WP1Towards a catalogue of good RRI practices

Lisbon, 2015

| Working definition(D1.1)

ScienceEducation

Ethics

GenderEquality

Governance

PublicEngagement

OpenAccess

|

Developing the set of quality criteria and indicators

• stakeholder workshops across Europe in Fall 2014practical activities, emerging insights

• review of policy and academic literaturetheoretical ideas, old and new insights

• promising practice sheets collected by HUBsreality check

| List of quality criteria (D1.3)

1. Diversity and Inclusion

Criteria Specification PA Outc. Indicators/sub-criteria

Questions that invite thinking about indicators and criteria 2ac 3f

Engaging a variety of stakeholder groups

Wide range

Is there a wide range of stakeholders involved, such that there is a diversity of values and a diversity of types of knowledge/expertise (i.e., experiential knowledge, scientific knowledge) represented and/or generated? (Rowe and Frewer, 2000)

2ac

Relevant voices

Is there diversity in the stakeholders engaged such that all relevant voices are heard – silent as well as loud (i.e., stakeholder groups that might not feel immediately empowered to let their view know and stakeholder groups that do)?

2ac

Demographic diversity

Is there diversity within the stakeholder groups involved in terms of gender, ethnicity, class, age and other demographics?

2ac

Criteria formulated per process requirement Subcriteria and questions

to think about it

Relation to policy agendas and outcomes

|

Diversity and

Inclusion

Engaging a variety of

stakeholder groups

Variety of means of

stakeholder engagement

Engagement of publics

Attention for appropriate R&I models

Institutional diversity

|

Engaging a variety of

stakeholder groups

Wide range

Demographic

diversitySufficient amount

Relevant voices

Is there a wide variety of stakeholders involved, such that there is a diversity of values and a diversity of types of knowledge/expertise?

Is there diversity in the stakeholders engaged such that all relevant voices are heard – silent as well as loud?

Is there diversity within the stakeholder groups involved in terms of ender, ethnicity, class, age and other demographics?

Are sufficiently many perspectives and participants included, such that eventual outcomes are robust (ScienceWise, 2013)?

|

Openness and Trans-

parency

Honest and clear (re-)

presentation

Open and clear

communication about the deliberation

and decision-makingOpen and

clear communicatio

n about results

Appropriate means and content of

communication and

education per actor

Openness to critical

scrutiny from all

stakeholders

|

Anticipation and

Reflection

Analysis of background, situation and

context

Envisioning of plausible futures

Variety of impacts

Facilitate deliberation on values,

needs, interests,

choices and problem

definitions

Addressing roles in RI

trajectories

|

Responsiveness and Adaptive Change

Structure for seeking and

incorporating feedback

Flexible process

management

Development and

implementation of evaluation

strategies

Flexible attitudes to revise views and actions

Changing responsibilities

Application of results

| D1.3: This is not a checklist

• The prime importance of context• Always keep the outcomes in mind

1. Evaluative framework to think about RRI initiatives

• A stimulus and inspiration to (re)shape research and innovation

2. Self-assessment tool(s) for those active in R&I/ RRI

• Quality criteria provide specific assistance to different stakeholders

3. Selection of promising practices for D1.4

• Loose fit: how do practices incorporate criteria and indicators?

|

D1.4: Methodology

|

7

26

8

9

1

ToolProjectProgramOrganizationOther

Included practices: 51 in total

|

Some thoughts about practice classification

• Diversity of RRI practiceso Informing policy, practice, society

• Inventory of stakeholder viewso Considerable overlap between stakeholderso Lack of stakeholder collaboration

|

‘Learning for doing’

‘Learning for governance’

‘Learning for learning’

RRI as a societal learning process

RRI Tools

Classifying promising practices

ResearchersBusiness/IndustryCSOs

Policy makers CSOs researchers

EducatorsResearchers

|

Example: ‘Learning for learning’

Name Leading organization CountryGeographical scale Type of practice

Xplore Health Barcelona Science Park European European Project

Center for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Science and Technological Development Croatia National Organization

Fundación Ibercivis Fundación Ibercivis Spain National Organization

Sparkling ScienceFederal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy Austria National Program

Science.lu Fonds National de la Recherche Luxemburg Luxemburg National Tool

Homoresponsabilis in the Globalized worldTIME Foundation – eco projects/ Groupe One Belgium European European Tool

RVP - Educational Program Framework Ministry of Education Czech Republic National ToolAgora Scienza Centro interuniversitario The University of Torino Italy National OrganizationUstanova Hia eksperimentov Slovenia National OrganizationCommunicating Science Project Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) Slovenia National Project

Scientific Support Committee of the Walloon Rural NetworkTr@me scrl / Walloon Rural Network Support Unit Belgium Regional Project

Sociale innovatiefabriekVlaams netwerk van verenigingen waar armen het woord nemen Belgium Regional Organization

|

‘Learning for doing’

‘Learning for governance’

‘Learning for learning’

RRI as a societal learning process

RRI Tools

Classifying promising practices

HAO2PULSEMarlisco

Challenge-driven InnovationVoicesForschungswende

Frame Reflection LabExplore HealthNanopinion

|

HAO2

Small British company that aims to promote the societal inclusion of individuals who are often excluded from employment, especially people with disabilities (such as autism)

R&A

A&R

O&T

Diversity & Inclusion

|

Challenge-driven Innovation Program by Swedish innovation agency VINNOVA. It funds research and innovation aimed at tackling societal challenges that involves all relevant stakeholders. Its three-stage funding scheme is very implementation -oriented and has built in mechanisms for promoting responsiveness and adaptive change.

D&I

A&R

O&T

Respon-siveness

& Adaptive change

|

Frame reflection lab

Amsterdam-developed playful tool that helps reflect on values and assumptions underlying people’s views on science and technology. It combines enable AV stories with stepwise reflection exercises.

D&I

A&R

O&T

Anticipation & Reflection

|

Remarkable patterns

1. Practices do not (have to) incorporate all RRI processes +

outcomes

2. Most projects further away from R&I process. Selection bias or

fact?

3. Many RRI projects receive funding for a limited time (EC); difficult to

maintain the project or the product afterwards (continuity,

commitment)

4. There is more awareness/ consultation than participation

5. Inclusive deliberation in place, but what about policy impact and

change

6. It's either Responsible Research or Responsible Innovation