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

Revista:
Caleidoscopio: revista semestral de ciencias sociales y humanidades

ISSN: 1405-7107,  2395-9576

Año de publicación: 2020

Número: 43

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.33064/43CRSCSH1980 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Caleidoscopio: revista semestral de ciencias sociales y humanidades

Resumen

El artículo analiza el concepto de “responsabilidad” aplicado a la ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación (CTI) en 12 países. A través del análisis de 23 casos, se muestra cómo la noción de “responsabilidad” y las dimensiones de “anticipación”, “inclusividad”, “reflexividad” y “capacidad de respuesta” (el llamado marco AIRR – Anticipation, Inclusivity, Reflexivity and Responsiveness) se conceptualizan en sus respectivos discursos institucionales, en las prácticas que los inspiran y en las barreras a las que han de enfrentarse. El análisis evidencia que las dimensiones AIRR se conceptualizan de manera múltiple y a menudo conflictiva. Además, el análisis muestra que el concepto de “responsabilidad” en la CTI está predominantemente enmarcado en tres meta-narrativas: a) CTI responsables para abordar los grandes desafíos de la sociedad (Grand Challenges), en particular los temas de sostenibilidad ambiental y responsabilidad social de la ciencia; b) responsabilidad entendida como integridad y excelencia en la ciencia, siendo estas respaldadas por procesos y normas establecidos por la comunidad académica; y c) CTI responsables como reacción a la pérdida de legitimidad de la ciencia frente a una creciente desilusión del público hacia las opiniones de los “expertos”.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet