Search results

Value-free science is an ideal that is neither possible nor desirable, especially for social sciences. The subject of social sciences is individuals and groups; hence social, moral, ethical, or political values are inherent and unavoidable in all steps of the scientific process. Further, the authority of science requires the scientist to be responsible experts in ensuring the reliability of knowledge and in assessing the risks in applying the research findings in social policies and practices. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the role of values in business school research.

The author explains the two primary types of values relevant for science: epistemic – norms and standards to ensure good science – and social – criteria not relevant for discovering the truth of knowledge but may influence decisions related to science especially in evaluating the cost of wrongful conclusions from the research evidence. Based on an analysis of published criticisms of business school research and the author’s own analysis, the author describes how business school research is infused with social and political values, undermining the objectivity and quality of science by business scientists.

The author endorses the idea of responsible science – science that recognizes the mutual dependence between science and society, and that aims to satisfy both epistemic and social values. The author offers a modest proposal to encourage transformation of business school research to meet both rigor (valid and reliable knowledge) and relevance (useful for practice) – the hallmark of responsible science.

The ideas in this essay have implications for further work on identifying the relevant epistemic and social values to guide business school research.

The idea of responsible science can potentially transform business school’s research to become both scientifically rigorous and societally relevant.

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.

All three Baltic countries – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – share common features, similar history, and took similar steps to establish an external evaluation of their science base. Even though the three countries have similarities in terms of their geography, size, economic structure, development and demography, they demonstrate differences, for example Estonia is often considered to be ahead of Latvia and Lithuania in terms of the economy and development. So, do the Baltic countries share similarities or differences from the point of research management and administration?

Academic misconduct in research is of growing concern to funding agencies, scholars, and academic journal editors. Scholarly publication has ethical implications researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. The theoretical background of the ethics of scholarly publication is explored as well as the use of a case study of an untenured researcher illustrates the dilemma faced by the researcher's colleagues, reviewers, and the journal editor. It also explores how the higher education culture promotes a “publish or perish” environment that impacts the behavior of faculty seeking tenure and promotion.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to address the topic of the social responsibility and the scientist from a philosophical perspective. This is a (relatively) neglected topic, as philosophers have tended to focus on moral responsibility. Nevertheless, it is important, and timely.

Analytical, based on the author’s previous work. This is not an empirical study.

That it is essential for scientists to adopt a global outlook with respect to their social responsibilities. This is in (stark) contrast to the conclusion that would be reached for moral responsibility.

In addition to offering some concrete proposals (see below), a general approach to the question is offered that will be useful for further work.

Were the suggestions for socially responsible science put into practice, then this would entail a re-orientation of some parts of scientific research; for instance, a moratorium on weapons research.

The long-run social implications of not re-orienting science, for instance not to focus even more effort on climate change, will be negative in the extreme.

The social responsibility of science has always been important, but it is even more important today. By focussing on global responsibility, this paper offers a new approach.

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.

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.