The Conceptualization of RRI: An Iterative Approach

  • Pim KlaassenEmail author
  • Frank Kupper
  • Sara Vermeulen
  • Michelle Rijnen
  • Eugen Popa
  • Jacqueline Broerse


To stimulate research and innovation (R&I), to contribute to the solution of societal challenges and to align R&I with societal values, the European Commission has launched the governance framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). RRI figures in many high-level EU policies as a means to promote smart growth, and a growing community of R&I practitioners from both the public and private sectors appears committed to it. Although debates on what RRI precisely entails have not reached closure yet, RRI provides an interesting avenue to explore ways of making R&I more societally germane. While recognizing the usefulness of keeping critical reflection on RRI’s meaning alive, we suggest that to make the step from theorizing to implementation, RRI could benefit from a clearer conceptualization. This chapter presents the iterative trajectory in conceptualizing RRI followed as part of RRI Tools, one of a number of EC-funded research projects and support acts aimed at fleshing out what RRI can and should be, and the conceptualization of RRI that this led to. It suggests that RRI is best captured if in R&I governance attention is paid to the five p’s of Purpose, Products, Processes, Preconditions and People, and that further elaborations on the meaning of RRI should happen in dialogue with attempts at practicing RRI.


  1. Abelson, Julia, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, John Eyles, Patricia Smith, Elisabeth Martin, and Francois-Pierre Gauvin. 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine 57 (2): 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abma, Tineke, and Jacqueline Broerse. 2010. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expectations 13 (2): 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abma, Tineke, and Guy Widdershoven. 2006. Moral deliberation in psychiatric nursing practice. Nursing Ethics 13 (5): 546–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schon. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Oxford: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and David Guston. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Edward Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boden, Mark, Christiano Cagnin, Vicente Caribias, Totti Könnölla, and Karel Haegemann. 2010. Facing the future: time for the EU to meet global challenges. Available at: Scholar
  7. Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, and Harro van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18 (3–4): 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., Tjard de Cock Buning, Anneloes Roelofsen, and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2009. Evaluating interactive policy making on biotechnology: The case of the Dutch ministry of health, welfare and sport. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 29 (6): 447–463.Google Scholar
  9. 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 (S1): 196–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. 2009. Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Cavallo, D. 2000. Emergent design and learning environments: Building on indigenous knowledge. IBM Systems Journal 39(3.4): 768–781.Google Scholar
  12. Chilvers, Jason. 2012. Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication 35 (3): 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collingridge, David. 1980. The social control of technology. London: Francis Pinter.Google Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Environment Agency. 2002. Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896–2000. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2013. Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  17. Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilkinson. 2007. The ethics of animal research. EMBO Reports 8 (6): 517–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, Erik, Roop Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham. 2006. Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, Erik, Cynthia Selin, and Jameson Wetmore, eds. 2008. Presenting futures: The yearbook of nanotechnology in society. Dordrecht: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  20. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Tow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  21. Grin, John, and Armin Grunwald, eds. 2000. Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society: Towards a repertoire for technology assesment. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Grinbaum, Alexei, and Christopher Groves. 2013. What Is “Responsible” about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In Responsible Innovation, ed. Richard Owen and John Bessant, 119–142. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guston, David, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24 (1–2): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haywood, Benjamin K., and John C. Besley. 2014. Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 92–106.Google Scholar
  25. Houghton, John, and Peter, Sheehan. 2006. The economic impact of enhanced access to research findings. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
  26. Irwin, Alan, Torben Jensen, and Kevin Jones. 2012. The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science 43 (1): 118–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jong, De, Frank Kupper Marije, Marlous Arentshorst, and Jacqueline Broerse. 2016. Responsible reporting: Neuroimaging news in the age of responsible research and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4): 1107–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klaassen, Pim, Frank Kupper, Michelle Rijnen, Sara Vermeulen, and Jacqueline Broerse. 2014. D1.1: Policy brief. RRI tools project. Amsterdam: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhlman, Stefan, Ralf Lindner, Sally Randles, Bjørn Bested, Guido Gorgoni, Erich Griessler, Allison Loconto, and Niels Mejlgaard. 2016. Navigating towards shared responsibility. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2015a. D1.3: Report on the quality criteria of Good Practice Standards in RRI. RRI tools project. Amsterdam: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Kupper, Frank, Pim Klaassen, Michelle Rijnen, Sara Vermeulen, Remco Woertman, and Jacqueline Broerse. 2015b. D1.4: A catalogue of good RRI practices. RRI tools project. Amsterdam: Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  32. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  33. Oftedal, Gry. 2014. The role of philosophy of science in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): The case of nanomedicine. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (5).Google Scholar
  34. Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palm, Elin, and Sven Ove Hansson. 2006. The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73(5): 543–558.Google Scholar
  36. Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2007. From bioethics to human practices, or assembling contemporary equipment. In Tactical biopolitics art, activism, and technoscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Regeer, Barbara, and Joske Bunders. 2009. Knowledge co-creation: Interaction between science and society. Den Haag: DeltaHage.Google Scholar
  38. Rip, Arie, Thomas Misa, and Johan Schot. 1995. Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  39. Rowe, Gene, and Lynn Frewer. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values 29 (4): 512–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schomberg, von René. 2007. From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 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. VS Verlag: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  42. Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 268: 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swierstra, Tsjalling. 1997. From critique to responsibility; The ethical turn in the technology debate. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 3 (1): 45–48.Google Scholar
  45. Van den Hoven, Jeroen (ed.). 2013. Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
  46. Voß, Jan-Peter, Adrian Smith, and John Grin. 2009. Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences 42 (4): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wickson, Fern, and Anna Carew. 2014. Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research & innovation: Learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 254–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream, 1–69. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  49. Wilsdon, J., B. Wynne, and J. Stilgoe. 2005. The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  50. World Economic Forum. 2016. The global risks report 2016. Accessed 26 Jan 2017.
  51. Worren, Nicolay, Keith Ruddle, and Karl Moore. 2016. From organizational development to change management: The emergence of a new profession. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 35 (3): 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pim Klaassen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frank Kupper
    • 1
  • Sara Vermeulen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michelle Rijnen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Eugen Popa
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Broerse
    • 1
  1. 1.Athena InstituteVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Radboud Universiteit NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Dutch Cancer SocietyAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations