Two tribes or more? The historical emergence of discourse coalitions of responsible research and innovation (rri) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)

References

• Agar, Jon. 2008. “What Happened in the Sixties?” The British Journal for the History of Science 41 (4): 567–600. doi:10.1017/S0007087408001179.
   Google Scholar
• Arnaldi, Simone, and Luca Bianchi. 2016. Responsibility in Science and Technology: Elements of a Social Theory. 1st ed. 2016 edition. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Theory, Culture & Society. London ; Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Beecher, Henry K. 1966. “Ethics and Clinical Research.” New England Journal of Medicine 274 (24): 1354–1360. doi:10.1056/NEJM196606162742405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 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
• Bowker, Geoffrey C., Stefan Timmermans, Adele E. Clarke, and Ellen Balka, eds. 2015. Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star. Infrastructures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bridger, Sarah. 2015. Scientists at War: The Ethics of Cold War Weapons Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   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:10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. L. 2007. “Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institution Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 946–967. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, Archie B. 1999. “Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct.” Business & Society 38 (3): 268–295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303.
   Google Scholar
• Collingridge David. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. London, UK: Frances Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Dacin, M. T., and P. A. Dacin. 2017. “Chapter 12. Traditions as Institutionalizes Practice: Implications for Deinstitutionalization.” In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson, and Roy Suddaby. 2d edition. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi Singapore: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Delvenne, Pierre. 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation as a Travesty of Technology Assessment?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 278–288. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1328653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1983. Risk and Culture. 1st edition. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520050631/risk-and-culture.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, Ulrike. 2010. “Vers la Construction D’un Public Européen ?” Translated by Anne Masseran and Robert Casel. Questions de Communication 17 (June): 33–58. doi:10.4000/questionsdecommunication.370.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/019924264X.001.0001/acprof-9780199242641.
   Google Scholar
• Fischhoff, Baruch, Sarah Lichtenstein, Paul Slovic, Steven L. Derby, and Ralph Keeney. 1981. Acceptable Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, Erik. 2018. “Ends of Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (3): 253–256. doi:10.1080/23299460.2018.1513900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, Erik. 2020. “Reinventing Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1712537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flink, Tim, and David Kaldewey. 2018. “The New Production of Legitimacy: Sti Policy Discourses Beyond the Contract Metaphor.” Research Policy 47 (1): 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “The Emergence of Post-Normal Science.” In Science, Politics and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making, edited by René Von Schomberg. Theory and Decision Library, 85–123. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8143-1_6.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, Michael. 1999. “Science’s New Social Contract with Society.” Nature 402 (6761): C81–C84. doi:10.1038/35011576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glerup, Cecilie, and Maja Horst. 2014. “Mapping ‘Social Responsibility’ in Science.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 31–50. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, Armin. 2020. “The Objects of Technology Assessment. Hermeneutic Extension of Consequentialist Reasoning.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 96–112. doi:10.1080/23299460.2019.1647086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, David H. 2004. “Responsible Innovation in the Commercialized University.” Buying in or Selling Out, 161–174.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society, American Perspectives on Science and Technology Policy, 24 (1): 93–109. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, Maarten A. 1997. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/019829333X.001.0001/acprof-9780198293330.
   Google Scholar
• Hellström, Tomas. 2003. “Systemic Innovation and Risk: Technology Assessment and the Challenge of Responsible Innovation.” Technology in Society 25 (3): 369–384. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(03)00041-1.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41 (3): 223–244. doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joly, Pierre-Benoit. 2019. “Reimagining Innovation.” In Innovation Beyond Technology: Science for Society and Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Sébastien Lechevalier, 25–45. Creative Economy. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_2.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lente, Harro van, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Pierre-Benoît Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 254–261. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1326261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig, David, and Phil Macnaghten. 2020. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Innovation Governance: A Framework for Responsible and Just Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 26–44. doi:10.1080/23299460.2019.1676686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macq, Hadrien, Elise Tancoigne, and Bruno J. Strasser. 2020. “From Deliberation to Production. Public Participation in Science and Technology Policies of the European Commission (1998–2019).” Minerva. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-020-09405-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, Fiona, and Jonathan Dolley. 2019. “Transformative Innovation in Peri-Urban Asia.” Research Policy, New Frontiers in Science, Technology and Innovation Research from SPRU’s 50th Anniversary Conference, 48 (4): 983–992. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, Robert K. 1935. Sociological Aspects of Scientific Development in Seventeenth Century England. Harvard: University of Harvard.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, John W., and W. Richard Scott. 1983. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, Peter, and Nikolas Rose. 1990. “Governing Economic Life.” Economy and Society 19 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1080/03085149000000001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mody, Cyrus C. M., H. Otto Sibum, and Lissa L. Roberts. 2020. “Integrating Research Integrity into the History of Science.” History of Science 58 (4): 369–385. doi:10.1177/0073275320952257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, Kelly. 2013. Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945-1975. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nentwich, Michael. 2017. “A Short Response to van Lente, Swierstra and Joly’s Essay ‘Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment’.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2): 262–267. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1325698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordmann, Alfred, and Arie Rip. 2009. “Mind the Gap Revisited.” Nature Nanotechnology 4 (5): 273–274. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, and Nicola Goldberg. 2010. “Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.” Risk Analysis 30 (11): 1699–1707. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 (6): 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, and Mario Pansera. 2019. “Chapter 3. Responsible Innovation: Process and Politics.” In International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource, edited by Jonathan Hankins and René von Schomberg. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, Mario Pansera, Phil Macnaghten, and Sally Randles. 2021. “Organisational Institutionalisation of Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 50 (1): 104132. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestre, Dominique. 2009. “Understanding the Forms of Government in Today’s Liberal and Democratic Societies: An Introduction.” Minerva 47 (3): 243–260. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9126-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polanyi, Michael. 1946. The Planning of Science. Oxford, UK: Potter Press.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, Michael. 1962. “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.” Minerva 1 (1): 54–73. doi.org/10.1007/bf01101453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randles, Sally. 2016. “Deepening Deep Institutionalisation: Elaborating a Concept and Developing a Typology to Analyse and Contrast the Institutionalisation of De Facto Responsible Research and Innovation (Rri) and H2020 RRI in Research and Technology Organisations.” Deliverable 1.2 of the EU JERRI project. European Commission JERRI project (Joining Efforts for Responsible Research and Innovation). Project No 709747. https://www.jerri-project.eu/jerri-wAssets/docs/deliverables/wp-1/JERRI_Deliverable_D1_2_Deepening-Deep-Institutionalisation.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Randles, Sally, B. Dorbeck-Jung, Ralf Lindner, and Arie Rip. 2014. “Report of the Roundtable at S.Net 2013 : Where to Next for Responsible Innovation?” In Innovation and Responsibility, edited by C. Coenen, A. Dijkstra, C. Fautz, J. Guivant, C. Milburn, and Harro van Lente. Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA GmnH.
   Google Scholar
• Randles, Sally, Philippe Laredo, Allison Loconto, Bart Walhout, and Ralf Lindner. 2016. “Chapter 3. Framings and Frameworks : Six Grand Narratives of de-Facto Rri.” In Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation, edited by Ralf Lindner, Stefan Kuhlmann, Sally Randles, Bjorn Bedstead, Guido Gorgoni, Erich Greisler, Allison Loconto, Bart Walhout, and Niels Mejlgaard, 31–38. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research. http://res-agora.eu/publications/res-agora-book-now-available/.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John F. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjf9z6v.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, Bernard, and Sophie Pellé. 2013. “Innovation Responsable.” In Dictionnaire Critique et Interdisciplinaire de La Participation, edited by I. Casillo, R. Barbier, L. Blondiaux, F. Chateauraynaud, J.-M. Fourniau, R. Lefebvre, C. Neveu, and D. Salles. Paris: GIS Démocratie et Participation. http://www.dicopart.fr/it/dico/innovation-responsable.
   Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, Barbara E., Robert D. J. Smith, and Kate Millar. 2017. “A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1): 81–103. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2010. “De Facto Governance of Nanotechnologies.” In Dimensions of Technology Regulation, edited by M. Goodwin, B.-J. Koops, and R. Leenes, 285–308. Nijmegen.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2016. “The Clothes of the Emperor. An Essay on RRI in and Around Brussels.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 290–304. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie. 2018. “Chapter 4. De Facto Governance of Nanotechnologies.” In Futures of Science and Technology in Society, edited by Arie Rip, 75–96. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft Und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-21754-9_5.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, Douglas K. R., Angela Simone, and Marzia Mazzonetto. 2021. “RRI Legacies: Co-Creation for Responsible, Equitable and Fair Innovation in Horizon Europe.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 8 (2): 209–216. doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1842633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saille, Stevienna de. 2013. “Innovating Innovation: Rri as a Guiding Principle in the ERA.” SSRN Electronic Journal, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2401076.
   Google Scholar
• Scher, Stephen, and Kasia Kozlowska. 2018. “The Rise of Bioethics: A Historical Overview.” In Rethinking Health Care Ethics, edited by Stephen Scher and Kasia Kozlowska, 31–44. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0830-7_3.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008. “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 303–326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism.” European Political Science Review 2 (01): 1–25. doi:10.1017/S175577390999021X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, Vivien A, and Claudio M Radaelli. 2004. “Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” West European Politics 27 (2): 183–210. doi:10.1080/0140238042000214874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schomberg, René von. 2011. “Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields.” In Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields, edited by René von Schomberg, 7–16. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Schomberg, René von. 2012. “The Quest for the ‘Right’ Impacts of Science and Technology. An Outlook Towards a Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Les Nanotechnologies: Vers Un Changement D’échelle Éthique?, edited by Céline Kermisch, and Marie-Geneviève Pinsart, 269–287. Université Libre de Bruxelles: EME. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/255696876__thiques_en_action__Collection_dirige_par_Cline_Kermisch_Posthumanisme_Mylene_botbol_baum/file/60b7d520354c6380f1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schomberg, René von. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 51–74. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Technology Assessment: The End of OTA, 54 (2-3): 251–268. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanley, Danielle. 2021. “Imagining the Future Through Revisiting the Past: The Value of History in Thinking About R(R)I’s Possible Future(s).” Journal of Responsible Innovation 8 (2): 234–253. doi:10.1080/23299460.2021.1882748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, Susan Leigh, and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects - Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeleys-Museum-of-Vertebrate-Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, Laura. 2011. Behind Closed Doors. Morality and Society Series. The University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo12182576.html.
   Google Scholar
• Starr, C. 1969. “Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk.” Science 165 (3899): 1232–1238. doi:10.1126/science.165.3899.1232.
   PubMed 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:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, Andy. 2019. “How Deep Is Incumbency? A ‘Configuring Fields’ Approach to Redistributing and Reorienting Power in Socio-Material Change.” Energy Research & Social Science 58 (December): 101239. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101239.
   Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe, Hilary. 2011. A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation. MATTER.
   Google Scholar
• The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. 1979. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
   Google Scholar
• Vincent, Nicole A. 2011. “A Structured Taxonomy of Responsibility Concepts.” In Moral Responsibility, edited by Nicole A. Vincent, I. van de Poel, and Jeroen van den Hoven, 15–35. Springer. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1662385.
   Google Scholar
• Wiarda, Martijn, Geerten van de Kaa, Emad Yaghmaei, and Neelke Doorn. 2021. “A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 172: 121053.
   Google Scholar
• Zucker, Lynne G. 1983. “Organizations as Institutions.” In Research in the Sociology of Organizations, edited by Sam Bacharach, 1–47. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar