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

  • Ulrike FeltEmail author


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 developing the concept’s full potential.


  1. Appadurai, Arjun. 2013. The future as cultural fact. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Czarniawska, Barbara. 1998. A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2004. Narratives in social science research. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2011. The evaluation society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deuten, Jasper J., and Arie Rip. 2000. Narrative infrastructure in product creation processes. Organization 7: 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. EC. 2013. Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. ———. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Glerup, Cecilie, and Maja Horst. 2014. Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 31–50. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41: 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim, eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of modernity. Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Larkin, Brian. 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 327–343. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Structural anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shore, Cris. 2008. Audit culture and Illiberal governance. Anthropological Theory 8: 278–298. doi: 10.1177/1463499608093815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stark, David. 2009. The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strathern, Marilyn. 2000. The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. van der Burg, Simone, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2013. Ethics on the laboratory floor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. ———. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ylijoki, Olili-Helena. 2005. Academic nostalgia: A narrative approach to academic work. Human Relations 58: 555–576. doi: 10.1177/0018726705055963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. ———. 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
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations