Responsible research, inequality in science and epistemic injustice: an attempt to open up thinking about inclusiveness in the context of RI/RRI

ABSTRACT

Inclusiveness is a key theme in scholarship on Responsible Innovation (RI) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). RI/RRI researchers make a strong case for involving stakeholders into science and innovation processes. What they hitherto do not discuss is how to make science internally more inclusive and tackle barriers that prevent marginalised scholars from participating in knowledge production and societal meaning-making. With this Perspective essay, I attempt to open up thinking about inclusiveness in the context of RI/RRI by linking the discourses with scholarship on inequality and epistemic injustice in science. Critical philosophers, STS, feminist and post-colonial scholars concerned with these topics shed light on mechanisms of social and epistemic exclusion experienced by scientists and non-scientists alike. I argue that it is time to start an interdisciplinary conversation and consider an inward dimension of responsible research: a collective duty to care for diversity and address inequalities within the scientific field.

KEYWORDS:

• Responsible research and innovation
• inclusion
• inclusiveness
• inequality
• epistemic justice

Introduction

In recent years, the question of what constitutes responsible scientific practice has been widely debated under the headings of ‘Responsible Innovation’ (RI) and ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI). ¹ While the discourses on RI/RRI taking place in policy and academic circles differ in important aspects, both highlight the need to make science more inclusive and diverse (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2013; Loureiro and Conceição 2019; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). This need is justified with normative but also with substantive reasons (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012): Today’s societal challenges ‘ask for actions in which all planetary inhabitants are involved’ (Asveld and van Dam-Mieras 2017, 1). Integrating diverse perspectives in meaningful collaboration is deemed to be conducive for both the problem-solving and innovation potential of science (Jarmai and Vogel-Pöschl 2020). The question how this can be done with regard to different stakeholders and publics is extensively addressed. However, the question of how science as such can be made a more inclusive space of knowledge production has not yet been raised.

Inclusion in the context of RI/RRI is primarily presented as a matter of stakeholder involvement (cf. Fraaije and Flipse 2020; Valkenburg et al. 2020), but not as a matter that pertains to members within the scientific community. Inequality in science is largely neglected in RI/RRI discourses although it has significant effects on processes and outcomes of scientific knowledge production, particularly with regard to epistemic diversity. ²

With this Perspective essay, I attempt to open up thinking about inclusiveness in the context of responsible research, by linking the discourses on RI/RRI with scholarship on inequality and epistemic injustice in science. Highlighting discursive interfaces between these disconnected research communities, I argue for the need to enter into conversation and consider an inward dimension of responsible research: a responsibility to care for epistemic justice and diversity by recognising and addressing inequality in science.

Manifestations and explanations of inequality in science

Inequality in science has multiple facets. In the following, I put the focus on the dimensions of gender and geography, and take the RI/RRI community as an exemplary case to illustrate how gender and spatial inequalities manifest. ³

Mapping the RI/RRI landscape in terms of organisations, projects and persons involved, Timmermans (2017) came up with the following findings:

Overall, 14% more men are involved in the discourse than women. However, while the discourse is well balanced for the junior and mid-career levels, at the senior level there is a male over-representation with a ratio of two to one. (44)

And:

The persons involved in the discourse are affiliated to 246 different organisations. These organisations are based in 89 countries in six contents across the globe (…). The discourse is dominated, however, by the Western, especially European countries, which account for over 80% of the organisations. So, although RRI has a global outreach, certainly in its intentions and aims, the discourse largely is a European affair. (Timmermans 2017, 44)

This is true despite notable attempts by particular scholars to widen the discourse community and integrate Southern perspectives on RI/RRI (cf. Doezema et al. 2019; Macnaghten et al. 2014).

It is somewhat telling that the newly released ‘International Handbook on Responsible Innovation’ which claims to be ‘a truly global resource on the subject matter’ (von Schomberg and Hankins 2019, 1) shows typical imbalances in terms of authorship: 76% of the book’s contributors are male, 14% female. 50 out of 58 contributors, which amounts to 86%, are affiliated with organisations in Europe and North America. Of the eight authors working in non-Western countries (14%), four are affiliated with organisations in China, two with organisations in India and two with organisations in South Africa. Scholars from Latin America were not involved at all.

One could argue the Northern dominance is not surprising given the fact that the discourse was primarily triggered and driven forth by the European Commission’s science policy work. However, the concept of RRI is spreading across European borders and increasingly shapes international science cooperation (Doezema et al. 2019; Timmermans 2017). With that, it impacts on scholars and academic work across the world. Given its reach and the situated nature of knowledge (Haraway 1988), one could be concerned about the fact the related discourse is shaped by a small group of European scholars, of which those in the most powerful positions are predominantly men.

In terms of actor relations, the RI/RRI community displays typical patterns in academia which hardly change despite decades of equity programmes and efforts to support scientists in the Global South. Why do such inequalities persist?

Various strands of social sciences provide answers to this question. Feminist scholars highlight the multiple structural barriers and gendered practices that continue to diminish women’s chances of ascent in science (cf. Beaufaÿs and Krais 2005; Christian 2018; Fox, Whittington, and Linková 2017; Haraway 1988; Harding 1986; Sonnert and Holton 1995). STS scholars point to the lack of funding, infrastructure and manpower scientists in countries of the Global South are faced with, but they also show how international research collaboration practices reinforce their sub-ordinate positions (Beaudry, Mouton, and Prozesky 2018; Boshoff 2009; Mouton et al. 2008). For post-colonial and critical philosophers, the peripheral state of scholars in the South is not only a result of structural constraints, but also of epistemic Eurocentrism and a deliberate ignorance of non-Western knowledge accounts (de Sousa Santos 2014, 2018; Grosfoguel 2011; Mignolo 2002; wa Thiong'o 1986). In line with feminist scholars, they argue that academic institutions are unjust as they exclude and marginalise certain agents, with considerable effects for their chances to participate in knowledge production and societal meaning-making (cf. Harding 1998, 2006).

Challenging discursive disconnects

The research communities mentioned above provide rich insights on how epistemic in – and exclusion operates. While focussing on different marginalised groups, they share a common interest in increasing social and epistemic diversity in science – which is likewise a central concern of the RI/RRI community. It is therefore surprising to find that there seems to be hardly any dialogue, neither on inclusion nor related themes such as participation, diversity, representation, responsiveness and reflexivity. How can this mutual disregard be explained?

To some extent certainly with the fact that the scholarly debates take place in academic communities that are far apart from each other: the RI/RRI discourses are led primarily by European science scholars with a strong orientation towards policy, technology and innovation; the discourses on inequality/epistemic justice by philosophers, feminist and post-colonial theorists mainly from the United States, Latin America and Africa who fundamentally criticise prevailing societal relations. Members of these communities differ significantly with regard to their theories and methodologies, styles of communication and writing. Moreover, they have varying relations to the ‘field of power’ (Bourdieu 1998). RI/RRI scholars seem to be comparatively close to actors in decision-making spheres, with whom they share prime subjects of interest (science, technology and innovation). Feminist and postcolonial scholars, on the other hand, have less direct connections to these spheres, and their perspectives are rarely considered relevant in governance circles, if taken note of at all.

While the discursive disconnect between these communities is thus understandable, I argue that it is in place to turn attention to each other as I see their topics as inherently interlinked: Research cannot claim to be ‘responsible’ if it reproduces inequality or causes epistemic injustice. A cross-fertilisation of expertise on these issues would be mutually enriching, particularly with regard to the theme of inclusion, which is not only about stakeholder involvement, as the RI/RRI literature currently implies.

Critical philosophers, feminist and post-colonial scholars shed light on a blind spot of RI/RRI scholarship, namely epistemic marginalisation within science. They show how the latter is experienced and practiced even when formal participation is granted – for instance, when the accomplishments of female scientists and faculty of colour are latently devalued and attributed to chance rather than to competence (cf. Settles et al. 2020); when non-mainstream epistemologies and theories from the South are systematically neglected (cf. Connell 2007); or when manuscripts are rejected as they do not include the ‘right’ references (i.e. do not refer to the literature produced at scientific centres in the Global North, cf. Goitom 2019). Such research reveals epistemic dominances that impede the integration of diverse perspectives which the RI/RRI community promotes. It highlights mechanisms of epistemic exclusion which affect scientists and non-scientists alike. RI/RRI could utilise this knowledge to rethink what inclusiveness means in the context of responsible research.

Rethinking inclusiveness in the context of responsible research

RI/RRI scholars have argued for an ethos of care as part of responsible research (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012), emphasising scientists’ ‘responsibility to care for the body of knowledge that societies can tap into for solving societal problems both today and in the future’ (Felt et al. 2018). In my view, this responsibility implies to tackle inequalities in the community which produces this knowledge.

The idea I want to put forward here is an inward dimension of responsibility as part of RI/RRI based on the premise that scientists have a collective duty to care for diversity and address inequalities within the scientific field. The arguments underlying this claim are similar to those legitimating stakeholder inclusion: science must not be exclusive as it is a central public institution with considerable influence on all members of society; and coping with societal challenges requires the pooling of epistemic resources of actors with diverse experiences from different contexts (cf. Dübgen 2020; Grasswick 2017). Consequently, reflexivity in science also demands to raise and grapple with critical questions concerning the system we are part of and constitute: To what extent do prevailing structures allow for social and epistemic diversity in our research fields? (How) do we (unintentionally) perpetuate inequalities through citing and ‘conferencing’, peer-review and collaboration practices? Does responsible research presuppose ‘affirmative action’ to remove such inequalities and strengthen actors that are hitherto marginalised?

A reflection on such questions in the context of RI/RRI is, in my view, overdue and especially needed now: The pandemic caused by COVID-19 is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities in academia, as already visible in decreased article submission rates of women since the beginning of the crisis (Andersen et al. 2020). Scholars with care responsibilities and academics in the Global South in precarious employment conditions are now at risk of being further left behind (Reidpath 2020; Staniscuaski et al. 2020).

Counteracting a deepening of inequalities seems necessary also in light of on-going developments at the level of EU science governance. In its ‘vision for Europe’, the European Commission (EC) formulates the goal of making science ‘open to the world’: ‘Openness to and engagement with the world is a strategic priority for Europe to produce the very best science and technology (…), to solve global societal challenges and to have a leading voice in global debates and developments’ (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2016, 78). Therefore, the EC envisages building a ‘Global Research Area where researchers and innovators are able to work together smoothly with colleagues worldwide’ (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2016, 68). If one wants to prevent that such a space is again dominated by a few, it needs to be discussed how such an area can become an inclusive space of collective knowledge production.

The time for such a discussion is opportune insofar as RI/RRI scholarship currently enters a new phase of theorising and rethinking what counts as responsible research and innovation (Fisher 2020). RI/RRI scholars emphasise the value of open and inclusive dialogue in the governance of science, technology and innovation. It would certainly be fruitful to practice the same in the process of advancing RI/RRI by integrating scholars from (even more) diverse disciplinary, cultural and geographical contexts. The fact that RI/RRI are still ‘discourses in the making’ (Owen and Pansera 2019, 28) offers this chance, and it should be taken in order to make RI/RRI concepts that live up to their own principles.

Acknowledgements

The ground for this essay was laid at the HERRS Summer School ‘Responsible Innovation Cultures’ (Munich Center for Technology in Society, October 2019), and I want to thank the organisers, contributors and participants for providing food for thought and encouragement to realise this paper. I also thank an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Susanne Koch is a post-doc researcher and lecturer at the Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy of the Technical University of Munich (Germany), and a research associate of the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University (South Africa). Holding a PhD in sociology, her current research focuses on the (re-) production of knowledge inequality and epistemic injustice in science. Adopting an interdisciplinary research perspective, she draws on sociology of science, feminist theory, post-colonial scholarship and critical philosophy to understand why unequal relations persist and which epistemic effects they have, particularly in environment – and forest-related research fields.

Notes

1 Owen and Pansera (2019) highlight shared features as well as important differences between the discourses on RI and RRI. I will treat them collectively in this article, referring to RI/RRI.

2 Although gender equality is one of the European Commission’s RRI keys, it has rarely been taken up in the academic discourses on RI/RRI (Loureiro and Conceição 2019; Timmermans 2017).

3 Aside from gender and place, socially ascribed categories of difference such as social class, ethnicity and race have been shown to impact on researchers’ position, recognition and career prospects in science (Hess et al. 2017).