Rethinking societal engagement under the heading of Responsible Research and Innovation: (novel) requirements and challenges

References

• Andersson, E., S. Bussu, H. Davis, H. Mulder, L. Klüver, M. L. Jørgensen, L. Nierling, R. Kuhn, V. Kozarev, and Z. Damianova. 2015. Deliverable 4.2 - What the Future Holds for Societal Engagement. Engage2020 project. London: Involve Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Asante, Keren, Richard Owen, and Glenn Williamson. 2014. “Governance of new Product Development and Perceptions of Responsible Innovation in the Financial Sector: Insights from an Ethnographic Case Study.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 9–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882552.
   Google Scholar
• Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and David H. Guston. 2008. “Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, Anja, and Alexander Bogner. 2020. “Let’s (Not) Talk About Synthetic Biology: Framing an Emerging Technology in Public and Stakeholder Dialogues.” Public Understanding of Science 29 (5): 492–507. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520907255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, Anja, and Michael Pregernig. 2013. “Whose Look Into the Future? Participation in Technology Assessment and Foresight.” Critical Policy Studies 7 (1): 18–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2012.745992.
   Google Scholar
• Bogner, Alexander. 2012. “The Paradox of Participation Experiments.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 37 (5): 506–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burget, Mirjam, Emanuele Bardone, and Margus Pedaste. 2017. “Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review.” Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1): 1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castell, Sarah, Anne Charlton, Michael Clemence, Nick Pettigrew, Sarah Pope, Anna Quigley, Jayesh Navin Shah, and Tim Silman. 2014. Public Attitudes to Science 2014. London: Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Chatfield, Kate, Konstantinos Iatridis, Bernd C. Stahl, and Nearchos Paspallis. 2017. “Innovating Responsibly in ICT for Ageing: Drivers, Obstacles and Implementation.” Sustainability 9 (6): 971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, Jason, and Matthew B. Kearnes. 2016. “Participation in the Making.” In Remaking Participation, edited by Jason Chilvers and Matthew B. Kearnes, 31–63. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Collingridge, David. 1981. The Social Control of Technology. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari. 2001. Participation: the New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, Ian, Mark Evans, and Andrew Peterson. 2014. “Civic Activism, Engagement and Education: Issues and Trends.” Journal of Social Science Education 13 (4): 2–10.
   Google Scholar
• de Hoop, Evelien, Auke Pols, and Henny Romijn. 2016. “Limits to Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (2): 110–134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1231396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre. 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation as a Travesty of Technology Assessment?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 278–288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1328653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Saille, Stevienna. 2015. “Innovating Innovation Policy: the Emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (2): 152–168. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eaton, Weston, Wynne Wright, Kyle Whyte, Stephen P. Gasteyer, and Pat J. Gehrke. 2014. “Engagement and Uncertainty: Emerging Technologies Challenge the Work of Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 18 (2): 151–178.
   Google Scholar
• Engage. 2020. “Action Catalogue.” http://actioncatalogue.eu/about.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. 2008. “The Bottom-Up Meanings of the Concept of Public Participation in Science and Technology.” Science and Public Policy 35 (7): 489–499. doi:https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329086.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. 2010. “Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-Scribing Publics in Public Engagement.” Minerva 48 (3): 219–238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino, Daniel J. 1990. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms.” Science, Technology & Human Values 15 (2): 226–243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, Erik, Michael O'Rourke, Robert Evans, Eric B. Kennedy, Michael E. Gorman, and Thomas P. Seager. 2015. “Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-Technical Collaborations.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39–61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-Normal age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–755.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskell, G., S. Stares, A. Allansdottir, N. Kronberger, J. Hampel, N. Mejlgaard, P. Castro, et al. 2010. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change? A report to the European Comissiońs Directorate-General for Research on the Eurobarometer 73.1 on Biotechnology; FP7 project ‘Sensitive Technologies and European Public Ethics’ [STEPE]. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Gavelin, Karin, Richard Wilson, and Robert Doubleday. 2007. Democratic Technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzmann, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, Armin. 2004. “Participation as a Means of Enhancing the Legitimacy of Decisions on Technology? A Sceptical Analysis.” Poiesis & Praxis 3 (1–2): 106–122.
   Google Scholar
• Gudowsky, Niklas, and Mahshid Sotoudeh. 2017. “Into Blue Skies—A Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-Creation Method for Adding Robustness to Visioneering.” NanoEthics 11 (1): 93–106. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurzawska, Agata, Markus Mäkinen, and Philip Brey. 2017. “Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives.” Sustainability 9 (10): 1759–1784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, David H. 2015. “Responsible Innovation: Who Could be Against That?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 1–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1017982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1–2): 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. “Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe.” Minerva 44 (2): 167–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horst, Maja, and Mike Michael. 2011. “On the Shoulders of Idiots: Re-Thinking Science Communication as ‘Event’.” Science as Culture 20 (3): 283–306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2010.524199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, Alan, Torben Elgaard Jensen, and Kevin E. Jones. 2013. “The Good, the Bad and the Perfect: Criticizing Engagement Practice.” Social Studies of Science 43 (1): 118–135. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712462461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41 (3): 223–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, Eric, and Nicola Buckley. 2014. “Why People Attend Science Festivals: Interests, Motivations and Self-Reported Benefits of Public Engagement with Research.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (5): 557–573. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512458624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joss, Simon, and Sergio Bellucci. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment – European Perspectives. London: University of Westminster Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kearnes, Matthew. 2009. “The Time of Science: Deliberation and the ‘New Governance’ of Nanotechnology.” In Governing Future Technologies – Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Vol. 27, edited by Mario Kaiser, Monika Kurath, Sabine Maasen, and Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, 279–301. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinman, David Lee, Jason A. Delborne, and Ashley A. Anderson. 2011. “Engaging Citizens: The High Cost of Citizen Participation in High Technology.” Public Understanding of Science 20 (2): 221–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, Lotte. 2016. “Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actors: Learning from Experiences Around Nanotechnology.” Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 907–922. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9660-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, Lotte, and Henk A. J. Mulder. 2015. “Upstream Public Engagement in Nanotechnology: Constraints and Opportunities.” Science Communication 37 (4): 452–484. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015588601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, Stefan, Jakob Edler, Ordonez-Matamoros Gonzalo, Sally Randles, Bart Walhout, Clair Gough, and Ralf Lindner. 2016. Responsibility Navigator Developed by the Res-AGorA Project. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, Rainer, Grace Mbungu, Edward Anderson, Blagovesta Chonkova, Zoya Damianova, Houda Davis, Siri Dencker, et al. 2014. Del.3.1: Report on Current Praxis of Policies and Activities Supporting Societal Engagement in Research and Innovation. Engage 2020 project. Stuttgart: DIALOGIK Non-Profit Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research.
   Google Scholar
• Kupper, Frank, Pim Klaassen, Michelle Rijnen, Sara Vermeulen, and Jacqueline Broerse. 2015. D1.3: Report on the Quality Criteria of Good Practice Standards in RRI. RRI Tools Project. Amsterdam: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Laffite, Nicholas Baya, and Joly Pierre-Beniot. 2008. “Nanotechnology and Society: Where Do We Stand in the Ladder of Citizen Participation?” CIPAST Newsletter, 1–35.
   Google Scholar
• Landeweerd, Laurens, David Townend, Jessica Mesman, and Ine Hoyweghen. 2015. “Reflections on Different Governance Styles in Regulating Science: a Contribution to ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy 11 (1): 8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Legris Revel, Martine. 2014. Del.2.3: Main Findings Report. Civil Society Organisations in Designing Research Governance - CONSIDER project. Lille: University of Lille.
   Google Scholar
• Lubberink, Rob, Vincent Blok, Johan Van Ophem, and Onno Omta. 2017. “Lessons for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: A Systematic Literature Review of Responsible, Social and Sustainable Innovation Practices.” Sustainability 9 (5): 721–751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres, Noortje. 2007. “The Issue Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.” Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759–780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mejlgaard, Niels, Carter Bloch, Lise Degn, Tine Ravn, and Mathias W. Nielsen. 2012. Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS). Final Synthesis Report of the European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Newig, Jens, and Eva Kvarda. 2012. “Participation in Environmental Governance: Legitimate and Effective?” In Environmental Governance The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness, edited by Karl Hogl, Eva Kvarda, Ralf Nordbeck, and Michael Pregernig, 29–45. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science – Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Erik Fisher, and Dave Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Sceince and Innovation in Society, edited by Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 27–50. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pohl, Christian. 2008. “From Science to Policy Through Transdisciplinary Research.” Environmental Science & Policy 11 (1): 46–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radkau, Joachim. 1995. “Learning from Chernobyl for the Fight Against Genetics? Stages and Stimuli of German Protest Movements – A Comparative Synopsis.” In Resistance to new Technology – Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, edited by Martin Bauer, 335–355. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, Stephen, and Philippe Goujon. 2012. Del. 1.2: Theoretical Landscape of the CONSIDER Project. Namur: University of Namur, FUNDP.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, Stephen, Kutoma Wakunuma, and Bernd C. Stahl. 2017. “Civil Society Organisations in Research: A Literature-Based Typology.” Voluntas 28 (5): 1988–2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9816-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rask, Mikko, Saulé Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, Laureta Tauginienė, Vytautas Dikčius, Kaisa Matschoss, Timo Aarrevaara, and Luciano d’Andrea. 2016. Del. 2.2: Innovative Public Engagement. A Conceptual Model of Public Engagement in Dynamic and Responsible Governance of Research and Innovation. PE2020 project. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Repo, Petteri, and Kaisa Matschoss. 2019. “Considering Expert Takeovers in Citizen Involvement Processes.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 6 (2): 119–142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1568145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, Barbara, Lars Bengtsson, Paul Benneworth, Susanne Bührer, Elena Castro-Martínez, Meiken Hansen, Katharina Jarmai, et al. 2018. “Introducing the Dilemma of Societal Alignment for Inclusive and Responsible Research and Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (3): 316–331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1495033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2003. “Constructing Expertise: In a Third Wave of Science Studies?” Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 419–434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2014. “The Past and Future of RRI.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (1): 17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roeser, Sabine, and Udo Pesch. 2016. “An Emotional Deliberation Approach to Risk.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (2): 274–297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915596231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucht, Dieter. 1995. “The Impact of Anti-Nuclear Power Movements in International Comparison.” In Resistance to New Technology. Nuclear Power, Information Technolgy and Biotechnology, edited by Martin Bauer, 277–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, Markus, Agomoni Ganguli-Mitra, Helge Torgersen, Alexander Kelle, Anna Deplazes, and Nikola Biller-Andorno. 2009. “A Priority Paper for the Societal and Ethical Aspects of Synthetic Biology.” Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 3–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-009-9034-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (2–3): 251–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smallman, Melanie, K. Lomme, and N. Faullimmel. 2015. D2.2: Report on the Analysis of Opportunities, Obstacles and Needs of the Stakeholder Groups in RRI Practices in Europe (RRItools). London: University College London.
   Google Scholar
• Steinert, Steffen, and Sabine Roeser. 2020. “Emotions, Values and Technology: Illuminating the Blind Spots.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (3): 298–319. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1738024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, Andy. 2008. ““Opening Up” and “Closing Down”:Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 33 (2): 262–294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand, Roger, Jack Spaapen, Martin W. Bauer, E. Hogan, G. Revuelta, and S. Stagl. 2015. “Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Report from the Expert Gorup on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe, Hilary. 2011. A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Sykes, Kathy, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. “Responsible Innovation – Opening Up Dialogue and Debate.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 85–107. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Torgersen, Helge, Jürgen Hampel, Marie-Louise Bergmann-Winberg, Eleanor Bridgman, John Durant, Edria Einsiedel, Björn Fjaestad, et al. 2002. “Promise, Problems and Proxies: Twenty-Five Years of Debate and Regulation in Europe.” In Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy, edited by Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell, 21–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Lente, Harro, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Pierre-Benoit Joly. 2015. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” In The Next Horizon of Technology Assessment, edited by Constanze Scherz, Tomas Michalek, Leonhard Hennen, Lenka Hebàkovà, Julia Hahn, and Stefanie Seitz, 87–91. Prague: Technology Center ASCR.
   Google Scholar
• van Oudheusden, Michiel. 2014. “Where are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessments, and Beyond.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882097.
   Google Scholar
• von Hippel, Eric. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, Rene. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, Rene. 2015. “Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Neue Impulse für die Technikfolgenabschätzung?, edited by Alexander Bogner, Michael Decker, and Mahshid Sotoudeh, 47–70. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, Lucien, and Vincent Blok. 2019. “Technology in the Age of Innovation: Responsible Innovation as a New Subdomain Within the Philosophy of Technology.” Philosophy & Technology. Advance online publication. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00386-3.
   Google Scholar
• Voorberg, W. H., V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers. 2015. “A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey.” Public Management Review 17 (9): 1333–1357. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickson, Fern, and Anna L. Carew. 2014. “Quality Criteria and Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: Learning from Transdisciplinarity.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 254–273.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, Claire, Emily Dawson, and Karen Bultitude. 2012. “‘Younger People Have Like More of an Imagination, No Offence’: Participant Perspectives on Public Engagement.” International Journal of Science Education, Part B 2 (1): 43–61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.628503.
   Google Scholar
• Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar