“Response-able Practices” or “New Bureaucracies of Virtue”: The Challenges of Making RRI Work in Academic Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 3

Abstract

In recent years, “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) has become a new buzzword at the core of European science policy discourses and beyond. Using a narrative approach, this paper aims to explore how academic researchers can potentially make sense of RRI and turn it into an academic core value. Narratives on research and its relation to society drawn from different sources in the Austrian context will be used to reflect on how they contribute to creating shared meaning, participate in the constitution of a broader sense of direction and valuation, and enable or constrain researchers’ actions. Using epistemic living spaces and narrative infrastructures as key-sensitizing concepts, the paper identifies and elaborates on three main narrative clusters that collectively frame the ways in which researchers can make sense of their work and engage with questions of RRI. In conclusion, this allows identifying the potential resistances RRI might encounter, the research still to be done in order to understand the dynamics at work and the work needed to support develo** the concept’s full potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/buzzword

  2. 2.

    Regulation (EU) No. 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 December 2013 Establishing Horizon 2020—the framework programme for research and innovation (2014–2020)—of 20 Dec. 2013, Official Journal of European Union, L347/104, http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-eu-establact_en.pdf

  3. 3.

    My gratitude goes to the many researchers who took the time to participate in interviews and discussion groups in the following projects conducted between 2004 and 2014: “Let’s talk about GOLD. Analysing the interactions between genome research(ers) and the public as a learning process”, funded by GEN-AU as an ELSA project; “Knowing – Knowledge, Institutions and Gender. An East-West Comparative Study”, funded by the European Commission, FP6. “Living Changes in the Life Sciences. Tracing the Ethical and Social within Scientific Practice and Work Culture”, funded by GEN-AU as an ELSA project. “Making Futures Present. The Coproduction of Nano and Society in the Austrian Context, funded by FWF”. “Transdisciplinarity as culture and practice”, funded by BMWFW under the programme provision.

  4. 4.

    For a more complete overview on the dimensions and definitions of RRI see Burget et al. (2017) and Ribeiro et al. (2017).

  5. 5.

    This notion was first used by Deuten and Rip (2000) to study design processes in an organisation.

  6. 6.

    This notion was inspired by Jacob and Riles (2007), who coined it to study informed consent as one expression of such new bureaucracies of virtue. In this paper, the notion is developed in a slightly different direction and is not specifically tied to the core questions of ethics in biomedicine.

  7. 7.

    This notion has been inspired by Hecht’s (2001) use of technopolitical regime.

References

  • Appadurai, Arjun. 2013. The future as cultural fact. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Peter. 2007. Le charme discrete du formulaire. In Politiques et usages de la langue en europe, ed. Michael Werner, 217–241. Paris: Editions de la maison des sciences de l’homme.

    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: 238–253. doi:10.1177/0963662513515371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, Colette, Bart Walhout, Alexander Peine, and Harro van Lente. 2014. Steering with big words: articulating ideographs in research programs. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 151–170. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.922732.

    Article  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: 1–19. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, Barbara. 1998. A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Narratives in social science research. London: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2011. The evaluation society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Saille, Stevienna. 2015. Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2: 152–168. doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deuten, Jasper J., and Arie Rip. 2000. Narrative infrastructure in product creation processes. Organization 7: 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald, James. 1997. “This, here, now: Imagining the modern city.” In Imagining Cities: Scripts, Signs, Memory, (ed.) Sallie Westwood and John Williams, 181–201. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. 2013. Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • ERAB. 2009. Preparing europe for a new renaissance. A strategic view of the european research area. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, Wendy Nelson, and Michael Sauder. 2007. Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113: 1–40. doi:10.1086/517897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, Ulrike, ed. 2009. Knowing and living in academic research. Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the european context. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Within, across and beyond: Reconsidering the role of social sciences and humanities in europe. Science as Culture 23: 384–396. doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.926146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Of time-scapes and knowledge-scapes: Re-timing research and higher education. In New landscapes and languages in higher education, ed. Peter Scott, Jim Gallacher, and Gareth Parry, 129–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. 2010. Riskante Verwicklungen des Epistemischen, Strukturellen und Biographischen: Governance-Strukturen und deren mikropolitische Implikationen für das akademische Leben. In Steuerung von Wissenschaft? Die Governance des österreichischen Innovationssystems. Innovationsmuster in der österreichischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Band 7, ed. Peter Biegelbauer, 297–328. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, Ulrike, Brian Wynne, Michel Callon, Maria Eduarda Gonçalves, Sheila Jasanoff, Maria Jepsen, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Zdenek Konopasek, Stefan May, Claudia Neubauer, Arie Rip, Karen Siune, Andy Stirling, and Mariachiara Tallacchini. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, Ulrike, Milena Bister, Michael Strassnig, and Ursula Wagner. 2009. Refusing the information paradigm: Informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health 13: 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, Ulrike, Daniel Barben, Alan Irwin, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Arie Rip, Andy Stirling, and Tereza Stöckelová. 2013. Science in society: Caring for our futures in turbulent times, policy briefing 50. Strasbourg: ESF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, Ulrike, Judith Igelsböck, Andrea Schikowitz, and Thomas Völker. 2016. Transdisciplinary sustainability research in practice: Between imaginaries of collective experimentation and entrenched academic value orders. Science, Technology & Human Values 41: 732–761. doi:10.1177/0162243915626989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik. 2005. Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the national nanotechnology program. Technology in Society 27: 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham. 2006. Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26: 485–496. doi:10.1177/0270467606295402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fochler, Maximilian. 2016. Variants of epistemic capitalism: Knowledge production and the accumulation of worth in commercial biotechnology and the academic life sciences. Science, Technology & Human Values 41 (5): 922–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fochler, Maximilian, Ulrike Felt, and Ruth Müller. 2016. Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva 54: 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garforth, Lisa, and Alice Cervinková. 2009. Times and trajectories in academic knowledge production. In Knowing and living in academic research. convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the european context, ed. Ulrike Felt. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, Paul, Oili-Helena Ylijoki, Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela, and Roland Barnett, eds. 2015. Universitites in the flux of time: An exploration of time and temporality in university life. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glerup, Cecilie, and Maja Horst. 2014. Map** ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 31–50. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, Gabrielle. 2001. Technology, politics, and national identity in France. In Technologies of power: Essays in honor of Thomas Parke Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes, ed. Michael Thad Allen and Gabrielle Hecht, 253–294. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, Stephen, Barbara Prainsack, and J. Benjamin Hurlbut. 2017. Ethics as governance in genomics and beyond. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 823–851. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, Marie Andrée, and Annelise Riles. 2007. The new bureaucracies of virtue: Introduction. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 30: 181–191. doi:10.1525/pol.2007.30.2.181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41: 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim, eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of modernity. Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, Anne, and Dagmar Lorenz-Meyer. 2009. Working together apart. In Knowing and living in academic research. Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the european context, ed. Ulrike Felt, 127–168. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, Brian. 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 327–343. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Structural anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, Bruce. 2007. Defining and rewarding academic citizenship: The implications for university promotions policy. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 29: 261–273. doi:10.1080/13600800701457863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, eds. 2013. Responsible innovation. managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, Barbara E., Robert D. Smith, and Kate Millar. 2017. A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 23: 81–103. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, Cris. 2008. Audit culture and Illiberal governance. Anthropological Theory 8: 278–298. doi:10.1177/1463499608093815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, Cris, and Susan Wright. 2015. Governing by numbers: Audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology 23: 22–28. doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, David. 2009. The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, Jack, and David H. Guston. 2017. Resposible research and innovation. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 853–880. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Develo** a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

    Article  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: 262–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, Marilyn. 2000. The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26: 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, Lucy. 2013. Consuming anthropology. In Interdisciaplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences, ed. Andrew Barry and Georgina Born, 141–160. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Burg, Simone, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2013. Ethics on the laboratory floor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, René. 2011. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgenabschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, ed. M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 51–73. Chichester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ylijoki, Olili-Helena. 2005. Academic nostalgia: A narrative approach to academic work. Human Relations 58: 555–576. doi:10.1177/0018726705055963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Conquered by project time? Conflicting temporalities in university research. In Universities in the flux of time. An exploration of time and temporality in university life, ed. Paul Gibbs, Oili-Helena Ylijoki, Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela, and Ronald Barnett, 94–107. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, and Arjan van Rooij. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrike Felt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Felt, U. (2017). “Response-able Practices” or “New Bureaucracies of Virtue”: The Challenges of Making RRI Work in Academic Environments. In: Asveld, L., van Dam-Mieras, R., Swierstra, T., Lavrijssen, S., Linse, K., van den Hoven, J. (eds) Responsible Innovation 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64834-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation