Responsible research and innovation: a systematic review of the literature and its applications to regional studies

References6

• Arnaldi, S., & Gorgoni, G. (2015). Turning the tide or surfing the wave? Responsible research and innovation, fundamental rights and neoliberal virtues. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 12(1), 6. doi: 10.1186/s40504-016-0038-2
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T. (2000). Industrial districts: The contributions of Marshall and beyond. In G. L. Clark, M. S. Gertler, M. P. Feldman, & K. Williams (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography (pp. 413–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T. (2004). From clusters to projects: Spatial embeddedness and disembeddedness of learning and knowledge creation in the globalizing economy. In C. Karlsson, P. Flensburg, & S.-Å. Hörte (Eds.), Knowledge Spillovers and Knowledge Management (pp. 396–422). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2010.543126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., Grillitsch, M., & Trippl, M. (2016). Regional innovation systems: Past–present–future. In R. Shearmur, C. Carrincazeaux, & D. Doloreux (Eds.), Handbook on the Geographies of innovation. 45. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler, J., Martins, J. O., Wostner, P., & Zuber, P. (2017). Towards Cohesion Policy 4.0: Structural transformation and inclusive growth. Brussels: Regional Studies Association Europe. http://www.regionalstudies.org/uploads/documents/RSA_Re­port_Web_22-6-17.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches*. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessant, J. (2013). Innovation in the twenty-first century. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible innovation (pp. 1–25). London: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Blok, V. (2014). Look who’s talking: Responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 171–190. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.924239
   Google Scholar
• Blok, V. (2016). Bridging the gap between individual and corporate responsible behaviour: Toward a performative concept of corporate codes. Philosophy of Management, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s40926-016-0045-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blok, V., Long, T. B., Gaziulusoy, A. I., Ciliz, N., et al. (2015). From best practices to bridges for a more sustainable future: Advances and challenges in the transition to global sustainable production and consumption Introduction to the ERSCP stream of the special volume. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 19–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2011). The emerging empirics of evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 11, 295–307. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbq053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Martin, R. (2010). The aims and scope of evolutionary economic geography (No. 1001). Retrieved from Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography website: https://ideas.repec.org/p/egu/wpaper/1001.html
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., Minondo, A., & Navarro, M. (2012). Related variety and regional growth in Spain. Papers in Regional Science, 91(2), 241–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00387.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Bronson, K. (2015). Responsible to whom? Seed innovations and the corporatization of agriculture. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 62–77. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2015.1010769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, G. L., Gertler, M. S., Feldman, M. P., & Williams, K. (2003). The Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Technology and the good society: A polemical essay on social ontology, political principles, and responsibility for technology. Technology in Society, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coenen, C. (2016). Broadening discourse on responsible research and innovation (RRI). NanoEthics, 10(1), 1–4. doi: 10.1007/s11569-016-0255-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deblonde, M. (2015). Responsible research and innovation: Building knowledge arenas for glocal sustainability research. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 20–38. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Saille, S., & 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ETB. (2017). Edelman Trust Barometer available at https://www.edelman.com/trust2017/
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2013). Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Luxembourg: European Union DG Research and Innovation. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2014). Responsible research & innovation. Retrieved March 28, 2019, from Horizon 2020 – European Commission website: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. R., & Andersen, E. S. (2013). Innovation studies: Evolution and future challenges. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. P. (2014). The character of innovative places: Entrepreneurial strategy, economic development, and prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 9–20. doi: 10.1007/s11187-014-9574-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitjar, R. D., Benneworth, P., & Asheim, B. T. (2019). Towards regional responsible research and innovation? Integrating RRI and RIS3 in European innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, doi: 10.1093/scipol/scz029
   Google Scholar
• Flick, C. (2016). Informed consent and the Facebook emotional manipulation study. Research Ethics, 12(1), 14–28. doi: 10.1177/1747016115599568
   Google Scholar
• Fløysand, A., & Sjøholt, P. (2007). Rural development and embeddedness: The importance of human relations for industraial restructuring in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(3), 205–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00438.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foray, D. (2014). Smart specialisation : Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. doi:10.4324/9781315773063.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, E.-M. (2014). Institutionalising ELSA in the moment of breakdown? Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1186/2195-7819-10-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forsberg, E.-M., Quaglio, G., O’Kane, H., Karapiperis, T., Van Woensel, L., & Arnaldi, S. (2015). Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility. Technology in Society, 42, 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinbaum, A. (2013). The old-new meaning of researcher’s responsibility. Ethics & Politics, XV(1), 236–250.
   Google Scholar
• Gudowsky, N., & Peissl, W. (2016). Human centred science and technology – transdisciplinary foresight and co-creation as tools for active needs-based innovation governance. European Journal of Futures Research, 4(1), 8. doi: 10.1007/s40309-016-0090-4
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. K., Dey, A. R., Shinde, C., Mahanta, H., Patel, C., et al. (2016). Theory of open inclusive innovation for reciprocal, responsive and respectful outcomes: Coping creatively with climatic and institutional risks. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market and Complexity, 2(16), 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s40852-016-0038-8
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding “anticipatory governance.”. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook, J. B., & Briggle, A. (2014). Knowledge kills action - why principles should play a limited role in policy-making. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 51–66. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882554
   Google Scholar
• Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: Evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lby021
   Google Scholar
• Illies, C., & Meijers, A. (2009). Artefacts without agency. The Monist, 92(3), 420–440. doi: 10.5840/monist200992324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaksen, A., & Jakobsen, S.-E. (2017). New path development between innovation systems and individual actors. European Planning Studies, 25(3), 355–370. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1268570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaksen, A., & Onsager, K. (2010). Regions, networks and innovative performance: The case of knowledge-intensive industries in Norway. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(3), 227–243. doi: 10.1177/0969776409356217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, S.-E., & Lorentzen, T. (2015). Between bonding and bridging: Regional differences in innovative collaboration in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 69(2), 80–89. doi: 10.1080/00291951.2015.1016550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632–659. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler, A. R. (2013). Material scarcity: A reason for responsibility in technology development and product design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1165–1179. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9401-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund Declaration. (2009). The Lund declaration: Europe must focus on the grand challenges of our time. Swedish EU Presidency. Swedish EU Presidency.
   Google Scholar
• Lundvall, B-Å. (Ed.). (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Anthem Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malsch, I. (2015). Communitarian and subsidiarity perspectives on responsible innovation at a global level. Nanoethics, 9(2), 137–150. doi: 10.1007/s11569-015-0234-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. (2016). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432–450. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2011). Conceptualizing cluster evolution: Beyond the life cycle model? Regional Studies, 45(10), 1299–1318. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.622263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzucato, M., & Semieniuk, G. (2017). Public financing of innovation: New questions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 24–48. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grw036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, P. (2008). Globalization and economic geography: The world is curved, not flat. Cambridge journal of regions. Economy and Society, 1(3), 351–370. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsn002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, P., & Acs, Z. J. (2011). Globalization: Countries, cities and multinationals. Regional Studies, 45(1), 17–32. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2010.505915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.799769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, K. (2007). The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 41(S1), S147–S159. doi: 10.1080/00343400701232322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowtny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. doi: 10.1023/A:1025505528250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellé, S. (2016). Process, outcomes, virtues: The normative strategies of responsible research and innovation and the challenge of moral pluralism. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(3), 233–254. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1258945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461. doi: 10.1177/1059601114560063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(1), 17. doi: 10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, N. (2012). Democracy in the contemporary life sciences. BioSocieties, 7(4), 459–472. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2012.26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruggiu, D. (2015). Anchoring European governance: Two versions of responsible research and innovation and EU fundamental rights as ‘normative anchor points’. Nanoethics, 9, 217–235. doi: 10.1007/s11569-015-0240-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569
   Google Scholar
• Solheim, M. C. W. (2016). Foreign workers and international partners as channels to international markets in core, intermediate and peripheral regions. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 3(1), 491–505. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2016.1258324
   Google Scholar
• Som, C., Berges, M., Chaudhry, Q., Dusinska, M., Fernandes, T. F., Olsen, S. I., & Nowack, B. (2010). The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicology, 269, 160–169. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.12.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinello, R. A. (2003). The future of intellectual property. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 1–16. doi: 10.1023/A:1024976203396
   Google Scholar
• Sthal, B. C. (2014). Participatory design as ethical practice – concepts, reality and conditions. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(1), 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, B. C., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 152–161. doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, S., & Guston, D. H. (2017). Responsible research and innovation. The Handbook of science and technology studies. 4th Ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Massachusetts, London.
   Google Scholar
• Storper, M. (2018). Separate worlds? Explaining the current wave of regional economic polarization. Journal of Economic Geography, 18(2), 247–270. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lby011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on responsible research & innovation. Prepared for DG Research and Innovation. European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf. (Accessed on 1 August 2016)
   Google Scholar
• Taddeo, M. (2016). On the risks of relying on analogies to understand cyber conflicts. Minds & Machines, 26, 317–321. doi: 10.1007/s11023-016-9408-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9304-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ter Wal, A. L. J., Alexy, O., Block, J., & Sandner, P. G. (2016). The best of both worlds: The benefits of open-specialized and closed-diverse syndication networks of new ventures success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 393–432. doi: 10.1177/0001839216637849
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The 6th Research Framework Programme (FP6). (2005). Available at https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/linksdossier/6th-research-framework-programme-fp6/
   Google Scholar
• Thorpe, R., Holt, R., MacPherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00116.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trippl, M., Grillitsch, M., Isaksen, A., & Sinozic, T. (2015). Perspectives on cluster evolution: Critical review and future research issues. European Planning Studies, 23(10), 2028–2044. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.999450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Vincent, B. B. (2013). Decentring nanoethics toward objects. Etica e Politica, 15(1), 310–320. http://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00939500/fr/
   Google Scholar
• Vincent, B. B. (2014). The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of “public engagement in science.”. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 238–253. doi: 10.1177/0963662513515371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2015). Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2769-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. ((2005)). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Weckert, J., Valdes, H. R., & Soltanzadeh, S. (2016). A problem with societal desirability as a component of responsible research and innovation: The “If we don’t somebody else will” argument. Nanoethics, 10(2), 215–225. doi: 10.1007/s11569-016-0258-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwart, H., Landeweerd, L., & van Rooij, A. (2014). Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(11), 1–19. doi: 10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar