Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective

Abstract

Across the European research area and beyond, efforts are being mobilized to align research and innovation processes and products with societal values and needs, and to create mechanisms for inclusive priority setting and knowledge production. A central concern is how to foster a culture of “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) among scientists and engineers. This paper focuses on RRI teaching at higher education institutions. On the basis of interviews and reviews of academic and policy documents, it highlights the generic aspects of teaching aimed at invoking a sense of care and societal obligation, and provides a set of exemplary cases of RRI-related teaching. It argues that the Aristotelian concept of phronesis can capture core properties of the objectives of RRI-related teaching activities. Teaching should nurture the students’ capacity in terms of practical wisdom, practical ethics, or administrative ability in order to enable them to act virtuously and responsibly in contexts which are often characterized by uncertainty, contention, and controversy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    More information on the project at http://heirri.eu/.

  2. 2.

    The dilemma game can be found here: https://www.eur.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/ieb/integriteit/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf.

References

  1. Akaygun, S., Adadan, E., Sanyal, A., & Açikel, B. (2016). Nano and health: Teacher notes. Retrieved from http://www.irresistible-project.eu/index.php/en/resources/teaching-modules. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  2. Aristotle. (2009). The Nicomachean ethics (D. Ross, Trans., revised with an introduction and notes by Lesley Brown). Oxford: OUP. ProQuest Ebook Central.

  3. Arnaldi, S., & Bianchi, L. (2016). Responsibility in science and technology: Elements of a social theory. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Birnbacher, D. (1999). The socratic method in teaching medical ethics: Potentials and limitations. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2, 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Broerse, J. (2016). Integrating RRI in universities: Training future students in transdisciplinary research. In Keynote session at the 1st HEIRRI conference “Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation at University”, Barcelona, Spain.

  6. Burget, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2016). Definitions and conceptual dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Department of Information Science and Media Studies. (2015). ViSmediaVisual surveillance technologies and journalism. Retrieved from http://www.uib.no/en/infomedia/94035/vismedia-%E2%80%93-visual-surveillance-technologies-and-journalism. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  8. European Union. (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation: Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  9. Felt, U., Fochler, M., Müller, A., & Strassnic, M. (2009). Unruly ethics: On the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomics. Public Understanding of Science, 18(3), 354–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Funtowicz, S., & Strand, R. (2011). Change and commitment: Beyond risk and responsibility. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 995–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81–C84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Glerup, C., & Horst, M. (2014). Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Griessler, E., & Littig, B. (2006). Neosokratische Dialoge zu ethischen Fragen der Xenotransplantation. Ein Beitrag zur Bearbeitung ethischer Probleme in partizipativer Technikfolgenabschätzung. In E. Buchinger & U. Felt (Eds.), Technik- und Wissenschaftssoziologie in Österreich. Stand und Perspektiven. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie. Sonderheft (pp. 131–157). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hutchings, B. (2006). Principles of enquiry-based learning. The University of Manchester, Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/resources/papers/ceeblgr002.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  16. IRRESISTIBLE. (2014). The project bringing Responsible Research and Innovation into the classroom. A brief overview of the project. Retrieved from http://www.irresistible-project.eu/images/irr-mat/IRRESISTIBLE_folder_EN_02-2014.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  17. Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. (2014). Rome declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  18. Kjølberg, K. L., & Strand, R. (2011). Conversations about responsible nanoresearch. Nanoethics, 5, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kristjánsson, K. (2015). Phronesis as an ideal in professional medical ethics: Some preliminary positionings and problematics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 36, 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lindner, R., Kuhlmann, S., & Walhout, B. (2016). Developing an orientating framework for strategic reflection: The Res-AGorA responsibility navigator. Technikfolgenabschätzung: Theorie und Praxis, 25(2), 66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mejlgaard, N., Buljan, I., Elías, N. S., Cayetano i Giralt, M., Griessler, E., Hansen, L. S., Lang, A., Marušić, A., Revuelta de la Poza, G., Strand, R., & Wuketich, M. (2016a). Stock taking/inventorying (WP2): Deliverable 2.2 state of the art review. Retrieved from http://www.guninetwork.org/files/images/imce/heirri_wp2_d2.2.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  23. Mejlgaard, N., Buljan, I., Saladié, N., Altenhofer, M., Cayetano, M., Gmelch, N., Griessler, E., Gylstroff, S., Lang, A., Marušić, A., Revuelta, G., Strand. R., & Wuketich, M. (2016b). Stock taking/inventorying (WP2): Deliverable 2.3 HEIRRI database. Retrieved from http://www.guninetwork.org/files/images/imce/heirri_wp2_d2.3.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  24. Mejlgaard, N., & Griessler, E. (2016). Monitoring RRI in Europe: Approach and key observations. In R. Lindner, S. Kuhlmann, S. Randles, B. Bedsted, G. Gorgoni, E. Griessler, A. Loconto & N. Mejlgaard (Eds.), Navigating towards shared responsibility in research and innovation: Approach, process and results of the Res-AGorA project (pp. 115–120). Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Natali, C. (2014). The book on wisdom. In R. Polansky (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics (pp. 180–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nyre, L., Gynnild, A., & Guribye, F. (2015). Drones in education: Teaching students to make responsible journalism with new technology. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/heirriproject/docs/smart_drones_for_journalism._teachi. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  27. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pakaluk, M. (2005). Aristotle’s Nichomachean ethics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41, 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D. J., & Millar, K. (2016). A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & P. E. Ertmers (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shelley-Egan, C., Wright, D., Benčin, R., Riha, J. S., Strle, G., Ovadia, D., Cañedo, A. P., Angeli, C., & Sotiriou, M. (2014). SATORI deliverable D2.1Report (handbook) of participatory processes. Retrieved from http://satoriproject.eu/media/D2.1_Report-handbook-of-participatory-processes_FINAL1.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  34. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. STIPS. (2012a). STIPS: Program for education and research on science and technology in public sphere. Retrieved form http://stips.jp/english/. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  36. STIPS. (2012b). Science and technology in public sphere. Retrieved from http://www.stips.kyoto-u.ac.jp/stips_e. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  37. Sunderland, M. E., Taebi, B., Carson, C., & Kastenberg, W. (2014). Teaching global perspectives: Engineering ethics across international and academic borders. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 228–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tassone, V. C., O’Mahony, C., McKenna, E., Eppink, H. J., & Wals, A. E. J. (2017). (Re-)designing higher education curricula in times of systemic dysfunction: A Responsible Research and Innovation perspective. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0211-4. (online first).

    Google Scholar 

  39. University of Monatana. (2003). Online research ethics course. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/montana_round1/research_ethics.html#brief. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  40. van Donzel, M., Dijkstra, G., & Wynstra, F. (2013). Fostering professionalism and integrity in research: Final report of the taskforce scientific integrity. Retrieved from https://www.eur.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/ieb/integriteit/Taskforce_Scientific_Integrity_EUR.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.

  41. von Schomberg, R. (2011). Research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. In R. von Schomberg (Ed.), A report from the European commission services. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wickson, F., & Carew, A. L. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: Learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1, 254–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Winner, L. (1985). Do artifacts have politics? In D. Mackenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem based learning. British Medical Journal, 326, 328–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this paper was performed in the context of the “Higher Education Institutions and Responsible Research and Innovation” (HEIRRI) project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 666004. The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable advice offered by two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niels Mejlgaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mejlgaard, N., Christensen, M.V., Strand, R. et al. Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 597–615 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0029-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Responsible Research and Innovation
  • RRI teaching
  • Phronesis