Criterios, principios e indicadores de conectividad para la inclusividad responsable en ciencia y tecnología

Julieta Barrenechea; Andoni Ibarra

doi:10.33064/43crscsh1983

Authors

Julieta Barrenechea Euskampus Fundazioa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8689-5367
Andoni Ibarra Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8643-0700

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33064/43crscsh1983

Keywords:

science, technology, RRI, indicators, social connectivity, inclusiveness, relational quality

Abstract

Consideration of a more responsible approach to research in science and technology is contributing to a decisive change in our image of science, which is moving away from an essentialist conception to one that is projected more towards socially desirable outcomes and innovations. The concept of RRI also postulates the need for governance mechanisms in scientific and technological practices. However, in the current debate it is unclear what should be understood by social desirability or inclusive governance. Contributions aiming to operationalize RRI, by means of principles and criteria for their evaluation, predominantly advocate a reductionist conceptualization of responsibility encapsulated in certain predetermined dimensions. By contrast, this paper propounds that responsibility should be relationally conceived as co-responsibility based on the inclusiveness of societal actors, and provides a tool that considers the factors, dimensions and indicators needed to operationalize inclusiveness based on socially relevant connectivity. This tool has been developed on the basis of fieldwork carried out at the Cooperative Research Center CIC bioGUNE – Basque Country.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Julieta Barrenechea, Euskampus Fundazioa

Julieta Barrenechea (julieta.barrenechea@euskampus.eu) es doctora en Filosofía de la Ciencia por la Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU. Es investigadora colaboradora de la Cátedra Sánchez-Mazas y trabaja en Euskampus Fundazioa y en la Universidad de Bordeaux para acompañar el desarrollo de proyectos de colaboración científica y de innovación educativa asumiendo un enfoque de universidad relacional e incorporando la perspectiva Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Roles: conceptualización, metodología, escritura de versión original, revisión y edición (ORCID 0000-0001-8689-5367).

Andoni Ibarra, Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU

Andoni Ibarra (andoni.ibarra@ehu.eus) es coordinador de la Cátedra Miguel Sánchez-Mazas de la UPV/EHU, dedicada a los Estudios de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Es asimismo editor en jefe de la revista Theoria. Ha publicado libros y artículos en temas sobre prácticas representacionales en ciencia, redes de conocimiento, evaluación y validación de la ciencia y la tecnología, y gobernanza e innovación responsable. Roles: conceptualización, supervisión, escritura, revisión y edición (ORCID 0000-0002-8643-0700).

References

Barrenechea, J. (2015). Evaluación de la actividad científica: conectividad relevante y calidad relacional. Una propuesta teórico-metodológica (Tesis Doctoral). Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU, Donostia-San Sebastián.

Barrenechea, J., García Fronti, J. e Ibarra, A. (2016). GOBERNPROY: una herramienta para la gestión de proyectos basada en la reflexividad inclusiva. En J. Barrenechea, B. Luque y J. Ibarra (Eds.), Aprender en innovación inclusiva. Un reto para proyectos innovadores y políticas territoriales (pp. 162–176). Bilbao: Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU.

Borgatti, S. P. y Lopez-Kidwell, V. (2011). Network Theory. En J. Scott y P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 40–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320887

Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196–233. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

Casas, R. (2001) (Coord.). La formación de redes de conocimiento: una perspectiva regional desde México. Barcelona: Anthropos.

Casas, R. (2003) (Coord.). Intercambio y flujos de conocimiento en las redes. En M. Luna (Ed.), Itinerarios del conocimiento: formas dinámicas y contenido. Un enfoque de redes (pp. 306–354). Barcelona: Anthropos.

Eizagirre, A., Rodríguez, H. e Ibarra, A. (2017) Politicizing Responsible Innovation: Responsibility as Inclusive Governance. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(1), 20–36. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1440.101003.

European Commission (2013). Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2014–2015: 16. Science with and for Society, C(2013) 8631 of 10 December 2013. Bruselas.

European Commission (2014). Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2014–2015: 16. Science with and for Society, Revised, C(2014) 9294 of 10 December 2014. Bruselas.

Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L. y Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496. doi:10.1177/0270467606295402

Flipse, S. M., van Dam, K. H., Stragier, J., Oude Vrielink, T. J. C. y van der Sanden, M. C. A. (2015). Operationalizing responsible research & innovation in industry through decision support in innovation practice. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 15(2), 135–146. doi:10.3920/JCNS2015.x004

Funtowicz, S. O. y Ravetz, J. R. (2000). La ciencia posnormal: Ciencia con la gente. Barcelona: Icaria.

García, M., Ibáñez, J. y Alvira, F. (1996/2008). El análisis de la realidad social. Métodos y técnicas de investigación. Madrid: Alianza.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. y Trow, M. (1997). La nueva producción del conocimiento. La dinámica de la ciencia y la investigación en las sociedades contemporáneas. Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.

Guston, D. H. (2005). Institutional Design for Socially Robust Knowledge: The National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens. En S. Maasen y P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making (pp. 63–79). Dordrecht: Springer.

Guston, D. H. y Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 93–109. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1

Heras, M. y Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2017). Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: how to measure the impact? International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2482–2507. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1392643

Hoffmann-Riem, H. y Wynne, B. (2002). In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance. Nature, 416(6877), 123. doi:10.1038416123a

Jansen, M. W., De Vries, N. K., Kok, G. y van Oers, H. A. (2008). Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy, 86(2-3), 295–307. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.005

Karinen, R. y Guston, D. H. (2010). Toward Anticipatory Governance: The Experience with Nanotechnology. En M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen y C. Rehmann-Sutter (Eds.), Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime (pp. 217–232). Dordrecht: Springer.

Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Limson, J. (2018). Putting responsible research and innovation into practice: a case study for biotechnology research, exploring impacts and RRI learning outcomes of public engagement for science students. Synthese, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-02063-y

Luna, M. (2003). La red como mecanismo de coordinación y las redes de conocimiento. En M. Luna (Coord.), Itinerarios del conocimiento: formas dinámicas y contenido. Un enfoque de redes (pp. 51–78). Barcelona: Anthropos.

Luna, M. y Velasco, J. L. (2006). Redes de conocimiento: principios de coordinación y mecanismos de integración. En M. Albornoz y C. Alfaraz (Eds.), Redes de conocimiento: construcción, dinámica y gestión (pp. 15–38). Buenos Aires: Redes, Centro de Estudios sobre Ciencia, Desarrollo y Educación Superior.

McGregor, J. y Wetmore, J. M. (2009). Researching and Teaching the Ethics and Social Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Laboratory. NanoEthics, 3(1), 17–30. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0055-1

Monsonís-Payá, I., García-Melón, M. y Lozano, J.-F. (2017). Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting. Sustainability, 9(12), 2168. doi:10.3390/su9122168

MoRRI (2018). The evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe: The MoRRI indicators report. Bruselas: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

Otero-Hermida, P. y García-Melón, M. (2018). Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain. Sustainability, 10(9), 2980. doi:10.3390/su10092980

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. y Stilgoe, J. (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

Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E. y Guston, D. H. (2013). A Framework for Responsible Innovation. En R. Owen, J. Bessant y M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation (pp. 27–50). Chichester: Wiley.

Ramji, A. y Creech, H. (2004). Knowledge Networks: Guidelines for Assessment. Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Rip, A. (1998). Modern and post-modern science policy. EASST Review, 17(3), 13–16.

Rip, A. y van der Meulen, B. J. R. (1996). The post-modern research system. Science and Public Policy, 23(6), 343–352. doi:10.1093/spp/23.6.343

Rip, A., Misa, T. J. y Schot, J. (1995). Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology. Londres y Nueva York: Pinter Publisher.

Rodríguez, H., Eizagirre, A. e Ibarra, A. (2019). Dynamics of responsible innovation constitution in European Union research policy: tensions, possibilities and constraints. En R. von Schomberg y J. Hankins (Eds.), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (pp. 167–180). Cheltenham y Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Rodríguez, H., Fisher, E. y Schuurbiers, D. (2013). Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy, 42(5), 1126–1137. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.006

Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85–91. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8

Schot, J. y Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2), 251–268. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1

Schuurbiers, D. y Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO reports, 10(5), 424–427. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.80

Smith-Doerr, L. y Powell, W. W. (2005). Networks and Economic Life. En N. J. Smelser y R. Swedberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 379–402). Nueva York: Princeton University Press.

Spaapen, J., Wamelink, F. y Roberts, L. L. (1999). The evaluation of university research: A method for the incorporation of societal value of research. La Haya: National Council for Agricultural Research.

Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J. y Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. y Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Stirling, A. (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:10.1177/0162243907311265

Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468(7327), 1029–1031. doi:10.1038/4681029a

Strand, R., Spaapen, J., Bauer, M. W., Hogan, E., Revuelta, G. y Stagl, S. (2015). Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation. Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union.

Taylor-Powell, E. y Rossing, B. (2009). Evaluating collaborations: challenges and methods. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Bruselas: European Commission.

von Schomberg, R. (2015). From ‘Responsible Development of Technologies’ to Responsible Innovation. Adaptado de J. Britt Holbrook y C. Mitcham, C. (Eds.), Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: A Global Resource (ESTE2), 2.ª edición. © 2015 Gale, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Recuperado de https://renevonschomberg.wordpress.com/from-responsible-development-of-technologies-to-responsible-innovation/

Wickson, F. y Carew, A. L. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 254–273. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.963004

Wilsdon, J. y Willis, R. (2004). See-through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Londres: Demos.

Yaghmaei, E. (2018). Responsible research and innovation key performance indicators in industry: A case study in the ICT domain. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(2), 214–234. doi:10.1108/JICES-11-2017-0066

Ziman, J. M. (1994). Prometheus Bound. Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ziman, J. M. (2002). Real Science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.