Advertisement

Questioning the Normative Core of RI: The Challenges Posed to Stakeholder Engagement in a Corporate Setting

  • Merel NoormanEmail author
  • Tsjalling Swierstra
  • Dorien Zandbergen
Chapter
  • 284 Downloads

Abstract

Responsible Innovation (RI) is a normative conception of technology development, which hopes to improve upon prevailing practices. One of its key principles is the active involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in deliberations in order to better embed innovations in society. In this paper, we examine the applicability of this principle in corporate settings and in smaller scale technological projects. We do so in the context of a case study focused on an innovation project of a start-up organisation with social aspirations. We describe our failed attempts to introduce RI-inspired stakeholder engagement approaches and articulate the ‘reasonable reasons’ why the organisation rejected these approaches. We then examine the methods that the organisation adopted to be responsive to various stakeholders’ needs and values. Based on our analysis, we argue that there is a need for the field of RI to explore additional and alternative ways to address issues of stakeholder commitment and inclusion, in order to make RI’s deliberative ideals more applicable to the rapid, fluid, partial, and provisional style of deliberation and decision making that we found in corporate contexts.

References

  1. Barta, Kristen, and Gina Neff. 2016. Technologies for sharing: lessons from quantified Self about the political economy of platforms. Information, Communication & Society 19 (4): 518–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blank, Steve. 2013. Why the lean start-up changes everything. Havard Business Review 91 (5): 64–73.Google Scholar
  3. Blok, Vincent, and Pieter Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2, ed. Bert-Jaap Koops et al., 19–35. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Blok, Vincent,  L. Hoffmans, and E.F.M. Wubben. 2015. Stakeholder engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector: critical issues and management practices. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15(2): 147–164.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, David, Rebekah E. McWhirter, Dianne Nicola, Tess Whitton, Margaret Otlowski, Michael M. Burgess, Simon J. Foote, Christine Critchley, and Joanne L. Dickinson. 2014. New avenues within community engagement: Addressing the ingenuity gap in our approach to health research and future provision of health care. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, Sarah R. and Maja Horst. 2015. Responsible innovation in the US, UK and Denmark: governance landscapes. In Responsible innovation, volume 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. B.J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, J. van den Hoven, H.A. Romijn, and T.E. Swierstra. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Delgado, Anna, Kamilla Lein Kjølberg, and Fern Wickson. 2010. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20 (6): 826–845. doi: 10.1177/0963662510363054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elster, Jon, ed. 1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Felt, Ulrike, and Brian Wynne. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate. Directorate General for Research, European Commission.Google Scholar
  10. Grunwald, Armin. 2014. Technology assessment for responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation 1, 15–31. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Trans. C. Lenhardt. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Horst, Maja. 2007. Public expectations of gene therapy scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology & Human Values 32 (2): 150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhlmann, Stefan, Ordonez Matamoros, Hector Gonzalo, Bart Walhout, Dorbeck-Jung, R. Barbel, Jakob Edler, Sally Randles, Sally, Gee, Elena Pariotti, Guido Gorgoni, and Simone Arnaldi. 2016. Responsible research and innovation in a distributed anticipatory governance frame. A Constructive Socio-normative Approach. Deliverable D4.8. Interim design requirement report. ResAGorA.Google Scholar
  17. Lövbrand, Eva, Roger Pielke, and Silke Beck. 2010. A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 36 (4): 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lund Declaration. 2009. Europe must focus on the grand challenges of our time. Swedish Presidency Research. https://era.gv.at/object/document/130. Accessed 3 Aug 2016.
  19. Owen, Richard, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Erik Fisher, and Dave Guston. 2013. A framework for responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heinz, 27–50. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pandza, Krsto, and Paul Ellwood. 2013. Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (5): 1112–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ries, Eric. 2011. The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  22. Siune, Karin, Eszter, Markus, Marina, Calloni, Ulrike, Felt, Andrzej Gorski, Armin Grunwald, Arie Rip, Vladimir de Semir, Sally Wyatt. 2009. Challenging Futures of science in society. Emerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Brussels: MASiS Expert Group, European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/the-masis-report_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2016.
  23. Stark, David. 2011. The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stirling, Andy. 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 262–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taebi, B., A. Correlje, E. Cuppen, M. Dignum, and U. Pesch. 2014. Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van der Burg, Simone, and Tjsalling Swierstra, eds. 2013. Ethics on the laboratory floor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Gert-jan Lokhorst, and Ibo van de Poel. 2012. Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1): 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. den Hoven, Van, Neelke Doorn Jeroen, Tsjalling Swierstra, Bert-Jaap Koops, and Henny Romijn, eds. 2014. Responsible innovation 1: Innovative solutions for global issues. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. Van Oudheusden, Michiel. 2014. Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Von Schomberg, Rene. 2011. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, ed. M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant, 51–74. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2014. The quest for the ‘right’ impacts of science and technology: a framework for responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation 1, ed. J. van den Hoven et al., 33–50. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  34. Wickson, Fern, Ana Delgado, and Kamilla Kjølberg. 2010. Who or what is ‘the public’? Nature Nanotechnology 5 (11): 757–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wickson, Fern, and Ana L. Carew. 2014. Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: Learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 254–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merel Noorman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tsjalling Swierstra
    • 2
  • Dorien Zandbergen
    • 3
  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations