‘There is nothing nano-specific here’: a reconstruction of the different understandings of responsiveness in responsible nanotechnology innovation

ABSTRACT

In the past decades, controversies in science and technology have fuelled the call for a research and innovation system that is open to public scrutiny and sensitive to public needs and values. These calls have been translated into a framework for responsible research and innovation (RRI). Despite its crucial role in RRI, the dimension of responsiveness is still considered to be the least conceptualized. In this paper, we analyse the mutual search for the meaning of `responsiveness' during a multi-stakeholder dialogue on responsiveness in nanotechnology innovation. We reconstructed five frames of responsiveness: science and technology, market, expert, network, and society-driven responsiveness. We highlighted and reflected on the three main strategies for dealing with differences: avoidance, polarization, and reframing. On the basis of our findings, we argue that in order to generate a collective meaning of responsiveness with a clear direction, conversations are needed in which fundamental assumptions can be questioned.

KEYWORDS:

• Responsiveness
• framing
• RRI
• nanotechnology
• public engagement

Introduction

In the past few decades, controversies in science and technology have fuelled the call for a research and innovation system that is open to public scrutiny and sensitive to public needs and values. A more nuanced view has been called for regarding the relationship between science, technology, and society, a view that does not automatically equate science and technology with societal progress and prosperity and acknowledges that scientific and technological expertise alone will not find the answers to the global challenges we are currently facing (Felt et al. 2007; Nowotny 2003; Stirling 2007).

In line with such a view, scholars and policymakers have advocated for more democratic forms of scientific governance – forms that require deliberation among both scientific and societal actors to inform decisions on research and innovation (R&I) (Irwin 2006; Jasanoff 2003; Stirling 2008). They emphasize that setting purposes and directions for R&I has never been a neutral endeavour and inherently involves political questions and value-loaded decisions (Lekka-Kowalik 2010; Sarewitz 2015). Instead of denying the influence of political forces in R&I, these scholars and policymakers call for R&I governance processes that are open ‘to a broader range of voices and ensure that the role of values is visible’ (Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor 2017, 362).

At the European level, these calls have been translated into a framework called responsible research and innovation (RRI) (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). Although it is now a frequently used term in the EU policy-making world, RRI is still very much a concept in the making (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2016). Its boundaries are not clearly delineated and people have different opinions about what RRI should mean in practice. Generally speaking, RRI builds on the assumption that timely exploration and evaluation of the potential impacts of R&I by a wide range of actors (including lay citizens, NGO representatives, industry representatives, researchers, policymakers, etcetera) will lead to outcomes and scientific products that are more (1) ethically acceptable, (2) sustainable, and (3) societally desirable (von Schomberg 2012). The literature commonly refers to four interconnected process dimensions that should inform an RRI approach: (1) inclusion, (2) anticipation, (3) reflexivity, and (4) responsiveness (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2016; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013).

The last-mentioned dimension is particularly crucial as it represents the translation of the other three principles into practice. Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013, 1572) describe the term as R&I’s ability to change its course of action in response to ‘stakeholder and public values and changing circumstances’ or in response to ‘new knowledge as this emerges and to emerging perspectives, views and norms’. One can include, anticipate, and reflect, but without subsequent action, nothing will change the shaping of R&I agendas, policies, and processes. One could argue that without responsiveness, there is no RRI (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). Yet it is exactly this dimension that seems most difficult to integrate in practice. In Europe, many experiments with reflexive, participative, and anticipatory activities have been launched in the past 20 years, but all too often these have remained disconnected from actual work and decision-making processes in the R&I system (Braun and Könninger 2018; Emery, Mulder, and Frewer 2015; Fisher and Maricle 2015; Hagendijk and Irwin 2006; Lehoux, Miller, and Williams-Jones 2020).

Despite its crucial role in RRI and the need to pay attention to it in practice, responsiveness is still considered to be the least conceptualized RRI dimension in the literature (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2016; Li, Owen, and Simakova 2015; Nielsen 2016) and therefore particularly prone to conceptual ambiguity. The effects of such ambiguity have raised concerns more generally. Although the open-ended nature of RRI is seen as a crucial characteristic that fuels discussion and allows for the implementation of the concept in different contexts, social science and humanity scholars also caution that RRI and its dimensions, such as responsiveness, may remain hollow terms (i.e. broad notions that everyone seems to ascribe to, but when further conceptualized or fleshed out in practice, turn out to mean little in terms of making R&I governance more democratic) (Felt et al. 2007; Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor 2017; Irwin 2006; Rip 2016). We therefore argue that we need continuous scholarly discussion on RRI and its dimensions. However, since various scholars have noted the relatively little attention that is paid to actual science and practitioner perspectives on RRI (Carrier and Gartzlaff 2019; De Jong et al. 2015; Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor 2017; van Hove and Wickson 2017), we suggest that such discussions should more actively invite voices from these communities. After all, in order to instil change in the R&I system, RRI scholars and policymakers alike will need to attend to the concept’s resonance and interpretations among all those who are asked to adjust their practices.

For this reason, we organized a multi-stakeholder dialogue in the context of a European RRI project, NANO2ALL, on nanotechnology that aimed to collectively reflect on the meaning of responsiveness in the context of nanotechnology R&I and to formulate actions that should be undertaken to accomplish such responsiveness in practice. In RRI literature it is noted that the meaning of RRI and its dimensions need to be sufficiently coherent in order to remain purposeful, and sufficiently flexible for its applicability in different contexts (Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor 2017). However, there is still much unclarity about the right balance between flexibility and coherence in practice. As a first step of getting more insight in this matter, in this paper, we explore the processes of constructing and negotiating meanings of responsiveness that unfolded in the multi-stakeholder dialogue as a case study of ‘translating RRI-in-theory’ into ‘RRI-in-practice’ (Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor 2017, 14). We do not aim to give an account of the output of the NANO2ALL project, nor to give advice on how the trajectory of nanotechnology innovation should be modulated, yet we aim to scrutinize the dynamics in deliberating the meaning of responsiveness in order to enable drawing implications for the reflexive capital that RRI calls for (van Oudheusden 2014; Owen et al. 2013).

Our approach is twofold. First, we reconstruct five frames of responsiveness that we recognized throughout the dialogue conversations. Our notion of frames is inspired by that of Schön and Rein (1995, 23), who understand frames as the ‘underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation’ on which policy positions rest. Second, because the ways in which participants frame and reframe responsiveness in negotiation processes has important implications for the change processes that RRI has in view, we look into how the different understandings of responsiveness were negotiated and shaped throughout the dialogue event. Inspired by Dewulf and Bouwen (2012), we did this by tracking how the participating stakeholders dealt with differences in issue framing that emerged in conversations on responsiveness in responsible nanotechnology innovation. After all, when differences in the framing of responsiveness emerge, the strategies to deal with these differences form important but mostly implicit steps in the change process (ibid.). While the meaning of the appropriate change is at stake during these interactions, we found a dynamic that mostly resulted in participants brushing over key differences. Dealing with difference constructively is difficult as these differences emerge at almost any time and the decisions on how to respond to them have to be made instantly (ibid.). As we consider it crucial that both the different interpretations become more clearly articulated, as well as more éxplicitly negotiated, to open up the science and innovation system to a broader range of voices, we look at both articulation and negotation of frames.

Methods

Our paper is based on a case study approach that combined qualitative methods, such as observation and discourse analysis, to study the construction and negotiation of the meaning of responsiveness. First, we elaborate on our case (i.e. the NANO2ALL dialogue event) and its setting and subsequently we outline our approach to data collection and analysis.

Case description

The European multi-stakeholder dialogue event that is central to this study was part of the NANO2ALL project, funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme for research and innovation. This 3.5-year project aimed to put responsible research at the core of its methodology and aspired to contribute to a climate of dialogue and engagement in nanotechnology R&I processes (NANO2ALL 2018). Part of the project encompassed the organization of various dialogue events across Europe and Israel, using a three-phase dialogue approach. The European multi-stakeholder dialogue was the final event and was preceded by two rounds of dialogue in six different countries: France, Italy, Israel, Poland, Spain, and Sweden.

The NANO2ALL’s European multi-stakeholder dialogue took place on 9 April 2018 in Brussels. The dialogue was attended by 29 participants (15 men, 14 women) with different professional profiles. They worked in nanoscience (n = 4; P. 1 – P. 4), policy (n = 7; P. 5 – P. 11), had an intermediary profile (n = 8; P. 12 – P. 19), such as media actor, ethicist, social scientist, researcher in technology assessment, participated as a general citizen in one of the previous national dialogues (Israel) (n = 1; P. 20), worked for an NGO (n = 1; P. 21), or in industry (n = 8; P. 22 – P. 29).

It was a full-day event that consisted of two plenary sessions opening and closing the programme and four main activities in smaller groups of around six participants. The two morning activities had an explorative character and invited participants to reflect – in groups – on the meaning of the term responsiveness in the context of nanotechnology R&I. Visualized narratives, based on stories created by participants in NANO2ALL’s citizen dialogues, were used to enrich these discussions (see Figure 1). The two core afternoon activities worked towards the formulation of recommendations. During these afternoon activities, participants were first clustered into groups of people with relatively similar professional profiles, after which these groups were mixed. A team of facilitators guided the activities (including this paper’s first, second, and fourth authors).

Figure 1. Example of a visualized narrative, based on output from NANO2ALL’s citizen dialogues.

The day was concluded by a plenary session in which several of the main lessons learned, and recommendations for the European Commission were shared with the participants (see Table 1 for a detailed overview of the dialogue design). After the dialogue session, the organization (including authors one, two, and four) summarized and analysed the dialogue outcomes, discussed it with the project consortium and after drafted a policy note for the EC on the basis of the outcomes, analysis and responses. This policy note listed six broad themes, each with ideas for actions and initiatives that could be stimulated, funded, promoted, and/or facilitated by the European Commission to make the nanotechnology research and innovation system more responsive by fostering: (1) a culture of collaboration and transparency, (2) a participatory culture, (3) a culture of trust, (4) a scientific culture, (5) a culture of safety, and (6) a culture of learning (Annex 1). More detailed information on each of the themes and the dialogue event itself can be found in NANO2ALL (2018).

Table 1. Overview of the dialogue design.

Exercise	Aim	Questions that we asked the participants
Morning programme – Exploring responsiveness
Introduction (plenary)	Playfully getting to know each other and getting acquainted with the NANO2ALL project, RRI, the dialogue programme, and the concept of responsiveness	What did you want to become as a child? What comes to mind first when hearing the word ‘responsiveness’? (colour/image/words/experience)
1. Envisioning responsiveness (heterogeneous groups)	Exploring the meaning of responsiveness in two contrasting future worlds; using Lego Serious Play, pencils and paper.	What would responsiveness look like in this world? What principles of responsiveness can you distinguish when looking at what you’ve built together? What two principles do you personally find most important?
2. Contextualizing responsiveness (heterogeneous groups)	Exploring the meaning of responsiveness in futuristic nanotechnology application contexts by using visualized citizen narratives of the future.	What is happening in this visual narrative? What makes you think so? What do your most important principles mean in this specific nano-tech application context? (Specify the what, who, when, how, and why.)
Afternoon programme – Working towards recommendations
3. Barriers to responsiveness (homogenous groups)	Mapping barriers that participants experience when trying to put responsiveness principles into practice; rephrasing barriers into the conditions that are needed for change.	What are the barriers for bringing the responsiveness principles into practice? o Can you describe the barrier in detail? o What are the barrier’s subcomponents? o For whom is this a barrier? And in what way? What would it take to create change on this issue?
4. Roles, responsibilities, and actions (heterogeneous groups)	Mapping the actions, roles, and responsibilities of the different stakeholder groups on a collective action map.	What can you do yourself to enhance responsiveness in nanotechnology research and innovation? What can others do to enhance responsiveness in nanotechnology research and innovation? o In what time frame should the action be executed? o How should the action be supported or enforced? Does everyone agree with the assigned actions? Why yes/no?
Recommendations and reflection (plenary)		Out of the things you heard today, what has real meaning for you? What recommendation would you like to give to the European Commission?

Data collection

To scrutinize our multi-stakeholder dialogue, different methods were employed and various forms of data were collected. The plenary and group conversations of the dialogue session were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The first author and two NANO2ALL team members took detailed notes of direct observations throughout the dialogue session. The table hosts (which included the second and fourth authors) also reported their experiences immediately after each core exercise, highlighting any observation that stood out for them. The first author kept a logbook in which she collected specific observations of the preparation and processing phase.

Data analysis

The data was analysed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding using MAXQDA. The first two authors started with a discourse analysis of the transcripts by using open coding that stayed close to the text. Attention was focused on the perspectives on science, society, and responsiveness, as well as on the interaction patterns visible in the text. Inductive content analysis of the observational logbooks was used to triangulate this analysis.

In the next step, the work of Schön and Rein (1995) on frame reflection and that of Grin and van de Graaf (1996) on frames of meaning were taken as starting points for the thematic coding into frame elements. The structures of belief, perception, and appreciation were analysed and the analysis made a distinction between first-order discourse (participants’ assessment of solutions and problems) and second-order discourse (articulation of their values and preferences regarding the social order of society).

Iteration of individual coding performed by the first three authors, team discussion about how the individual researches coded the data, in which also the implicit steps were made explicit and shared among each other as much as possible, and subsequent collaborative refinement of the coding scheme led to the reconstruction of several distinct frames of responsiveness. Each frame consists of five dimensions that inform the ways in which problems are defined and which solutions are deemed appropriate and effective within the particular frame: (i) view of science (in society), (ii) view of citizens/public, (iii) view of government, (iv) epistemology, and (v) view of responsiveness. Theoretical knowledge of STS and classical distinctions developed in the philosophy of science guided the team discussions, and their interaction with the data. The discussions led to the extrapolation of these five STS related dimensions as it was deduced that with regard to these five STS concepts, the points of view of stakeholders significantly differed.

As we aimed to showcase not only the diversity of frames of responsiveness, but also how participants continuously frame and reframe issues in anticipation of and reaction to other people’s framing, in a final step the work of Dewulf and Bouwen (2012) was taken as the starting point for thematic coding into framing interactions. These authors explored how conversation partners deal with differences in frames and distinguished five discursive interaction strategies: frame incorporation (reworking the meaning of an element of another frame to fit it into one’s own frame), frame disconnection (sidetracking a challenging element as irrelevant for the present conversation), frame polarization (reaffirming and upgrading one’s own issue framing), frame accommodation (reformulating a downgraded version of one’s own issue framing to preserve coherence), and frame reconnection (reconnecting frames indirectly).

Analysis of participants’ discursive framing interactions was combined with the analysis of the reconstructed frames done in the previous step. Iteration between individual coding performed by the first three authors, team discussion of data, and collaborative refinement of the coding scheme led to the articulation of several interaction strategies regarding framing responsiveness.

Results

Our interpretative analysis of the processes of constructing and negotiating the meaning of responsiveness resulted in various outputs. In this section, we first outline the five reconstructed frames of responsiveness that we recognized in the dialogue session and subsequently highlight three dominant interaction strategies that participants employed to deal with differences in framing. Lastly, we reflect on how these different framings and dominant interaction strategies informed the recommendations to the EC (see Annex 1).

Frames of responsiveness

In the interpretative analysis of our dialogue discussions, we reconstructed five distinct frames of responsiveness: science and technology-driven responsiveness; market-driven responsiveness; expert-driven responsiveness; network responsiveness; and society-driven responsiveness. These five frames of responsiveness did not present themselves in the dialogue conversations as static and clearly delineated views. Instead, they represent ‘ideal type’ understandings, which functioned as dynamic interpretative devices for participants to use to both grasp and shape the concept of responsiveness.

Frames did not map one-on-one to particular individuals or actor groups in the dialogue; individuals would often reason from multiple frames, shifting their frame position depending on the specific conversational interaction they were part of. However, actor groups did show general tendencies to move beyond two or three frames. The group of scientists and industry-related actors focused more dominantly on the ‘science and technology-driven responsiveness’ frame and the ‘market-driven responsiveness’ frame, and at times the ‘expert-driven responsiveness’ frame. Policy actors seemed to draw more easily from the ‘expert-driven’ and ‘network’ frames, and the NGO actor predominantly pushed the ‘society-driven’ frame. In the intermediary group, we did not observe such pronounced tendencies, which may be related to the wide range of actors that was considered to be part of this group. Below, we outline each of the five frames in more detail.

Science and technology-driven responsiveness

Within this frame, scientific and technological development is seen first and foremost as progress that should not be hampered by outside intervention at all, or this should at least be kept to a minimum. For their own sake and because they are ignorant of the extent of the relevant processes, outside actors, such as citizens, but also policymakers and funders, should be kept as much as possible out of any process that is involved in determining the direction of scientific and technological development. Outsiders are often deemed incapable of understanding science and technology well enough to make a relevant contribution to discussions about its desirability. It is considered that the general public ‘does not understand risk’ (P.3, scientist), is easily affected by hype or by conspiracies such as the ‘flat earth theory’ (P.15, intermediary), and is easily manipulated by the media. Also, members of the public often respond impulsively to exaggerated and unrealistic stories about the impacts of new technologies. Citizens (might) have a right to be informed, but this should be organized as a transmission in which they are passive recipients of the new scientific and technological possibilities. Asking them about technologies that they do not understand will only result in ‘diffuse fears’ (P.1, scientist). These views seem to be underpinned by a strong belief that science not only offers the best solution to scientific and technological problems but also to normative and practical ones (scientism).

Responsiveness is understood in two complementary ways. First of all, it is an internal concern for scientists and engineers. The value of the (outcomes of) scientific work, and of technology, are dependent on the quality of the research conducted. This quality can only be ensured through having clear quality standards by which ‘good’ can be distinguished from ‘bad’ science. Only (good) scientists and engineers have the knowledge needed to judge developments and understand possible downsides.

P3 (scientist): Responsiveness is to clean up the area from all different tests, all different results. They have to talk to each other; they have to harmonize it. And the usual system for harmonizing – working together – should be installed in subcommittees and so on. But this is now a mess. This is a mess. […] So, we need to improve quality and standardization.

Secondly, people whose role is outside the realm of science merely play a passive role in being ready – for their own sake – to adapt to the progress that comes with scientific and technological development. The role of governing bodies in this is to facilitate scientific and technological development and the process of societal adaptation for emerging technologies and/or new knowledge. This also includes making ‘the science facts count in decision making, law making and all […] basically create an environment in which science matters again’ (P. 6, policy).

Market-driven responsiveness

Another conception of responsiveness is rooted in a market-oriented view of science and technology. In such a framework, the value of science and technology is narrowly understood as its economic value. Justifying a new technology then follows a simple rationale: a new technology such as a smartphone has proven to be valuable because consumers are interested in buying it. In some instances, the rationale moves beyond the value of a specific product to consumers and instead stresses an inherent – and more general – connection between science and innovation on the one hand and the growth of GDPs (i.e. gross domestic products) on the other. Staying ahead of competitors in the global market economy then becomes the main justification for investing in science and technology. Following this line of reasoning, regulatory restrictions become a threat to maintaining or finding one’s position in the global market competition. One participant, for example, remarked:

P 16 (intermediary): I think we will be more followers than leaders in the next 20 years in the global scene. It has to do I think with restrictions that we are setting for ourselves at the moment. […] There is an increase of scientific illiteracy here, and a fear of a lot of technological innovations, which will probably slow down advances. Other countries don’t have those, and you know they are punching out engineers and scientists at a much higher rate from their universities as well. And we see now that South East Asia is advancing at a far greater pace economically, socially, but also in terms of technology.

Responsiveness within this frame acquires a specific meaning. Citizens are consumers who express their approval or disapproval through their consumer behaviour. The question of whether nano-baby suits, one of the cases considered in round 2, are acceptable to the public boils down to the comment that ‘if they don’t like it, they don’t buy it’ (P.9, policy). Viewed from this frame, the market is inherently responsive to societal perspectives.

P. 28 (industry):

if they [industry] cannot sell their product, they get the message. So, they will react.

Facilitator:

so basically, it seems like you are saying business and industry are a little bit more responsive by nature.

P. 28 (industry):

of course […] they need to be … if they are not responsive, they will fade away from the market.

The government’s task is to protect the conditions that are needed for the market to flourish.

Expert-driven responsiveness

Within this framework, scientific knowledge is also seen as a privileged form of knowledge: it is objective and factual and thus gives the best representation that is currently possible of the world out there (positivism). In this sense, policies should, preferably, be based on scientific quantified knowledge such as risk assessments. In this frame, however, there is also an important role for societal actors, meaning that the role extends beyond that of the consumer. In order to properly assess the direction of scientific and technological development, it is crucial to also involve values, that is, citizens’ understanding of what is of value and how values need to be prioritized. Thus, both (scientific) facts and (societal) values are considered relevant for R&I governance, yet a clear fact–value divide is kept in place, that is, experts provide facts and societal actors bring in values.

The fact–value divide has implications for how responsiveness is understood in this specific frame. Generally, this frame acknowledges that science and technology need to be responsive to the societal value system, although facts are prioritized over values. This is translated into experts assessing risks and potential impacts and society subsequently judging the acceptability of these. Science and technology actors should be in constant dialogue with society, that is, with citizens or politicians. However, these conversations need to be based on facts, which can only be provided by people who actually understand science and technology, that is, the experts themselves. They need to provide the framework and problem definitions as the context in which the discussion about values can be held. Citizens are only potentially capable of making valuable contributions. Participants who speak and think from this frame tend to consider non-scientists as irrational – not sufficiently ‘fact-oriented’ (P. 26, industry) – when it comes to assessing risks and therefore in need of being educated about the facts before making (value) judgments.

In this frame, there are different levels of the feedback loop that runs from society to science and technology and back. At one end of the scale is the direct input of well-educated citizens:

P.11 (policy): yeah of course, I mean if they [citizens] know what we are talking about, they are able to have an opinion. If they know nothing, they cannot even say a word about that. Maybe the solution is not that they all go to university, ok, that’s right, but maybe you can introduce scientific issues in different levels of education

At the other end of the scale is the outsourcing of the contributions of values, to politics and representative democracy (i.e. public value experts): P. 2 (science): ‘So the civil society that we try to find today, where are they? Well, they are in parliament okay, already. The national parliament with political debate, with [ethical?] strategy’.

Network responsiveness

The notion of network responsiveness is part of a frame in which what counts as (scientific) knowledge or as a (scientific) fact is the effect of a network consisting of both scientific and societal actors (actor–network theory) (Latour 1987). In a similar vein, what counts as responsible research and innovation is the result of the interaction of a diversity of actors such as funders, citizens, scientists, and others who constantly build and rebuild relations. The frame can be characterized by the absence of a clear or stable division of duties, identities, and roles. Somebody with a non-science background might be just as likely to be considered an expert in such a network as somebody working as a scientific researcher. Roles and identities depend on the shape of the network, that is, on the questions being asked and the relations being built.

Responsiveness within this frame is not stable; it circulates through the network and is in constant need of being reinforced. When thinking and speaking from this frame, participants in the workshop reflected on the mutual character of responsiveness that exists among different actors – highlighting the importance of ‘translation’ between ‘the needs from one group to a response of another’ (P.9, policy) and sensitivity to the ‘entire ecosystem’ and the ‘environment’ (P.6, policy):

P.6 (policy): Also see what is going on in regard to a change in [the] environment – and that could be a political change, that could be a climate change – and then react to that one, respond to that, and then actually enforce an action.

Participants emphasized the complexities of organizing responsiveness or acting in a responsive way in a ‘connected world’. Taking this connectedness into account, responsiveness is not ‘linear’ but ‘360 degrees’. In more concrete terms, it was said that with the introduction of new ‘technology’, a lot of ‘new parties are introduced that get some responsibility’ and then it is not always clear ‘what the role of the different parties is’.

Society-driven responsiveness

The frame of society-driven responsiveness can best be understood as a critical response to the expert-driven frame that has been dominant in scientists’ understanding of public engagement. Instead of having a strict separation between facts and values, which occurs within the expert-driven responsiveness framework, this frame is shaped by the pragmatist view that such a separation is not possible (Dewey 1927). Neither scientific knowledge nor other forms of knowledge can be neutral. Knowledge is always value laden. Also, values are not stable – they are in flux, changing meaning depending on the (socio-technological) context in which they arise (Swierstra, Stemerding, and Boenink 2009).

Two pragmatist views lie at the core of this frame. The first is the belief that the value of science and technology is determined by its usefulness for society. The second is the view that the public – which needs to be engaged – consists of the people who are (in)directly affected by the consequences of a new science or technology (Dewey 1927). Departing from these core beliefs, responsiveness revolves around ‘taking into account the needs and concerns of society’ (P. 8, policy). This does not involve starting engagement processes that fit with the definitions of problems provided by scientists; instead, the starting point is the concerns, perceptions, and needs of citizens that are defined by citizens. For example, a participant thinking and speaking from the perspective of this frame called for ‘a people’s agenda for science’ during one of the table discussions. Other participants pleaded for ‘challenge-led forms of engagement’ (i.e. P. 13, 14 16, intermediaries; and p. 21, CSO) and challenge-led funding of engagement to allow for more ‘contextualized debates’ about emerging technologies and more emphasis on the ‘expertise of citizens’, who know all about the societal context in which a new technology may be used in the future. One participant explained:

P. 13 (intermediary): Because now the funding [of engagement] is often […] related to for example nanotechnology or bio, synthetic biology, and we think there is indeed more support for public debates that are less focused on particular technologies but more on the way that technologies can contribute to problems that the society has to resolve.

Reasoning from this frame of responsiveness, important questions about emerging technologies then turn into questions such as ‘do we need it?’ or ‘how could technology or innovation serve us in dealing with these [societal] challenges?’ (P. 13, intermediary).

Being responsive in this frame also means acting on societal input, that is, ‘You need to give them [citizens] the feeling that they can change something’ (P. 7, policy). Another participant remarked: ‘They [citizens] should know that they have power. And that someone ís interested in their opinion and not just áfter the facts’ (P. 14, intermediary).

Participants speaking from this frame mostly referred to societal influence via agenda-setting and co-steering of science and technology funding, although some also mentioned the potential of citizens to comment and advise on ongoing research and innovation processes (for example by providing feedback on innovations under development or sharing opinions on research processes, such as the use of animal experiments).

Framing interactions

Above mentioned frames are by no means static schemes. In order to gain more insight in how they reshape one and other, we also looked into the interactive process through which they are contested and negotiated. This is important as it contributes to a more detailed understanding of the contested elements within the described frames of responsiveness. The most apparent framing differences concerned the society driven on the one hand and the science and technology driven, and expert driven on the other. The frame elements on which these differences revolved were as follows: (1) their image of the public and the value given to and the justification of the public’s contribution to the dialogue on (nano)technology, for example seeing the public as being ‘ignorant’, ‘not critical’, ‘dangerously sceptical’, ‘too indifferent’, or ‘knowledgeable’. And, consequently, (2) the type of dialogue that is justified, for example ‘dealing with spontaneous public dialogue’ and ‘designing a conversation with a technically informed public’ in order to ‘steer public perceptions’, ‘help science move forward’, or ‘take up societal challenges’. And, lastly, (3) the image of science as value-free or intertwined. At times, conversation partners remained unaware of the differences in their respective frames, but, more often, differences in frames led to conflict. We identified three main strategies to manage these conflicts: avoidance, polarization, and reframing.

Conflict avoidance

When trying to avoid conflict, three discursive interactions stood out. Participants (a) focused on a common ‘enemy’; (b) blurred the conflict; or (c) simply ignored the conflicting element. With regard to the first element, a shortage of money and lack of time are two common enemies that almost every stakeholder group can relate to. Several of the participants demonstrated this mutual understanding. The journalist participant noted that (P. 15, intermediary) ‘we are lacking the resources we need to better collaborate and understand what is going on. Years ago, media had money to do investigative journalism; this is very rare nowadays because there is no money in the whole media industry to do that.’ And the industry practitioner (P. 23, industry) said, ‘If you are in a small company, it is fairly obvious that lack of resources is an issue. But if you find yourself in a big company, to your surprise it is exactly the same situation. It’s just when you get very close to being profitable on the project, then you can have lots of resources.’ Similarly, the policy researcher (P. 6, policy) commented: ‘We are now asking the researchers to individually sell their research and that means that as a researcher obviously you [exaggerate expectations] to get millions of funding.’

At times, the focus on a common enemy clearly avoided the exploration of conflict, for instance in the second round. In this round, participants were asked to contextualize their principles of responsiveness (decided on in the first round) to a visualized narrative that was based on some of the output of NANO2ALL’s citizen dialogues (see Figure 1). In this conversation, there were two clearly conflicting views on the right approach to public engagement with science. The conflict was as follows: one participant (P. 6, policy) argued for an engagement approach in which ‘experts are used to discuss what really can be a thing [before involving the public]’ (expert driven frame), and the other (P. 21, CSO) argued for ‘dialogue framing in terms of what do we want to have in society – instead of – what to do with this technology’ (society driven frame). The difference between their views was not discussed as they focused on a common enemy, which was in this case the exercise. Both participants focused on what they considered to be flaws in the design. For instance, they noted, respectively, that ‘[w]e just learn that we don’t ask the citizen’ and that ‘we seem to have an observation that framing in terms of technology is a very stupid idea’. The other conversation partners also criticized the design, but the differences in their preferred frames were overlooked in this conversation.

Secondly, conflicts were avoided by blurring the conversation. Comments about ‘transparency’ and ‘trust’ were valuable tools for doing this. An ambiguous discourse prevents the exploration of the differences in views on the science and technology system. As one participant noted:

(P. 25, industry) This is a bit of the risk when we follow this path [public engagement]. We have this term, we have to address – societal needs – and if you ask, all researchers will tell you: We address societal needs. […] We have different views on how to address these societal needs. But everyone thinks he or she does it.

Finally, on many occasions, participants avoided conflicts by ignoring and not responding to someone else’s statement and introducing a totally different topic or question. At times, also facilitators used this strategy to avoid conflict between others.

Polarization

When polarizing conflict, participants kept repeating their perspective, inflating their statements in the process and at the same time dismissing the point that had been reasoned about from another frame. One issue that was repeated and dismissed numerous times throughout the entire dialogue was the (lack of) focus on nanotechnology. For instance, in the plenary opening session, one participant (P.1, scientist) asked the facilitator ‘What is your definition of nanotechnology?’. The question was responded to with a joke: ‘I will talk to you about that over lunch’, which was followed by laughter. In the plenary closing session, one participant noted his displeasure that ‘there is nothing nano-specific here [in the recommendations that are drawn]’; again, this was followed by laughter from the group and the question of the facilitator: ‘What does that imply?’. The participant responded by saying that only generic and communication policies are stressed and wondered if there were specific nanotechnology issues they could discuss. This conflict was settled by another participant (P.21, CSO) saying: ‘It is not bad that it is general. It’s because it is almost universal.’

During the dialogue, the question of nanotechnologies’ value in a responsive governance system was not examined closely. The conflicting views on the place of (nano) technology in RRI were polarized by their dismissal as a conversation topic every time they were brought up. For some, the fundamental view that responsiveness in science governance should not be technology driven but society driven, led to an attempt to prevent a nano specific conversation in its entirety.

Similar polarization occurred regarding the image of the public. This is illustrated by the following excerpt from the fourth round. The participants discussed the public’s understanding of science in light of a need for ‘a scientific culture in society’. One participant (P. 15, intermediary) regarded the public as illiterate and had a positivist worldview: ‘[T]hey [the public] don’t see the difference between facts and fiction. There are a lot of people who don’t know very much about how the world is in fact’, whereas another (P. 21, CSO) had a high regard for the public and had a more pragmatist view: ‘I don’t know whether scientists know how the world works as well’. The first participant repeatedly tried to convince the second using the example of people who do not vaccinate their children; however, this example was repeatedly dismissed:

P15 (intermediary):

Let me come with an example. I wrote an article about the earth being flat, and I wouldn’t have believed that the same evening on the national television they have found a flat earther, who defended that the world was flat.

P21 (CSO):

I don’t see that these sorts of things influence people, ordinary people, massively.

P15 (intermediary):

A concrete example is, for example, the vaccine debate.

P21(CSO):

Yeah, I know the vaccine stuff.

P15(intermediary):

Denmark has gone from 92% coverage to 80, in 2 yrs. And that was because there was a doubt about it.

P21(CSO):

I understand about all that.

P15(intermediary):

Only based on mythical information, no statistics, no concrete information, and suddenly there are 100s of young girls who get side-effects.

P21(CSO):

I understand that one.

We also observed this polarization between different group conversations. This stood out in the third round of the dialogue in which participants worked in relatively homogeneous stakeholder groups. Actors from science and industry mostly focused on ‘safety measures and popularizing “natural sciences”’, and actors with an intermediary background in RRI mostly focused on ‘public engagement methods and European funding’. Also, within this homogeneous constellation, participants sometimes dismissed other actor groups entirely. For instance, one participant noted: ‘I think I like this more than the mixed group. They don’t have any clue I think what they were talking about.’ (P.3, scientist). In the subsequent round, group compositions were mixed again, and participants were asked to use the input of the homogeneous groups (i.e. regarding what they thought the barriers to responsiveness were and what conditions for change were needed); in several groups, participants would collectively dismiss a barrier because they did not recognize it.

Reframing

Finally, by reframing conflict, participants mostly proposed a different line of reasoning (following the network driven frame) or created a new shared frame element (using the market driven frame). In proposing a network driven line of reasoning, the friction between the society driven and expert driven frames was prevented by diverting the conversation to discuss the network frame. However, by using the discourse of the network frame, for example speaking of ‘360-degree responsiveness’ (e.g. P.25, industry) and asking questions like ‘Where does responsiveness start in a network?’ (e.g. P.16, intermediary), the conversation became confused. The network frame could then be used as a façade – appearing to be responsive from an STS perspective – to prevent the exploration and elaboration of the difficulties of the current science and technology system.

Another reframing strategy that was used to deal with the friction between the society driven and expert driven frames was to connect them via the market driven frame. The conversation in which this was done made reference to a new shared framing element, the ‘well-informed, responsible consumer’. In this expert driven frame-led conversation, a participant borrowed the image of ‘the citizen as a consumer’ from the market driven frame. By reducing citizens to consumers and arguing that consumer values are represented in consumer behaviour, it appears that one does justice to the society driven frame (because the idea that citizens’ values need to be represented in the R&I governance of nanotechnology is incorporated). However, citizens’ values were moved to the end of the trajectory. At the same time, it was often argued that a responsible consumer needs to be well informed in order to make conscious decision. Following this line of reasoning means that one does not have to let go of the idea that experts need to provide the facts and framework to the public (which would be in line with the expert driven frame).

Implications for the EC recommendations

Looking at the recommendations made to the European Commission that followed from the dialogue (Annex 1), it is very clear that the different frames are brought together as if they form a coherent combination. Recommendations reasoned from, for instance, a science and technology driven frame (e.g. ‘increased open access to data on nanomaterials’) and an expert driven frame (‘honest and timely communication by science and industry about their work, products, and safety-related matters’) are set out side by side. Furthermore, some recommendations are broad (‘improved trust between science, society and industry to stimulate interaction and mutual learning’) and ambiguous (e.g. ‘incentives to structurally interact with different stakeholder groups’), providing the possibility of reasoning that they are consistent with different frames. Lastly, the fact that some recommendations lean towards a larger transformation of science governance stands out (e.g. ‘challenge-led forms and funding of public engagement’), while others suggest minimal to no changes (e.g. ‘standardization and harmonization of methodologies and reporting styles’). All in all, the multi-stakeholder dialogue led to recommendations that were broad and ambiguous and fused views that appear incompatible on a deeper level. Such recommendations seem ill-equipped to firmly steer the practice of EC policymakers, which is what they were intended for.

Discussion & conclusion

In this paper, we have described how five distinct frames of ‘responsiveness’ – science and technology driven, market driven, expert driven, network, and society driven responsiveness – played out in a European multi-stakeholder dialogue held in Brussels. We highlighted three main strategies that participants used during their interactions to deal with differences between frames: avoidance, polarization, and reframing. These differences were most pronounced when the image of the public, the types of dialogue that could be justified, and the relationship between science and society were the topics of conversation – these are all notions that are central to RRI.

RRI emphasizes a reflexive and inclusive relationship between science and society throughout the entire research and innovation process (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). Its ambitious ideal is that ‘policy choices can be co-produced with publics in ways that authentically embody diverse social knowledge, values and meanings’ (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). Put differently, it is about making decisions that influence innovation trajectories towards more desirable outcomes by responding to (changing) societal perspectives and circumstances (Fraaije and Flipse 2020; Pellé 2016).

Three of the reconstructed frames described earlier (the science and technology driven, expert driven and market driven) do not seem to align easily with this vision of inclusive governance, whereas the other two (network driven and society driven) do. First of all, the line of reasoning which concludes that ‘science is progress’ and ‘scientists know best’ (underlying the science and technology driven frame) implies that policy cannot embody, or respond to, diverse societal values yet can only do this with values that are in favour of scientific and technological developments. Moreover, a view of science as objective and equipped to give the best representation of reality (underlying both the science and technology driven and the expert driven frame) is not in line with the ideal of a reflexive and inclusive relationship between science and society because such a relationship requires humility and the equal appreciation of different meanings. Secondly, the line of reasoning which holds that societal values will be incorporated at the end of the pipeline, that is, at the level of the market (which underlies the market driven frame), does not correspond with the ideal of a fruitful relationship between science and society existing throughout the entire research and innovation process. Furthermore, by only considering the economic value of R&I (which also underlies the market driven frame), policy cannot embody any societal values other than economic ones.

The line of reasoning which accepts that R&I is the result of the interaction between a diversity of actors (which underlies the network driven frame) aligns with the idea of choices as being co-produced. Furthermore, the idea that sensitivity to the entire network is key (which also underlies the network driven frame) aligns with the ideal of being able to respond to changing perspectives and circumstances. Finally, the line of reasoning which holds that the value of science and technology is determined by its usefulness for society and that therefore engagement processes should start from the perceptions and needs of citizens (which underlies the society driven frame) aligns with the ideal of authentically including social knowledge, values, and meanings, as it indicates an authentic appreciation of societal perspectives.

Moreover, the meaning of the dimension of responsiveness is embedded within the meanings of the other three dimensions (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013; Owen et al. 2013). Hence, the five framings of responsiveness, include meanings of the other three RRI dimensions as well. Whereas in the science and technology-driven frame, inclusion means transmission of information to passive non-academic recipients, in the society driven frame the idea of inclusion holds decision-making power for a wide diversity of publics in the agenda-setting, funding and reviewing of R&I. Then again, in the expert-driven frame strict conditions for inclusive deliberation are perceived right. Similarly, in the science and technology-driven the right method for anticipation is considered to be standardization of scientific methods, whereas in the society-driven frame, anticipation and reflection holds the sincere consideration of the concerns, perceptions, and needs of society. Whereas, in the market-driven frame, anticipation and reflection are not emphasized. As responsiveness entails the translation of reflection, anticipation and inclusive deliberation to action that has a material influence on the direction and trajectory of innovation itself (Owen et al. 2013), it is problematic that some of the identified frames of responsiveness are in tension with the other RRI dimensions.

It must be noted that the dispersion of responsiveness frames in a multi-stakeholder dialogue like ours heavily depends on the stakeholders that participate. The general tendency towards the science and technology driven, expert driven, and market driven frames that we observed at our event partly results from the number of nanoscientists, industry representatives, and policy stakeholders who participated in comparison with the number of NGO and intermediary stakeholders (19/29) who did so. However, this ratio is partly the result of the self-selection of stakeholders; we invited several civil society stakeholder parties, but all except one declined the invitation. Ironically, some of them did so because they thought that the EC had not been sufficiently responsive to input they had given during previous events and projects. They did not believe that their contribution would make a difference and urged for the inclusion of civil society organizations as consortium partners in these types of European projects. One organization declined the invitation because industry partners would be present and urged for transparency with regard to the nanomaterials used in consumer products. Although our results may therefore not be representative of more general distribution patterns of responsiveness frames, they do present interpretative tendencies that resonate with findings of other studies.

Our results showed that natural scientists and industry-related actors had a tendency to think and speak more from the science and technology, expert and market driven frames of responsiveness. Although recognizing RRI and responsiveness, these participants follow a narrow understanding of what it implies for them in practice. Earlier studies looking into the attitude of the scientific community towards RRI also showed that although there is a welcoming attitude towards RRI and its importance is recognized, it is substantially resisted as it is perceived a threat to the autonomy of science, a threat to basic research, and a threat to the creativity and curiosity of scientist (Carrier and Gartzlaff 2019; De Jong et al. 2015; van Hove and Wickson 2017). Moreover, these studies reported on concerns within the scientific community when it comes to the implementation of RRI; for instance on the additional expenditures, on researchers ability to engage in enhanced public outreach and on the difficulty of anticipating research outcomes (ibid). Burri (2018, 91) who reconstructed frames of nanoscientists regarding public engagement, found that the dialogue model of public engagement played no part at all in the discourse of the interviewed nanoscientists: ‘the possibility of a “real” (i.e. interactive) dialogue was mostly denied’.

Our findings showed how, by including all of the different responsiveness frames in the dialogue’s eventual policy recommendations, a document was produced that lacked a clear sense of direction. This bears the risk of only inviting minimal change. Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor (2017) noted earlier that the broad nature of the RRI concept sustains a plurality of interpretations, and although some of them favour radical forms of public inclusion, most stick as much as possible to the science–society relationship as it is today. They also warned that if all these interpretations can coexist, this will probably result in current practices staying exactly as they are, with a participatory sauce as a topping. It might then be tempting to believe that a more specific and sharply formulated definition of RRI and responsiveness would be more effective. However, a co-constructive process of operationalizing RRI is needed in order to avoid evasive practices or dropping it all together as it becomes too detached from lived realities (De Jong et al. 2015; Fraaije and Flipse 2020; Hartley, Pearce, and Taylor 2017). Moreover, our results demonstrate that the interactions through which this operationalization and framing occurs are dynamic and strategic. In striving to open-up the science and innovation system it is important to acknowledge and attend to these interactions.

We struggled with the dilemma of including all frames in a policy recommendation, while at the same time being highly critical towards some of them. In constructing the dialogue outcome, we encountered the tension between our role as critical scholars, and our role as public engagement practitioners (Schuijer, Broerse, and Kupper 2021). As we uphold and communicated to participants that fleshing out what RRI means in practice inescapably requires a delicate process in which the view of all those who need to work with the concept need to be taken on board, we decided not to criticize the solutions brought forward by participants within the policy recommendation. We considered it to be more constructive to study the frames from which these solutions derive in this separate paper.

The analysis and writing of the paper gave insight into the processes of frame interaction that unfolded, and it revealed some interesting topics for future research. For example, while we touch upon how the processes of frame interaction shaped the policy recommendations, this could be done in a much more extensive manner. A next step in this regard would be to use the same methodology to explore in more depth how such frames and the interactions direct and shape policy recommendations or other outcomes of RRI projects. As such, lessons can be drawn from such an exploration about what kind of processes are needed to maintain direction while keeping all participants on board. More specifically, a network analysis for example can give insight into how the themes addressed in the policy recommendations (for example ‘culture of learning’, and ‘culture of safety’) have different meanings in different frames, and that interacting with such possibly contradictory meanings in the dialogue processes has implications for the content of the policy recommendations.

In regards to the dialogue itself, we are aware that as we organize and analyse this event, we are performing an intervention in ongoing nanotechnology developments. And in doing so we are ‘selecting’ the right outcomes of engagement being: more inclusive forms of scientific governance (Rip and Robinson 2013). Some conflictual moments during the event made visible that this perspective differs from the perspective of developers or promoters of nanotechnology. Yet, these events potentially play an important role in the process of reflexive co-evolution of the inside world of science and its embedding in the outside world of society (ibid.)

All in all, the mutual search for the meaning of ‘responsiveness’ is a process full of disagreement and contestation of underlying values and interpretations (i.e. assumptions about science, its relationship with society and the public, and participation) (Stirling 2014; Wickson and Carew 2014). We suggest that the experience of and knowledge gained from earlier communication and dialogue studies can help to have conversation in which a collective understanding of responsiveness is reached. These studies show the importance of shifting the focus of deliberation from the implications of technologies to dialogue itself, thereby weakening the urgency and habit of advocacy dynamics (Balmer et al. 2016; Escobar 2009). How subjects enter and participate in dialogue should be scrutinized, instead of assuming that communication about ‘what matters’ must be conducted according to an idealized standard of rationality (Di Giulio et al. 2016). Our results indicate the need for more dispersion of the kind of systemic R&I changes that RRI envisions, and are a plea for careful consideration of the influence of the different interpretations of responsiveness. We should aim to prevent the construction of a meaningless concept that cannot be effective for guiding the collective action needed to influence innovation trajectories. It turned out that when allowing participants the freedom to frame and operationalize responsiveness as they feel suited, the governance system of science and innovation remains largely untouched. In order to accommodate change of the RI governance system, it probably will be more effective to hold discussions about the limits towards responsiveness that are imposed by or on institutions, as well as develop proposals for their modification, withín the interplay of the four RRI dimensions.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Horizon 2020 Framework Programme: [Grant Number 685931].

Notes on contributors

Anouk Heltzel

Anouk Heltzel is a PhD researcher and lecturer in science communication and public engagement at the VU University. She holds a Ma degree in bioethics and a Msc degree in science communication in the health and life sciences. Her current work focuses on space for dialogue and reflection about emerging technologies.

J. W. Schuijer

Jantien Schuijer is a PhD researcher and lecturer in science communication and public engagement at the VU University. She holds a BSc degree in neuroscience and a MSc degree in policy in the health and life sciences. Her current work focuses on the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation and the way it translates into new activities and actor roles within the research and innovation system. Her approaches are action-oriented and involve collaboration with a multitude of (non-academic) actors.

W.L. Willems

Willemine Willems is a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer at the Athena Institute, Fac. of Science, VU University Amsterdam. As a researcher, she is mainly interested in the interaction between new and emerging science, technologies and innovations and values in action.

F. Kupper

Frank Kupper is assistant professor in science communication and public engagement at VU Amsterdam. He focuses on creative democracy as an approach to complex societal issues surrounding emerging technologies. His work centres on the development of methodologies and tools for the design and facilitation of playful reflection and science-society dialogue.

J. E. W. Broerse

Jacqueline Broerse is professor of innovation and communication in the health and life sciences (with focus on diversity and social inclusion) and head of the section Science Communication at the Athena Institute, Fac. of Science, VU University Amsterdam. Since 2017 she is also Vice Dean Research at the Faculty of Science.

Annex 1. Overview of the policy note that resulted from the dialogue. It presents six themes, each with ideas for actions and initiatives that could be stimulated, funded, promoted, and/or facilitated by the European Commission to enhance responsiveness in the nanotechnology R&I system.

Table

Theme	Need	Actions and suggestions
1. Fostering a culture of collaboration and transparency	Improved access for media and other actors to information and data on nanomaterials Better opportunities to critically assess the work that is being done by scientists and/or industry	Changes in industry’s institutional leadership to promote cultures of transparency Increased open access to data on nanomaterials and more data sharing between scientists Standardization and harmonization of methodologies and reporting styles
2. Fostering a participatory culture	Increased involvement of societal actors and citizens in nanotechnology R&I	Incentives and platforms for actors to structurally interact with different stakeholder groups Challenge-led forms and funding of public engagement, starting from problems experienced by citizens instead of technology Prevent the use of jargon and judgmental terms Increase political debate at EU level on research strategy Increase epistemic, cultural and gender diversity in the workplace in all sectors, including in the EC itself
3. Fostering a culture of trust	Improved trust between science, society, and industry to stimulate interaction and mutual learning	Honest and timely communication by science and industry about their work, products, and safety-related matters Communication in a language that is understandable to different publics Trustworthy intermediaries with a mandate to facilitate interactions between different actors in the long term
4. Fostering a scientific culture	A strong scientific culture in society (including critical-thinking skills) More balanced information on science and technology	Cultivate and sponsor appropriate media and role models to attract the attention of citizens to discussions about science and technology Educational systems that stimulate the development of critical attitudes at a young age Reinforce the capacity of science media to carry out more thorough analyses
5. Fostering a culture of safety	Researchers and companies should take safety on board as early as possible in their R&I processes	Official guidelines on safety testing of nanomaterials Stricter regulations on nano-enabled consumer products
6. Fostering a culture of learning	Enhanced mutual learning at different levels	Stimulate learning between researchers and fields regarding, for example, doing safety assessments of nanomaterials Set up an evaluation project on the impact of previous RRI/engagement projects in the field of nanotechnology and transform the lessons learned to other emerging technological fields