Advertisement

Social Learning and Identity: Some Implications for RRI

  • Lotte AsveldEmail author
Chapter
  • 259 Downloads

Abstract

The core of the concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) is the principle of mutual responsiveness; that is, actors should engage in a transparent and interactive exchange of values, concerns and hopes regarding a new technology to arrive at a shared perspective. As such, RRI can be considered a form of social learning. However, whether such mutual responsiveness is feasible depends on the identities of the actors involved. Identities consist of moral framework and a collection of social roles. Identities influence our willingness and capacity to engage in social learning exercises such as RRI. In this paper, I argue that taking the issue of identity into account can help structure RRI exercises to enhance their effectiveness. It can also make us more precise about which societal goals we can achieve through RRI and for which goals we need additional measures.

References

  1. Asveld, Lotte. 2008. Respect for autonomy and technological Risk. PhD Thesis, Delft University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Asveld, Lotte, and Dirk Stemerding. 2017. Social learning in the bioeconomy: The case of Ecover. In Experimentation beyond the laboratory. New perspectives on technology in society, ed. Ibo van de Poel, Donna Mehos, and Lotte Asveld. London: Ashgate Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2010. The ethics of identity. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  4. Armitage, Derek, Melissa Marschke, and Ryan Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 86–98. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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: Concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. Bert-Jaap Koops, Ilse Oosterlaken, Henny Romijn, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Jeroen van den Hoven, 19–35. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bogner, Alexander. 2012. The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values 37 (5): 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuppen, Eefje. 2012. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sciences 45 (1): 23–46. doi: 10.1007/s11077-011-9141-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, Janet, and Lisa P. Nathan. 2015. Value sensitive design: Applications, adaptations, and critiques. In Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains, ed. Jeroen van den Hoven, E. Pieter Vermaas, and Ibo van de Poel, 11–40. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vries, Bert J.M., and Arthur C. Petersen. 2009. Conceptualizing sustainable development: An assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecological Economics 68 (4): 1006–1019. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Witt, Annick, Patricia Osseweijer, and Robin Pierce. 2015. Understanding public perceptions of biotechnology through the “Integrative Worldview Framework”. Public Understanding of Science: 1–19. doi: 10.1177/0963662515592364.
  11. Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dryzek, John S. 2013. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hedlund-De Witt, Annick. 2013. Worldviews and the transformation to sustainable societies. PhD thesis, Vrije University.Google Scholar
  14. Hoven, J.V.D., and K. Jacob. 2013. Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Joss, Simon, and Sergio Bellucci. 2002. Participatory technology assessment. In European perspectives. London: Center for the Study of Democracy.Google Scholar
  16. Kahan, Dan M. 2012. Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In Handbook of risk theory, ed. Sabine Roeser, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Per Sandin, and Martin Peterson, 725–759. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kupper, Frank, Linda Krijgsman, Henriette Bout, and Tjard de Cock Buning. 2007. The value lab: Exploring moral frameworks in the deliberation of values in the animal biotechnology debate. Science and Public Policy 34 (9): 657–670. doi: 10.3152/030234207x264944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laden, Anthony Simon. 2001. Reasonably radical: Deliberative liberalism and the politics of identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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: 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  21. Reed, Mark, Anna Clair Evely, Georgina Cundill, Ioan Raymond Albert Fazey, Jane Glass, Adele Laing, Jens Newig, Brad Parrish, Christina Prell, and Chris Raymond. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15 (4): r1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rip, Arie. 2014. The past and future of RRI. Life sciences, society and policy 10 (1): 17.Google Scholar
  23. Röling, Niels. 2002. Beyond the aggregation of individual preferences. In Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management, 25–48.Google Scholar
  24. Schot, Johan. 2001. Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13 (1): 39–52. doi: 10.1080/09537320120040437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stilgoe, J., Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. London: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  27. van de Poel, Ibo, and Sjoerd D. Zwart. 2010. Reflective equilibrium in R & D networks. Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (2): 174–199. doi: 10.1177/0162243909340272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van de Poel, Ibo. 2016. An ethical framework for evaluating experimental technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Mierlo, Barbara, Cees Leeuwis, Ruud Smits, and Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis. 2010. Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77 (2): 318–334. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Von Schomberg, Rene. 2011. Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biotechnology & SocietyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations