What is RRI?
Responsible Research and Innovation
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a transformative approach that ensures scientific and technological progress is guided by societal needs, ethical values, and sustainable goals. It goes beyond traditional research ethics by proactively addressing the broader impacts of research on society, the environment, and future generations.
As innovation accelerates, the potential for unintended consequences grows. New technologies, while promising, can raise critical questions: Who benefits? Who is at risk? What are the environmental implications? RRI empowers researchers and institutions to anticipate and address these challenges early in the innovation process, ensuring that outcomes are both meaningful and inclusive.
Central to RRI is a commitment to:
- Ethical Responsibility: Embedding transparency, fairness, and accountability in research processes.
- Stakeholder Engagement: Actively involving the public, policymakers, and industry in shaping research directions.
- Sustainability: Aligning research outputs with global priorities, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
For researchers and institutions funded by leading bodies like the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), integrating RRI into academic programs is not just recommended—it is mandated. The EPSRC requires that RRI principles be woven into research frameworks to ensure projects meet the highest standards of responsibility and societal alignment.
Why is RRI Important?
In today’s evolving research landscape, societal trust and ethical governance are critical. RRI provides a structured approach to address these challenges, focusing on:
- Ethical Integrity: Ensuring research is conducted with transparency and accountability.
- Public Engagement: Actively involving stakeholders and communities in shaping research outcomes.
- Environmental Sustainability: Aligning innovation with global sustainable development goals.
- Equity and Inclusion: Considering diverse perspectives to ensure fair and just outcomes.
By embedding RRI principles, researchers not only comply with funding body mandates but also strengthen the impact and acceptance of their work across society.
Why Choose ORBIT?
At ORBIT, we are recognised as industry leaders in RRI education, with unparalleled experience in training the next generation of researchers.
- Proven Expertise: Our training programs are devised by world leaders in RRI, ensuring participants gain actionable insights grounded in real-world applications.
- Broad Reach: We’ve trained thousands of PhD candidates and collaborated with hundreds of academic institutions and organizations across the UK and beyond.
- Tailored Solutions: From online courses to face-to-face workshops, we offer flexible training formats to suit your institution’s needs.
- Exclusive Tools: Gain access to unique frameworks like the AREA 4P model and the ORBIT Self-Assessment Tool to integrate RRI into your research effectively.
Supporting EPSRC Compliance
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) mandates that RRI training must be part of the curriculum for funded research. ORBIT is the trusted partner for academic institutions looking to fulfill this requirement seamlessly.
Our Responsible Research Training ensures your researchers and staff are fully equipped to:
- Understand RRI principles and frameworks.
- Align research with EPSRC’s expectations and guidelines.
- Address societal and environmental impacts effectively.
With our expertise, you can be confident that your institution is meeting compliance while fostering a culture of innovation and responsibility.
Take the First Step Toward Responsible Research
Empower your institution with ORBIT’s comprehensive Responsible Research Training. From ensuring compliance with EPSRC mandates to embedding a culture of ethical and sustainable innovation, our programs deliver measurable impact for students, researchers, and organizations.
Contact us today to discuss how we can tailor our RRI training to meet your institution’s needs and elevate your research outcomes.
The Keys of Responsible Research and Innovation
Although the EPSRC commissioned the AREA Framework, it is widely recognised and used as a basis for RRI approaches across a range of funders and projects. The European Commission has also covered and promoted RRI in its Research Framework Programmes. The EU perspective builds on a different organisational history and has a different emphasis. But it provides a complementary perspective on RRI here.
The European Commission uses the term RRI to denote a number of policy activities it has pursued. These were combined under the headings of ‘Science and Society’ (FP6), ‘Science in Society’ (FP7) and ‘Science with and for Society’ (Horizon 2020).
The six keys under these headings constitute responsible research and innovation practices according to the EU. These six keys are: Ethics, Science Education, Gender Equality, Open Access, Governance and Public Engagement.
One way of interpreting the relationship between the AREA Framework and the six keys is that AREA answers the question of ‘how’ to do RRI, whereas the six keys focus on the ‘what’, i.e. the RRI content. Below, the four AREA elements and the six keys are described together in more detail in order to provide a basic explanation of RRI that can be used for projects funded either by the UK or the EU.
Thinking about the possible consequences of research and innovation is a key component of RRI. Concern over the role of science and technology in traumatic developments such as the industrialised mass killings in modern warfare and the potential annihilation of humanity through nuclear weapons led to new ways of reflecting on science and technology research and innovation. Chernobyl and Bhopal have become synonymous with industrial accidents made possible by scientific and technical progress.
It is not only catastrophic one-off events that need to be considered. Current discussions of the social consequences of social media use, for example, focus on the way in which novel technologies have cumulative effects that were unforeseen and unplanned when these technologies were developed.
This points to a key challenge of anticipation: the future is unknown. How can an individual researcher, research institute or funder be expected to know what all the future consequences of their work will be? Although not all the consequences can be known, we may have strong reasons to believe that some aspects of the future can be successfully anticipated. Past experience can to some degree be extrapolated to expectations of the future. In addition, researchers have expectations about the outcomes of their work. In the UK funding environment, most proposals have to be accompanied by a description of expected ‘pathways to impact’. Anticipation in the RRI sense of the word can be more or less formal and elaborated. The key to anticipation for RRI is to ensure that consequences of undertaking the research and of possible findings are considered and that these considerations are reflected in the research design.
Reflection is at the heart of RRI. Researchers always reflect on the research question they ask, the type of data they collect, the way they analyse the data and the implications of findings. Reflection in the RRI sense goes further to examine the research or innovation activities more broadly. This means asking fundamental questions such as “Is this research required at all?” “Will the (foreseeable) negative consequences of this work be proportional to the (intended) consequences?” or “Could the research question / problem be addressed in a completely different way?”
One way of describing reflection in RRI is to see it as an example of second order reflexivity, i.e. of a reflection on the processes of reflection that underpin and guide research. This means that the axioms and basic assumptions need to be questioned with a view to ensuring that the research is aligned with societal needs and requirements.
Reflection can be an individual activity, with the individual innovator thinking about their work. However, in many cases this will not lead to relevant insights, as it is difficult for most people to clearly understand their own biases and preconceptions. Reflexivity is therefore often best undertaken collectively. It typically forms part of engagement activities. There are also many ways of forcing reflection through organisational processes and structures, e.g. in the form of a project advisory board, stage gating processes, review and quality assurance steps and many others. The key is to ensure that there is space in the research activities to take a step back and look at the work from different perspectives.
Research ethics are relevant not only to researchers and research institutions but also to funders, policy makers and industries as they are all involved in the research and innovation process. There are three key components:
Research integrity, which refers to the appropriate conduct of researchers to prevent misconduct or negligence. As a researcher you are not only responsible for the research that you carry out, but also for your behaviour.
Applying fundamental ethical principles to research such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance, data privacy, consent.
Taking into account society’s needs to ensure societal relevance of research and align research to social values. This also includes reflecting on people’s concerns about research and innovation and including societal actors in the discourse.
Engaging with schoolteachers and students can be very effective in reaching a broad cross-section of society and inspiring the next generation of researchers. Some of the latest research about attitudes to Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects shows that students find science interesting and relevant at school, but do not see themselves as scientists. This is often connected to their level of ‘science capital’ – a measure of a person’s engagement or relationship with science, how much they value it and whether they feel it is ‘for them’ and connected to their life.
Visits from working scientists or researchers can help break down the barriers for students with low science capital. Having a face-to-face meeting with a role model can make a big difference to whether a student thinks they could do science in the future.
If you are new to working with schools, there are many existing programmes you could join in with to get started. There is a UK-wide STEM Ambassadors scheme which provides basic training and the required Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate to clear you for working in schools. In addition, there are regular events that schools want help with, including British Science Week, CREST awards (science projects done by school students), after-school science or coding clubs and regional and national events like Big Bang Fairs.
When you are talking to school students, include information about your career path and be honest about your ability and struggles. Talk about your personality traits (not just what you do), values and what it is like to work in a team. Some educational research suggests that hearing about the type of people that work in science, rather than just what they do, may help inspire more girls in particular to consider STEM careers.
- British Science Week
- Computer Science 4 fun – ideas on how to link research to engaging topics for school students
- Computer science activities you can do without a computer
- CREST Award scheme (STEM projects in schools)
- People Like Me resources (WISE downloadable workshops to run in schools)
- Research on evidence of under-represented groups in STEM
- STEM Ambassadors Scheme
There are many reasons why you should be thinking about gender equality within your RRI analysis and in your research work in general. Society is 50% female, yet the physical sciences, ICT and engineering are still majority male, especially at the higher levels. Without intention this could affect the research questions you ask or the models that you build.
In her book ‘Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men’, Caroline Criado Perez highlights many technology solutions that do not take gender differences into account, such as drugs trials, car seatbelt design and voice recognition technology.
Many research funders ask for evidence of your action plan on equality, diversity and inclusion in order to apply for funding; quality mark schemes such as Athena-SWAN (HE) and Project Juno (Institute of Physics) aim to assess action taken to ensure no barriers remain for women who want to progress in their careers of choice.
In recent years, it has become a legal requirement to publish pay data from both public and private sectors to encourage organisations to address the gender pay gap. This has begun to make changes to embedded cultural issues that were often hidden in industry and academia.
There are both ethical and economic reasons for implementing gender equality: research conducted by Harvard Business School/McKinsey shows that gender diverse boards generate better profits than those that are not.
Making research free to access and publicly available to everyone is the thinking behind Open Access – or Open Science.
There is growing evidence that Open Science can benefit research and society by reducing wasteful duplication, increasing transparency and reproducibility of results. There is also a strong moral argument for publicly funded research to be widely accessible to the public.
Open Science has been considered to be a core activity for the EU and has been included in the Horizon 2020 work programme, making it mandatory for all H2020 funded projects. On top of this, in 2018, Science Europe launched Plan S, an initiative that requires researchers that are funded by public money to publish their work in open repositories and open journals by 2021.
- FOSTER is an e-learning platform that hosts a collection of best training resources for those who want to learn more or implement OS practices in the daily workflow.
- Open Science Access
- The DOAJ is the Directory for Open Access Journals. (It provides a catalogue and access to high-quality, peer-reviewed, open access journals.
Governance refers to practices that an organisation has in place in order to foster and promote responsible research and innovation. For instance, this could be:
- Having transparent and reflective internal procedures
- Promoting participatory governance
- Fostering stakeholder engagement exercises
- Encouraging future-oriented governance
- Valuing responsiveness
These approaches highlight the importance of including stakeholders in policy research, and the importance of the active role of researchers in reflecting on and shaping the direction of their research. Not only should this reflection be directed at the effects of the research being carried out, but also on the governance principles and rules that determine the behaviour of an institution.
- European research projects that look at the best research governance practices: CONSIDER (Civil Society Organisations in Designing Research Governance):
- GREAT (Governance for Responsible Innovation)
- RES-AGORA (Responsible Research and Innovation in a Distributed Anticipatory Governance Frame. A Constructive Socio-normative Approach)
Before you start any public engagement activity you should think about your motivation and the most suitable audience for your message.
Your public engagement activity may meet a number of motivations; for example working with school students can inspire the next generation of STEM professionals, be rewarding for you and have economic impact (research shows strong links between a country’s economy and its provisions for STEM graduates).
You may feel that improving scientific literacy is of great importance and this may direct you towards a certain audience to raise their level of knowledge about a subject. By improving scientific literacy, you may also help people become better-informed in their decision making. Most forms of engagement will fit one or more of these motivations and it can be very useful to be clear with yourself which ones are important in your research and to you as a citizen as part of your planning.
The Area 4P Framework
This Framework is a tool that helps those involved in research and innovation in ICT to do so responsibly. The Framework presented here consists of a set of scaffolding questions that allow researchers, funders and other stakeholders to consider a range of aspects of ICT research. This introduction to the Framework answers the following questions:
How does the 4P Framework relate to RRI?
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) aims to help individuals and organisations to ensure the acceptability and desirability of research and innovation. It is an agenda that has been adopted by major research funders including the European Commission and the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). The EPSRC has published a framework for RRI that is based on the following four principles:
Process
Process refers to the processes undertaken in research and innovation. These cover all activities in preparing research, undertaking data collection and analysis, storage and presentation of data and interaction with respondents.
Product
Purpose
People
Research and innovation are undertaken by people and for people and have intended and unintended consequences for people. People are at the heart of RRI and need to be explicitly considered.
Anticipate, Reflect, Engage and Act (AREA)
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) aims to help individuals and organisations to ensure the acceptability and desirability of research and innovation. It is an agenda that has been adopted by major research funders including the European Commission and the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). The EPSRC has published a framework for RRI that is based on the following four principles:
Anticipate
Describing and analysing the impacts, intended or otherwise, (e.g. economic, social, environmental) that might arise. This does not seek to predict but rather to support an exploration of possible impacts and implications that may otherwise remain uncovered and little discussed.
Reflect
Reflecting on the purposes of, motivations for and potential implications of the research, and the associated uncertainties, areas of ignorance, assumptions, framings, questions, dilemmas and social transformations these may bring.
Engage
Opening up such visions, impacts and questioning to broader deliberation, dialogue, engagement and debate in an inclusive way.
Act
Using these processes to influence the direction and trajectory of the research and innovation process itself.
How do I use the Area 4P Framework?
The framework consists of a set of questions that allow a researcher, funder, policymaker or other interested party to structure the way they think about research. It can be used to gain an overview of all sorts of different aspects of RRI in ICT. It can furthermore be utilised to gain insight into specific issues, questions or applications.
Further Information about the Area 4P Framework
This Framework for RRI in ICT builds on and incorporates the broader EPSRC framework. It draws on research undertaken in the Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation in ICT to provide more detailed insights into how principles of RRI can be implemented.
This Framework is informed by characteristics that are typical for ICT, notably the high speed of innovation and diffusion, ubiquity and pervasiveness of ICT, the difficult distinction between applied and fundamental research, the logical malleability of ICT many artefacts and the problem of many hands that renders it particularly difficult to hold individuals accountable for the consequences of ICT use.
This Framework aims to provide a comprehensive overview that allows different stakeholders to navigate their way through RRI in ICT. Many of the issues, questions and suggestions are not likely to be relevant to all stakeholders or problems. The Framework has therefore been used to create a set of stakeholder-specific guidelines and recommendations that are more accessible and user friendly and easier to implement. Specific guidelines include those for
Anticipate
Is the planned research methodology acceptable?
The choice of research method and approach can have consequences that are problematic for participants of the research and the broader social and natural environment. Methodological choices also influence the possible findings and thus the relevance and consequences of the project. The following methods should be considered:
Appropriateness of the Methodology
The choice of research method and approach can have consequences that are problematic for participants of the research and the broader social and natural environment. Methodological choices also influence the possible findings and thus the relevance and consequences of the project. The following methods should be considered:
Laboratory Health and Safety
RiskAssessment
Risk assessment and risk management are part of project management. The degree to which they are required depends on type of project and funder. Risk management can be done explicitly or implicitly. From the perspective of responsiveness in RRI, explicit risk assessment and mitigation strategies are desirable to allow for broad feedback on research approaches.
Data Management
Ethical Approval Informed Consent
Most research requires ethical approval by an appropriate university or other committee. Ethics approval tends to based on biomedical ethics with the core principle of informed consent. There is a debate about the extent to which the biomedical paradigm can be applied to ICT research. Ethics review can comprise all of the issues discussed in this section, in addition to questions concerned to the way in which respondents are treated.
Will the Products be Socially Desirable?
The social desirability of an intended research outcome can have consequences for the future uptake and use of products that may be developed by the commercial sector. For this reason it is important to investigate whether or not the innova tion is consistent with existing cultural norms and customs. The following questions should be considered:
Foresight
Involves the application of critical thinking to long-term developments. Developing a clear statement of the vision for how the research might influence the future will assist in making explicit what may be otherwise implicit impacts. Additionally, the envisioning of alternative futures might provide alternative pathways for development. Finally, foresight can be used for short, mid and long-term planning and priority setting.
Vision Assessment
Is the critical analysis of visions for the future. These act as guides in the identification of ‘grand challenges’ and research funding. These are ‘attainable futures’ that are considered desirable by a collection of stakeholders. Analysis of these shared visions can reveal underlying assumptions in the construction of the problem definition and solution assessments. (Roelofsen et al 2007).
Scenarios
These are stories that describe different but equally plausible futures. They are used to systematically gather perceptions about certainties and uncertainties. They can be used to formulate strategies as well as assist in the decision-making process (Selin 2005). Scenarios are tools that can be used in foresight exercises.
Why should this research be undertaken?
Explain and justify the research for a broad audience using non-technical language.
Addressing grand challenges
Define the how your research might maximise the social and economic impact in the future.
- Economic growth
- Social need
- Scientific curiosity
- Extended impact statement
Have we included the right stakeholders?
Whether it is in the short or long term, and whether intended or unintended, research will impact society. To ensure desirability and acceptability of research impact, those affected need to be included into R&I processes as stakeholders. It therefore is important to investigate whether all relevant stakeholder-groups affected by the innovation are taken into consideration. This question needs occasionally to be revisited throughout the research process to make certain stakeholder groups are included that came into scope while the research developed.
What is Stakeholder Engagement?
Freeman (1984, p. 46) defines stakeholders as ‘any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the organization’s objectives.’ Furthermore, Stakeholder engagement has been defined by the ISEA (1999, p. 91) as ‘the process of seeking stakeholder views on their relationship with an organisation in a way that may realistically be expected to elicit them’. Part of planning stakeholder engagement is identifying stakeholders and characterising relationships with each group of them (ISEA)
Stakeholder engagement then is the process used by an organisation to engage relevant stakeholders for a clear purpose to achieve accepted outcomes. It is now also recognised as a fundamental accountability mechanism, since it obliges an organisation to involve stakeholders in identifying, understanding and responding to sustainability issues and concerns, and to report, explain and be answerable to stakeholders for decisions, actions and performance (AA1000, 2011). In addition AA1000SES suggests different levels of engagement such as:
- Consult: survey, focus groups, public meetings, workshops
- Involve: multi-stakeholder forums, advisory panels, consensus building processes, participatory decision making processes, focus groups
- Collaborate: Joint projects, partnerships
- Empower: Integration of stakeholders into governance strategy and operations management
Reflect
Which mechanisms are used to reflect on process?
A key component of responsible innovation is the reflection by the various stakeholders on their own practice and its outcome. Reflexivity is generally recognised as a positive trait of academic research. At the same time it is often difficult to achieve. The practical problem with reflexivity is that most of the time we are caught up in our daily practice and do not find the time or see the reason for reflecting on what we do, why we do it and how we do it. The literature on research governance therefore highlights some activities or project management strategies that can help strengthen reflexivity.
Advisory Board
By integrating external experts or stakeholders into an advisory board, the researchers have a clear target audience who have a commitment to think about and provide feedback to the project. Advisory boards are widely used but they can only fulfil their role of providing useful feedback if they are managed well and have clear contact points and roles and if their input is taken seriously in the project.
Internal Reflective Workshop
There is often a lack of time to reflect on the project during normal meetings which tend to be caught up in functional requirements of the project. Reflective workshops that allow various project members (possibly including the advisory board) to get to know each other better and understand each others language and ways of thinking. This can include a better understanding of the rationale for joining the project as well as the various views on its content and collaboration. Further issues to be discussed can be topics directly linked to RRI such as gender, foresight, research ethics, open access or the relationship to the public and civil society.
Stage Gating
This is a well-developed project management approach that defines certain goals which need to achieved at a particular stage of the project. These stage gates are decision points that require strategic decisions about the future of the project. The idea can be applied to RRI by defining objectives or stages that are expected. This can foster reflexivity within the project as the participants are forced to consider their progress and consequences arising from it.
Sociotechnical Integration
The term refers to the explicit integration of broader societal concerns into research and innovation processes. It has significant overlaps with the idea of RRI in general. It furthermore contains a research agenda that aims to explore how the integration of scientific / technical work with social science / humanities can work.
Midstream Modulation
This is an example fo sociotechnical integration. The term refers to the metaphors of “upstream” and “downstream” engagement and seeks to find a way to influence techno-scientific research and development while it is being performed. The idea is to integrate scholars from “reflective disciplines” i.e. social sciences or humanities into the practical scientific / technical work. These embedded scholars can then raise questions from their perspective, which can lead everybody involved to reflect on their positions.
Backcasting / Hindsight
During the project researchers and other stakeholders build up experience of undertaking research responsibly as well as limitations and downsides of the various approaches. At present much of this experience remains unused and is not made explicit. Sharing good practice based on experience is important. The term backcasting furthermore refers to a planning methodology where, based on a desired future, current decisions are determined.
How could you do it differently?
The question “how could I have done it differently” refers to all aspects of the research and innovation. It ranges from agenda setting and identification of research question to dissemination and results. In this section the question refers to research process and methodology.
Questions to be considered with regards to research product are:
- How will fundamental research influence application-oriented research?
- How does the product deal with issues of ubiquity and pervasiveness?
- Is there transparency regarding the features and functionality of the product?
- Is it possible for users to control which aspects features and functionality to enable or disable?
- Have target users feedback and suggestion been implemented in further iterations of the product?
How do you know what the consequences will be?
Investigate what might be the short and long-term the effect, result, or outcome of this product. For instance, how will it transform activities, communication, and collaboration? How will it be perceived, for instance, as trustworthy or misleading?
Systematic evaluation of Technologies in situ
It is important to evaluate technologies with target users in the settings in which they will actually be utilized. This includes integrating user-centred design principles in the design of novel technologies. For instance, conducting interviews with target users to understand their requirements, observing the environment in which the technology might be embedded to develop an understanding of how it might transform activities, and conduct user studies with participants in an assessment of prototypes from the users’ point-of-view. Finally, iteratively incorporate findings from user studies into the further design of the product.
Potential Use
Investigate how the product might be adapted or further developed into larger sociotechnical systems. How could the technology be combined with other infrastructures or devices? What might be the impact of possible or plausible adaptations?
Intended or Unintended
Examine plausible positive, unexpected benefits as well as negative, unexpected harms. These might be related to effects upon the environment, animal welfare, human health and behaviour, and social interaction.
Misuse Cases
Examine how the product might be used for harmful purposes, for example, surveillance or personal data mining. These will be specific to the product in development, but the key is to examine the possible consequences of misleading uses.
What don’t we know about?
Investigate factors that have been unexplored or where evidence of social impacts are inconclusive.
Blind spots
This is where one has to make an effort to check for potential misjudgments in strategic direction. The metaphor is taken from when drivers check when changing lanes in a car by turning their head and not relying on side mirrors alone. In this way, examine the ambiguities of the potential impacts of a product. What is unclear about its impacts? Articulating vague outcomes can assist in planning for their possible appearance in the future.
Social Desirability?
Incorporate techniques that take into account social norms such as respect for human values, quality of life, security, sustainability, privacy and social justice. These shared values are articulated in the Treaty of the European Union and should be reflected in research outcomes (Von Schomberg 2013).
Privacy by Design
Where privacy and data protection compliance is designed into systems at the early stages of development rather than being added on later after a system has been designed. This is includes making privacy the ‘default setting’ including encryption of personal information, and secure retention of data.
How could you do it differently?
The question “how could I have done it differently” refers to all aspects of the research and innovation. It ranges from agenda setting and identification of research question to dissemination and results. In this section the question refers to research process and methodology.
Questions to be considered with regards to research product are:
- How will fundamental research influence application-oriented research?
- How does the product deal with issues of ubiquity and pervasiveness?
- Is there transparency regarding the features and functionality of the product?
- Is it possible for users to control which aspects features and functionality to enable or disable?
- Have target users feedback and suggestion been implemented in further iterations of the product?
Who is affected?
In order to reflect upon who is affected by the research an explain needs to be drawn up on how the innovation impacts and/or concerns each stakeholder. The following questions should be considered:
- Who might care?
- Which groups or individuals have a stake in the research and its outcomes?
- Who benefits?
- Which groups or individuals will benefit from the research and its outputs?
- Who is in control?
- Which groups or individuals influence the research? In what ways do these stakeholders bring their influence to bear?
- Who will decide?
- Which groups or individuals make decisions concerning the research and its outcomes?
- Who will take responsibility if things go wrong?
- Which groups or individuals can be held responsible in any way for unwanted/harmful consequences of the research?
- What is the gender balance in the project?
How could you do it differently?
It is part of all reflective activities to consider possible alternatives. The question “how could I have done it differently” refers to all aspects of the research and innovation. It ranges from agenda setting and identification of research question to dissemination and results. In this section the question refers to people.
Questions to be considered with regards to people involved are:
- How were stakeholders identified?
- Who was involved in deciding what stakeholders to involve?
- How are the stakeholders relevant to meeting social challenges?
- Does the research consider the legitimate interests of those who will be affected by it?
Have we included the right stakeholders?
Whether it is in the short or long term, and whether intended or unintended, research will impact society. To ensure desirability and acceptability of research impact, those affected need to be included into R&I processes as stakeholders. It therefore is important to investigate whether all relevant stakeholder-groups affected by the innovation are taken into consideration. This question needs occasionally to be revisited throughout the research process to make certain stakeholder groups are included that came into scope while the research developed.
What is stakeholder engagement?
Freeman (1984, p. 46) defines stakeholders as ‘any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the organization’s objectives.’ Furthermore, Stakeholder engagement has been defined by the ISEA (1999, p. 91) as ‘the process of seeking stakeholder views on their relationship with an organisation in a way that may realistically be expected to elicit them’. Part of planning stakeholder engagement is identifying stakeholders and characterising relationships with each group of them (ISEA)
Stakeholder engagement then is the process used by an organisation to engage relevant stakeholders for a clear purpose to achieve accepted outcomes. It is now also recognised as a fundamental accountability mechanism, since it obliges an organisation to involve stakeholders in identifying, understanding and responding to sustainability issues and concerns, and to report, explain and be answerable to stakeholders for decisions, actions and performance (AA1000, 2011). In addition AA1000SES suggests different levels of engagement such as:
- Consult: survey, focus groups, public meetings, workshops
- Involve: multi-stakeholder forums, advisory panels, consensus building processes, participatory decision making processes, focus groups
- Collaborate: Joint projects, partnerships
- Empower: Integration of stakeholders into governance strategy and operations management
Engage
How to engage a wide group of stakeholders?
Broader public engagement is a central aspect of RRI. Participation allows for feedback on the research itself, the process and the purpose. It can increase the legitimacy of findings, broaden the knowledge base and enrich the research. Public engagement should go beyond increasing the public understanding of science (even though this is a legitimate aspect of it) and allow for a two-way communication between researchers and the public.
Identify Stakeholders
The first step in public engagement is to identify those part of the public who are interested in the research. It is important to notice that not all stakeholders are interested in joining research and there are successful examples of uninvited participation:
Participatory Processes
There are numerous methodologies for the integration of wider stakeholders into decision processes and research. Choosing the appropriate one depends on the stakeholders in question, expected outcomes and the way in which public engagement links to the research.
Process Evaluation
Public engagement activities, if they are to have a transformative effect on the research, need to be well prepared and evaluated. Evaluation mechanisms should be implemented to ensure that the engagement process is successful.
What are the viewpoints of a wide group of stakeholders?
Actively involve all stakeholders (e.g. industry, citizens, end users and policymakers) in the product design process ensuring a shared stake in successful outcomes. This includes incorporation of user-centred design principles and participatory design where target users are directly involved in the design of products.
Public engagement mechanisms.
This is where the general public (both target users and the wider public) are consulted not only in the product design but also provide input regarding the strategic direction of the product, agenda-setting, and decision making related to how the product might influence social interaction and human behaviour.
Prototype / Demonstrator Evaluation (Public)
Allow for public evaluation of research prototypes that, in the future, may be developed into commercial products. This could include exposure at public events or using the Internet to provide large, geographically distributed groups access. Ensure there are processes in place for the public to submit their feedback.
Who prioritises research?
Investigate which stakeholders make decisions within the innovation process.
For whom is the research done?
Explore stakeholders who (will) use or purposely will be/are affected by the innovation.
Act
How can your research structure become flexible?
In order to be responsive to societal and stakeholder needs, research and innovation activities need to be able to react flexibly to changing circumstances. While flexibility is something that is often difficult to achieve in academic projects which are funded on the basis of a plan covering several years, there are ways of rendering projects flexible.
Agile Project Management
Agile development methodologies are well established in software engineering. Many of the principles of ideas such as frequent engagement with customers and stakeholders, early development of prototypes etc. may be in the spirit of responsible innovation and help research activities remain flexible.
Document Emerging Perspectives
To justify flexible development of the project and responsiveness to changing circumstances, the reasons for the change should be documented and related to the project.
Recalibrating the Vision of the Project
It should be possible to re-evaluate and, where necessary, to recalibrate the vision of the project and, consequently the research approach. This may mean a revision of the research question, the research methodology or intended outputs.
When Training is Required.
In order to ensure that the research and innovation process is acceptable and complies with current statutory and other requirements, training needs to be available in the following areas:
Research Integrity
This refers to accepted standards of researcher behaviour to ensure truthfulness, replicability
Research Management
Research and project management are skills that any researcher, PI or coordinator should possess. They are a necessary precondition for steering a research project in desirable directions.
Data Management
is required to ensure privacy and confidentiality of personal data as well as availability and transparency of other research data.
What infrastructure is required?
Departmental ethics committee capable of addressing ICT concerns
- Funding for engagement activities
- Tools to support the ICT community
- Database of project ‘lessons-learned’
What needs to be done to ensure social desirability?
- Develop ways to motivate action for the co-design of products.
- Create incentives for thinking about research outputs
- Encourage responsible design by recognising efforts with awards, funding and other activities.
- Encourage appropriate development approaches
- Create internal processes that facilitate iterative, participatory design.
What training is required?
In order to ensure that research and innovation products are acceptable and complies with current statutory and other requirements, training needs to be available in the following areas:
Understanding regulation and compliance.
What infrastructure is required?
Accessible participatory tools and methods
How do we ensure that the implied future is desirable?
Consider implied future state at project/programme inception.
Horizon Scanning.
Develop scenarios that provide systematic examinations of plausible futures.
What training is required?
Consider new skills that could be developed.
Understanding of ELSI.
Become familiar with analysing research through the lens of ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). Examine the moral, regulatory, and cultural impacts or consequences.
Understanding current debates and controversies.
Keep up-to-date with social issues in your area of research. This can be achieved by engaging in debates that appear in the media or public reactions to research. Consider taking a course in media engagement or similar.
What infrastructure is required?
Consider new or existing organizational structures that could better support research outputs.
Reflect on the purpose of funding mechanisms and project evaluation criteria.
Who matters?
Actively involve relevant stakeholders into the product design process.
What capacities are required?
In order for the research and innovation process to be inclusive and participatory, capacity needs to be built in the areas: (AA1000, 2011)
Knowledge.
Understanding and awareness of the issues, the organisation, the local cultures and politics.
Skills.
Language and communication skills, ability to examine and interpret the outputs of stakeholder engagement in a way that captures the key facts and figures, as well as messages and insights, and Individual personality traits such as integrity, ability to focus on solutions, motivation, and creativity.
Opportunity.
Necessary financial and physical resources, time to participate, access to information.
What training is required?
Consider new skills that could be developed.
What infrastructure is required?
Consider new or existing organizational structures that could better support research outputs.
- Community building
- Leadership council
- Champions / Advocates
- Science education to allow the public to engage intelligently