could increase the innovation capacity of the country on the international innovation index.