Multiplicidad interpretativa en las prácticas de investigación e innovación responsables en 12 paísesanálisis y resultados

  1. Mario Pansera 1
  2. Richard Owen 1
  1. 1 University of Bristol
    info

    University of Bristol

    Brístol, Reino Unido

    ROR https://ror.org/0524sp257

Journal:
Caleidoscopio: revista semestral de ciencias sociales y humanidades

ISSN: 1405-7107,  2395-9576

Year of publication: 2020

Issue: 43

Type: Article

DOI: 10.33064/43CRSCSH1980 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Caleidoscopio: revista semestral de ciencias sociales y humanidades

Abstract

The article analyses the concept of “responsibility” applied to science, technology and innovation (STI) in 12 countries. By analyzing 23 case studies, the article shows how the notion of “responsibility” and dimensions of Anticipation, Inclusiveness, Reflexivity and Responsiveness (the so-called AIRR framework) are conceptualized in their respective institutional discourses, in the practices inspiring them, and in the barriers they encounter. The analysis shows how AIRR dimensions are conceptualized in multiple and often conflicting ways. In addition, the analysis shows how responsibility in STI is predominantly framed within three meta-narratives: a) responsible STI to address the great societal challenges (“Grand Challenges”), in particular the issues of environmental sustainability and social responsibility of science; b) responsibility understood as integrity and excellence in science backed by processes and norms established by the academic community; c) responsible STI as a reaction to science’s loss of legitimacy in the face of growing public disillusionment with “expert” opinions.

Bibliographic References

  • Blok, V. y Lemmens, P. (2015). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation. En B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra y J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications (pp. 19–35). Cham: Springer.
  • Burget, M., Bardone, E. y Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1–19. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1
  • Damianova, Z., Hajdinjak, M., Evgeniev, E., Ivanov, K. y Shentov, O. (2018). Report From National Case Study: Bulgaria. Deliverable 8.1. Work Package 8. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_BULGARIA.pdf
  • Davies, S. R. y Horst, M. (2015). Responsible innovation in the US, UK and Denmark: Governance Landscapes. En B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra y J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications (pp. 37–56). Cham: Springer.
  • de Hoop, E., Pols, A. y Romijn, H. (2016). Limits to responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(2), 110–134. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1231396
  • de Saille, S. (2015). Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168. doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280
  • de Saille, S. y Medvecky, F. (2016). Innovation for a steady state: a case for responsible stagnation. Economy and Society, 45(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/03085147.2016.1143727
  • Doezema, T. y Guston, D. (2018). Report From National Case Study: United States. Deliverable 12.1. Work Package 12. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_USA.pdf
  • Edler, J. y Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grx001
  • Egeland, C., Maximova-Mentzoni, T., Hanssen, A. B. y Forsberg, E.-M. (2018). Report From National Case Study: Norway. Deliverable 3.1. Work Package 3. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_NORWAY.pdf
  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. y Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. doi:10.1177/1094428112452151
  • Glerup, C. y Horst, M. (2014). Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 31–50. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077
  • Grimbaum, A., Klein, É. y Vandermersch, M. (2018). RRI-Practice Deliverable 6.1: Report from national case study. CEA (France). RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_FRANCE.pdf
  • Hahn, J., Hennen, L., Kulakov, P., Ladikas, M. y Scherz, C. (2018). Report From National Case Study: Germany. Deliverable 4.1. Work Package 4. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_GERMANY.pdf
  • Hartley S., Warren, P. y Taylor, A. (2017). Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance. Policy and Politics, 45(3), 361–377. doi:10.1332/030557316X14681503832036
  • Lundvall, B.-Å. y Borrás, S. (2006). Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. En J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery y R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 599–631). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Macnaghten, P. y Chilvers, J. (2014). The Future of Science Governance: Publics, Policies, Practices. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 32(3), 530–548. doi:10.1068/c1245j
  • Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219–1239. doi:10.1016/J.RESPOL.2012.03.012
  • Miles, M. B. y Huberman, A. M. (2003). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Owen, R. (2014). The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s commitment to a framework for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 113–117. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882065
  • Owen, R. y Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis, 30(11), 1699–1707. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x
  • Pansera, M. y Owen, R. (2018a). Report From National Case Study: United Kingdom. Deliverable D4.2. Work Package 4. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_UNITED-KINGDOM.pdf
  • Pansera, M. y Owen, R. (2018b). Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India. Research Policy, 47(1), 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.007
  • Randles, S., Laredo, P., Loconto, A., Walhout, B. y Lindner, R. (2017). Framings and frameworks: six grand narratives of de facto RRI. En R. Lindner, S. Kuhlmann, S. Randles, B. Bedsted, G. Gorgoni, E. Griessler, A. Loconto y N. Mejlgaard (Eds.), Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project (pp. 31–36). Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI.
  • RCN [Research Council of Norway] (2015). Samfunnsansvarlig Innovasjon – Et RRI-rammeverk for BIOTEK2021, NANO2021, IKTPLUSS and SAMANSVAR. Recuperado de https://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254020095535&pagename=VedleggPointer&target=_blank
  • Reyes-Galindo, L. y Monteiro, M. (2018). Report From National Case Study: Brazil. Deliverable 13.1. Work Package 13. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_BRAZIL.pdf
  • Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D. J. y Millar, K. (2017). A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 81–103. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6
  • Rip, A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(1), 17. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4
  • Rodríguez, H., Fisher, E. y Schuurbiers, D. (2013). Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy, 42(5), 1126–1137. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.006
  • Schot, J. y Steinmueller, W. E. (2016). Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative Change: Innovation Policy 3.0. Recuperado de http://www.johanschot.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SchotSteinmueller_FramingsWorkingPaperVersionUpdated2018.10.16-New-copy.pdf
  • Sehic, S. y Ashworth, P. (2018). Report from national case study: Australia. Deliverable 14.1. Work Package 14. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_AUSTRALIA.pdf
  • Srinivas, K. R., Kumar, A. y Pandey, N. (2018). Report From National Case Study: India. Deliverable 11.1. Work Package 11. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_INDIA.pdf
  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. y Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
  • Strand, R., Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Rommetveit, K. y Funtowicz, S. (2018). New narratives for innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1849–1853. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.194
  • Sykes, K. y Macnaghten, P. (2013). Responsible Innovation – Opening Up Dialogue and Debate. En R. Owen, J. Bessant y M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (pp. 85–107). Londres: Wiley.
  • van der Molen, F., Consoli, L., Ludwig, D., Pols, A. y Macnaghten, P. (2018). Report From National Case Study: The Netherlands. Deliverable 9.1. Work Package 9. RRI-Practice. Recuperado de https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_NETHERLANDS.pdf
  • van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 67–86. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
  • Vasen, F. (2017). Responsible innovation in developing countries: an enlarged agenda. En L. Asveld, R. van Dam-Mieras, T. Swierstra, S. Lavrijssen, K. Linse y J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 3: A European Agenda? (pp. 93–109). Cham: Springer.
  • von Schomberg, R. (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. En R. Owen, J. Bessant y M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (pp. 51–74). Londres: Wiley.
  • von Tunzelmann, N. (2010). Technology and technology policy in the postwar UK : « market failure » or « network failure »? Revue d’économie Industrielle, 129-130, 237–258. doi:10.4000/rei.4157
  • Zwolenik, J. J. (1971). Science, Growth and Society: Report of the Secretary-General's Ad Hoc Group on New Concepts of Science Policy by Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Policy Sciences, 2(4), 457–464.
Data source: Dialnet