Canadian Academy Discover, Publish, Thrive
The study investigates the evolution and application of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks in Spanish technological centers. It develops a process-maturity framework to assess their commitment to RRI principles, facilitating learning and bridging the gap between theory and practice. This framework serves as both an evaluation methodology and a management system for promoting responsible behavior in innovative activities.
Over the past decade, the European Commission has introduced the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a novel approach to fostering relationships between society, research, and innovation. RRI emphasizes placing societal needs and values at the core of research and innovation endeavors, involving all stakeholders and citizens from the outset to align outcomes with societal values. This approach aims to enhance anticipation of potential benefits and drawbacks of research outcomes. RRI is essentially about conducting science and innovation in a manner that benefits society. Various definitions and interpretations of RRI have emerged, but it generally involves a transparent and interactive process where social actors and innovators mutually assume responsibility for the ethical, sustainable, and socially desirable aspects of research and innovation. Implementing RRI in organizations faces challenges such as structural, cultural, and interchange barriers.
This paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of how Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) embrace RRI principles. RTOs play a crucial role as intermediaries between macro-level innovation systems and micro-level companies, facilitating collaboration and resource sharing to address complex technological challenges. The research has two main objectives: firstly, to evaluate RTOs’ commitment to RRI principles through a developed framework, bridging theoretical concepts with organizational practices; secondly, to investigate how RTOs engage with RRI principles, treating them as “learning organizations” to understand changes and adaptations within their structures. By addressing these objectives, the study aims to provide empirical and theoretical insights into the implementation of RRI and the learning needs of organizations involved in scientific community initiatives.
In the realm of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), scholars have delineated key dimensions known as AIRR or AREA: Anticipation, Inclusion, Reflexibility, and Responsiveness. These dimensions are pivotal in shaping research processes and their outcomes, urging organizations to consider their contexts and potential impacts. Additionally, the European Union has introduced RRI keys, including ethics, citizen participation, gender equality, science education, open science, governance, environmental sustainability, and social justice, to operationalize RRI and foster stakeholder dialogue. However, discourse on these keys has become fragmented over time. While the AIRR Framework addresses the practical implementation of RRI, the RRI keys emphasize its specific content and dimensions.
The literature on RRI spans theoretical frameworks, development of indicators, and practical toolkits, predominantly implemented in universities, scientific organizations, and, to a lesser extent, the private and industrial sectors. Concerns and opportunities identified in the literature highlight the need for a more localized approach to responsibility in innovation, encompassing not only high-tech but also social innovation processes. Moreover, empirical insights are lacking regarding RRI institutionalization and its impact on organizational practices and scientists’ routines.
The adaptable nature of RRI allows it to evolve alongside changing environments, attracting resources and adherents to its principles. In the context of Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs), which operate in dynamic environments, there is a dearth of literature on RRI. Steen and Nauta’s (2020) work stands out as one of the few studies focusing on RRI institutionalization within RTOs, particularly examining societal engagement. Their case study offers insights into implementing best practices and navigating the challenges of societal engagement within RTOs, shedding light on the distinctive characteristics of these organizations.
RTOs, or Research and Technology Organizations, serve to bolster local industries by acting as intermediaries within innovation systems, linking businesses, research centers, and universities. Their geographical location influences their activities and contributions to territorial development. While their expansive activities can pose challenges, they also allow for the expansion of organizational boundaries through good practices. RTOs face competitive pressures from both public funding sources and private industries, shaping their development. As drivers of innovation ecosystems, RTOs must address socio-ethical issues and contribute to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in their territories. Implementing RRI principles can differentiate RTOs and enhance their performance, but barriers such as cultural beliefs and a lack of clarity about RRI exist. Understanding RTOs as learning organizations, which continuously learn, adapt, and transform, is crucial. This approach emphasizes openness to change and systemic thinking, aligning with RRI principles. This study explores whether RTOs can embody the concept of a learning organization and how they adopt RRI principles, offering insights into RRI within RTOs beyond the AIRR model.
We utilized a qualitative research approach centered on the case study method, drawing from established literature on the subject. These case studies were chosen based on prior analyses integrating Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles in private settings. Spanish Regional Technology Organizations (RTOs), referred to as TCs, were selected for RRI evaluation due to their commitment to RRI principles and their potential for reflecting on RRI challenges in less developed industrial contexts. The proposal for evaluation was presented to nine TCs, which demonstrated dedication to integrating RRI principles into their management systems and governance structures, thus providing support for the evaluation process.
This paper presents a pioneering study examining the implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in Spanish Technology Centers (TCs). The evaluation provides a comprehensive view of the centers’ responsible behavior in innovation activities, with environmentally sustainable growth being well-implemented and inclusive innovation lagging behind. Sector-specific characteristics influence the differences in challenge implementation, but all TCs have opportunities for improvement. The proposed process-maturity framework serves as both an assessment methodology and management system, enabling TCs to identify strengths and weaknesses for targeted action plans. Challenges identified align with RRI dimensions and key areas, emphasizing diversity, inclusion, and citizen participation. Collective RRI assessment fosters collaboration between TCs, promoting knowledge exchange and continuous improvement. TCs must recognize their role as agents of development at a regional level, contributing to economic, social, and environmental progress. External factors such as political regulations and European context influence RTOs’ emphasis on societal impact. However, the study’s limitations include a focus on internal perspectives and challenges being treated separately rather than adopting an integrated approach. The framework proposed could serve as a pedagogical tool for organizational reflexivity and learning, encouraging each organization to strategize based on its unique strengths and weaknesses rather than seeking universal “best practices.”
Source:
Gonzalez-Urango, H., Corona-Sobrino, C., García-Melón, M., & Marques, P. (2024). Toward institutionalization of responsible research and innovation: insights from case studies of technological centers in Spain. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2322754