MA thesis Political Science
Political Theory
Responsible Research and Innovation: Assumptions
of and Alternatives to the Operationalisation of
Societal Influence on Research and Innovation.
Xanthe Sluijs 11257164
Graduate School of Social Sciences
Supervisor/Examiner: mw. dr. A. Loebers Second Reader: dhr. dr. B. Netelenbos Date of completion: 22nd of June 2018
Abstract
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is the latest approach the European Commission (EC) has coined to help focus research and innovation initiatives in its region. It is a proposed approach to research and innovation (R&I), encouraged through funding requirements. In this thesis, I consider the implications of the assumptions on which the EC’s policy of RRI is based and try to formulate its implications on the operationalisations of that approach. I do so by a discursive analysis of two projects of the EC, that respectably offer the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the policy. From these analyses, I deduce two assumptions: a proceduralist approach and the interpretation of stakeholder participation as deliberation. Linking these assumptions to a Habermasian model of deliberative democracy, I derive the implications of these assumptions might lead to procedures of ignoring the imbalance of power in the research processes and disregarding unsurmountable value-differences.
Next, I connect these implications to the discourse on responsible innovation, from which RRI is lends its legitimacy as a process, and notice some discrepancies are noticeable. Whilst responsible innovation focusses on value-differences and unsurmountable opinions due to contested knowledge, RRI does not place these considerations central in its conceptualisation or operationalisation. Based on the criticism to the Habermasian model and the literature on responsible innovation, I offer two possible alternatives to the operationalisation of RRI. These are based on Hannah Arendt’s conception of the Greek
polis and Chantal Mouffe’s antagonistic pluralism, resulting in suggestions of participation
that is designed in a less pre-determined manner, does not shun conflicts and does not seek consensus among its participants.
Table of Contents
Abstract ...1
Table of Contents ...2
1. Introduction ...4
§ 1.1 Responsible Innovation ...4
§ 1.2 Contested Conceptualisation and Operationalisation ...5
§ 1.3 Research Objective ...6
§ 1.4 Methodology and Research Questions ...7
§ 1.5 Structural Considerations and Text Selection ...8
§ 1.6 Reflection on Methodology ...10
§ 1.7 Relevance ...10
§ 1.8 Reading Guide ...11
2. RRI Conceptualisation ...13
§ 2.1 Problem representation ...13
§ 2.1.1 Problem One: RRI. ...13
§ 2.1.1.a Purposes. ...13
§ 2.1.1.b Process. ...14
§ 2.1.2 Problem Two: Measuring Impact of RRI ...15
§ 2.2 Presuppositions and assumptions ...15
§ 2.2.1 Problem one: RRI. ...15
§ 2.2.1.a Purposes. ...15
§ 2.2.1.b Process. ...16
2.2.2 Problem Two: Measuring Impact of RRI. ...24
§ 2.2.2.a Possibility of causality measurement. ...24
§ 2.2.2.b Desirability of impact measurement. ...25
§ 2.2.2.c Neutrality of impact indicators. ...26
§ 2.3 Conclusion Conceptualisation ...28
3. RRI Operationalisation ...29
§ 3.1 Problem representation ...29
§ 3.2 Presuppositions and assumptions ...30
§ 3.2.1 Good Practice. ...30
§ 3.2.2 Stakeholder Participation. ...32
§ 3.2.2.a Participatory research agenda. ...32
§ 3.2.2.b Co-creating a Community Based Participatory Research. ...36
§ 3.2.2.c Corporate responsibility tools. ...37
§ 3.3 Conclusion Operationalisation ...39
4. Implications of the Assumptions ...41
§ 4.1 Implications of Assumptions: A Habermasian Model ...41
§ 4.1.1 Habermasian Public Sphere. ...41
§ 4.1.2 Communicative action. ...43
§ 4.1.3 Habermasian Model of Deliberative Democracy. ...46
§ 4.2 Link to EC’s RRI ...46
§ 4.2.1 Proceduralist Approach. ...46
§ 4.2.2 Stakeholder Participation as Deliberation. ...48
§ 4.3 Criticisms to Habermas ...49
§ 4.4 Match Habermasian Model to RRI’s Goals ...51
§ 4.4.1 Proceduralist approach. ...51
§ 4.5 Conclusion to Implications ...52
5. Considerations on and Alternatives to the EC’s RRI ...54
§ 5.1 Overlap Responsible Innovation ...54
§ 5.1.1 Proceduralist approach. ...54
§ 5.1.2 Stakeholder participation as deliberation. ...55
§ 5.2 Diverging from Responsible Innovation: Selection Within Essays ...58
§ 5.2.1 Proceduralist approach. ...58
§ 5.2.2 Stakeholder Participation as Deliberation. ...58
§ 5.3 Diverging from Responsible Innovation: Essays not Adopted ...59
§ 5.4 Alternatives ...63
§ 5.4.1 Arendt. ...63
§ 5.4.2 Mouffe. ...65
6. Conclusion ...67
§ 6.1 Answers to Research Questions ...67
§ 6.2 Further Development of the Operationalisation of RRI ...68
1. Introduction
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is the latest approach the European Commission (EC) has coined to help focus research and innovation initiatives in its region. It is a proposed approach to research and innovation (R&I), encouraged through funding requirements (EC, n.d.-a). RRI is meant to tackle the distance between research and society, by involving ‘society’ in projects of research and innovation through the participation of societal actors or stakeholders. Stakeholders are proposed to “work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society” (ibid). By incorporating society in research and innovation through the stimulation of RRI, the EC also seeks to ensure competitiveness of EU-region and to “drive economic growth and create jobs” (EC, n.d.-b).
To be able to reach these positive effects, the EC aims to formulate adequate policy, to be used as a guiding principle in RRI projects (EC, 2015: 9). The attempts to formulate such a policy are based on two components; conceptualisation of RRI - considering what should and should not be regarded RRI - and, based on this conceptualisation, guidelines for operationalisation of RRI - conveying in what way projects can incorporate the conception of RRI sufficiently (ibid; Von Schomberg, 2013: 65).
§ 1.1 Responsible Innovation
For the conceptualisation as well as the operationalisation, the EC draws on a broad academic discourse of responsible innovation. This discourse consists of considerations of amongst others, Science and Technology Studies (STS) studies, Technology Assessment (TA) and ethics (Grunwald, 2011: 9). Where “scholars in science and technology studies (STS) see technological systems as important sites and objects of governance” influencing the depth and strength of democracies (Jasanoff, 2011: 621-2), scholars in Technology Assessments formulate “normative anchor points” on which to to judge projects of R&I (Von Schomberg, 2013: 65). Responsible innovation combines these discourses with ethical considerations of, amongst others, speculation, judgement and responsibility. In it, questions of responsibility are posed in the face of “unrealized promises and unintended consequences of innovation” in society (Stilgoe, 2013: xi). These questions are evaluated in the light of “democratic, equitable and sustainable” processes of stakeholder participation in innovation (idem: xix).
A collection of essays on responsible innovation, gathered in a book edited by Owen, Bessant and Heinz (2013a), displays the variety of such questions. Responsible Innovation:
Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society brings together
a combination of (EU) policy makers, ethicists, researchers on innovation of governance and STS-researchers. In their essays, the ways in which innovation can and should be thought of
and implemented responsibly are considered as alternatives to a more traditional view of innovation. Such a view is denoted here to be based on assumptions of linear-model approaches, with emphasis on the innovator as a non-attached individual with a focus on academic values such as validity and reciprocity (Stilgoe, 2013). This book on responsible innovation can be considered as influential in the RRI discourse (Caverly, 2013).
§ 1.2 Contested Conceptualisation and Operationalisation
Despite its presence in both academia and the EC, the concept of RRI does not have one, agreed on, definition. Conceptualisations exist side by side in both academic theory and in the more practically focused approaches of the EC (Owen et al., 2013a; EC, 2015: 9). This indeterminacy continues from the conceptualisation to the operationalisation of RRI, resulting in different suggestions regarding the implementation of the budding practice of RRI. For example, the EC states that RRI:
is an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation [...]. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) implies that societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, business, third sector organisations, etc.) work together during the whole research and innovation process (EC, Horizon 2020a; emphasis added).
Von Schomberg, a STS specialist and philosopher, at that time employed at the European Commission (Von Schomberg, n.d.) suggests that:
Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society) (Von Schomberg, 2013: 63; emphasis added).
Both these characterisations of RRI include stakeholder participation, but vary in their interpretation of the process. 1
As mentioned before, the EC strives to further operationalise the concept of RRI. Two EC projects on RRI stand out in their attempt to come from conceptualisation to the operationalisation of RRI. The first is a report by the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the EC on impact measurement of RRI. The report is called Indicators for
Promoting and Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation (hereafter: EC report). The
EC report builds on an attempt to formulate a coherent concept of RRI, and offers options for “Working together” and “becoming mutually responsive to each other” in an “iterative process” are not 1
implementation of RRI, as well as suggestions for impact measurement of RRI projects (EC, 2015: 9). The second project is called RRI Tools, and was developed and executed by a research consortium as one of the several projects on RRI funded by the Horizon 2020 programme. It had the goal of offering a toolkit of RRI to stakeholders involved in RRI projects and is presented in the form of a website with explanatory documents (RRI Tools, n.d.-a).
In this thesis, I evaluate the EC's conceptualisation and operationalisation of RRI in the light of the EC report and the RRI Tools. The report and project selected for the evaluation, can help to understand how RRI can be further operationalised. They do so in a complementary way: on the one hand, the EC report focuses on the formulation of a coherent concept to be able to move towards operationalisation (EC, 2015: 9). RRI Tools, on the other hand, primarily offers methods for operationalisation, considering a conceptualisation of RRI as one of the several dimensions under consideration in the process (RRI Tools, 2015c). In light of the development of the EC’s policy from conceptualisation towards operationalisation of RRI, the EC report can be placed in at the end of conceptualisation, whilst RRI Tools can be placed at the end of operationalisation.
§ 1.3 Research Objective
The main objective of this thesis is to contribute to the operationalisation of RRIl. However, instead of focusing on a definition of RRI, I consider the assumptions on which the conceptualisations and operationalisations of RRI are constructed in the EC report and in RRI Tools. As RRI still is a budding practice, it is necessary to be critical of possible problematic assumptions present in formulations of the concept. This thesis is critical in the sense of trying to improve its subject through analysis of possible problematic characteristics.
Considering the name of RRI, the outcomes and research processes of RRI projects are assumed to be more responsible than projects that do not integrate RRI in their research design or dissemination strategies. As we can assume that the goal of RRI is preventing irresponsible research, it is interesting to consider underlying assumptions in conceptualisations and disseminations of RRI regarding the best way to approach R&I. The process to go from ‘irresponsible research and innovation’ to ‘responsible research and innovation’, is designed in a manner that reflects assumptions on how those goals should be reached. Images of what the exact problem is and the ideal outcome should be, are determinative in the assumptions that are present in conceptualisations and operationalisations.
By reflecting on these assumptions, I aim to contribute to the operationalisation of RRI. These reflections uncover the determining factors that are taken for granted in both projects
and reveal their potential blind spots. To be able to consider the assumptions, I use a discursive analysis, called the ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ (WPR) approach and compare the outcomes from this analysis with the academic discourse on responsible innovation.
§ 1.4 Methodology and Research Questions
The WPR approach focuses on the way a problem is represented in policies and policy proposals. The approach offers the possibility to look at certain assumptions present in the definition of the problem in a policy, its proposed solution and its practices (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). The following questions are central in this approach:
Question 1: What’s the problem [...] represented to be in a specific policy or policies? Question 2: What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’ (problem representation)? Question 3: How has this representation of the “problem” come about? Question 4: What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? [...] Question 5: What effects (discursive, subjectification, lived) are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’? Question 6: [...] How has it [the representation of the ‘problem’] been and/or how can it be disrupted and replaced? (idem: 20; spelling by authors).
Bacchi and Goodwin state that in:
this form of analysis, the objective is not to try to identify the intentions behind a particular policy or program. Nor is the goal to assess the distance between promised changes and the failure to deliver those changes—we are not contrasting stated ‘solutions’ with stated ‘problems’, and finding the ‘solutions’ wanting. Rather, we start from stated ‘solutions’ to inquire into their implicit problematizations (idem: 21; emphasis by authors).
Implicit assumptions are central in the WPR approach, it does not assume that the connection between the stated ‘solutions’ and ‘problems’ are problematic.
In this thesis, I adopt every question of the WPR approach as presented above, except for one. I do not consider question three, as there are already extensive genealogies of RRI (for example: De Saille, 2015; Rip, 2016). The question also does not suit the general goal of the thesis, as I focus on the assumptions of RRI and their implications. Question four, five and six are considered by drawing parallels to applicable academic discourses; responsible innovation and public sphere discourses, respectively. I explicate these considerations in more detail below.
As the WPR approach is a discursive analysis originally meant to analyse policies, this approach is well suited to consider the EC’s attempt to formulate a RRI policy. Based on the WPR approach, I formulate two research questions:
RQ1: What are the implications of the assumptions on which the EC’s policy of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is based?
RQ2: What are possible alternative operationalisations of RRI?
§ 1.5 Structural Considerations and Text Selection
To be able to answer the two research questions, some structural decisions and selections in the analyzed texts have been necessary. In the first two chapters, I analyse the representation of and the assumptions on which the problem representations in the EC report and RRI Tools project.
In chapter two, concerning the analysis of the EC report, I make several distinctions to clarify the problems represented and assumptions presupposed in the report. These distinctions affect the structure in this chapter. The first distinction is between the two problems addressed in the report; the problem of R&I that does not adhere to RRI on the one hand, and the lack of indicators measuring impact of RRI projects to its proposed targets on the other hand.
The second distinction is between the product and process dimension in the first problem, mirroring Von Schomberg’s division of RRI. The first dimension is focused on the desired outcome and provides normative anchor points; encouraging societal influence on research and innovation. The second dimension focuses on its desired process of a more democratic research process, by way of stakeholder participation (Von Schomberg, 2013: 64-5).
The third distinction in this chapter is between the two aspects of the process dimension: between stakeholder selection and stakeholder participation. In the EC report, these two aspects are treated as the essential two steps in the process of any RRI project.
Finally, I distinguish three essential assumptions in the consideration of the second problem (the problem of impact measurement). These are: possibility of causality measurement, desirability of impact measurement and neutrality of impact indicators. Together, these three essential assumptions form the substantive basis for the proposed solution to the problem representation of RRI impact measurement.
In chapter three, I consider the project of RRI Tools. The operationalisation of RRI in this project is based on two concepts: good practice and stakeholder participation. Good practice is the selection of recommended practices, based on earlier results. This concept can be considered the core concept of the entire project, enabling the formation of the “toolkit of RRI” (RRI Tools, n.d-a). I analyse the assumptions presupposed in the use of this concept by
considering the documents that form the backbone of the project. These are a policy brief offering a working definition of RRI and a general overview of its approach, a report on the quality criteria of good practice standards, a catalogue of these good practices and the project information sheet (RRI Tools 2014; 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).
The concept of stakeholder participation is the central consideration of the website of RRI Tools. I analyse parts of the website devoted to “RRI practices” using three “how-to” pages of the website of RRI Tools. The how-tos describe setting up a participatory research agenda, co-creating a community based participatory research, and implementing corporate responsibility tools. The selected parts of the website cover each of the actor groups identified by RRI Tools, giving an overview of the assumptions present in the operationalisation of RRI as offered in this project.
In the fourth chapter, I question the implications of the assumptions found in the previous two chapters. The implications are considered by drawing parallels to a model of the democratic deliberation, based on the Habermasian notion of public sphere and
communicative action. A selection of criticisms to this model make a bridge to the second
research question, as alternatives can be considered from these criticisms. These criticisms are in no way extensive and are just to give an overview of possible objections to the Habermasian theory.
In the fifth chapter, I compare the encountered assumptions in conceptualisation and operationalisation of RRI by the EC to the discourse of responsible innovation. The discourse is taken from the essays of the book mentioned above; Responsible Innovation:
Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (Owen et al.,
2013a). I make a selection in the essays, drawing on similarities in assumptions, as well as differences in considerations, compared to the EC’s adaptation of RRI. As it is not possible to do justice to every essay in the book, my first selection is been based on essays with striking similarities. This makes it possible to consider the way in the EC’s conceptualisation and operationalisation deviate from these essays, despite their similarities. Finally, I make a selection of the essays whose considerations of responsible innovation deviate from those encountered in the EC’s conceptualisation and the RRI’s operationalisation. Combining these encountered gaps with the criticisms to the Habermasian model from the previous chapter, two alternative operationalisations of RRI are suggested. Based on Hannah Arendt’s conception of polis and Chantal Mouffe’s agnostic pluralism, these two alternatives are not the only conceivable alternatives, however, they may offer alternatives to and remedy the blind spots of current operationalisation of RRI by the EC.
In the sixth chapter, I draw from these deviations, as well as from the criticisms to the Habermasian model of deliberative democracy. This combination leads to the proposal of two possible alternative operationalisations of RRI. These are based on Hannah Arendt’s conception of the public sphere and Chantal Mouffe’s antagonistic model of democracy. Of course, these are not the only possible alternatives to the operationalisation of RRI. These
two alternatives are of interest in this thesis due to their different approach to (legitimation of) democracy whilst remaining in the discourse of the public sphere. In no way should these alternatives be considered sufficient to replace current operationalisation, they only offer possibilities to further explore the implementation of RRI.
§ 1.6 Reflection on Methodology
The WPR method, as all qualitative discursive methods, has a possible bias in its approach. It is a possibility that I have been biased in the analysis, especially with regards to question five: “What effects (discursive, subjectification, lived) are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?” (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016: 20). My answer to this question could be influenced through the assumption that there is a possibility of alternative operationalisation of RRI. However, this is not necessarily the case, as awareness of this possibility help prevent such a bias. On top of that, the WPR approach prevents one from too much influence of a possible bias by its fixed set of questions, to which I adhere.
§ 1.7 Relevance
The objective of this thesis is to contribute to the operationalisation of RRI. To the budding practice of RRI, the considerations of my assumptions can add to the understanding of the influence these assumptions have in the implementation of RRI. Possible blind spots can be recognized and possibly remedied.
The academic relevance of this thesis can be found in its considerations of stakeholder participation in the tradition of research and innovation. I connect theoretical accounts of such participation with its proposed operationalisation and consider the implications of the specific approach. In the current popularity of democratisation of research and innovation, such considerations are necessary to be able to discern relevant approaches and implications of these approaches.
Likewise, the social relevance of this thesis can be found in its consideration of stakeholder participation. With popular catchphrases like ‘participation society’ and ‘participation democracy’ stakeholder participation has become a central feature in the governmental and entrepreneurial considerations of citizens in Europe (for example, see VNG, 2016). It is in the interest of those civilians that the processes of stakeholder participation are designed well, making their input worthwhile. As citizens invest time in participation, it is in their interest that these processes are not hollow concepts, designed to legitimise and continue the status quo.
§ 1.8 Reading Guide
In this Reading Guide, I explicate the course of each chapter in this thesis. The structure of this thesis is predominantly based on the questions of the WPR approach. As I consider two sources for empirical analysis, however, the first two questions of the approach are grouped together in the two separate analyses. In the rest of thesis, the outcomes of the two analyses are considered together to provide answers to the two research questions. The fourth and fifth WPR questions are switched, so as to better answer the separate research questions.
In the second chapter, titled ‘RRI Conceptualisation’, I consider the EC report called
Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation (EC, 2015),
as stated above. I analyse the problem which RRI is supposed to solve according to this report, and the assumptions the reports approach is based on. Next, I examine the second problem addressed in this report, which is the lack of indicators to monitor impact of RRI projects. Throughout the chapter, I draw connections to the essays in the book Responsible
Innovation (Owen et al., 2013a). In the conclusion to this chapter, I observe that both of the
problems considered in the report, are assumed to be solvable by following correct procedure, displaying a proceduralist approach, and through stakeholder participation, interpreted as deliberation.
In the third chapter, ‘RRI Operationalisation’, I analyse the manner in which RRI is proposed to operate according to the project RRI Tools. I consider the problem which RRI is supposed to solve according to this project, and the assumptions its approach to the problem is based on. I do so by examining the project on a whole, with a main focus on the several documents it has produced to consider the concept of good practice and the website to consider the concept of stakeholder participation. Having based the working definition of RRI on literary and EC-funded projects, I draw comparisons between the RRI Tools’ assumptions that are in line with essays on responsible innovation, to highlight underlying, systemic presuppositions. I conclude that every text of the RRI Tools project, a proceduralist approach and stakeholder participation, interpreted as deliberation are presupposed.
In the fourth chapter, ‘Implications of Assumptions of RRI’, I take the conclusions from the two previous chapters to map the effects of the assumptions by the EC in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of RRI. Having concluded that assumptions of stakeholder participation as deliberation and a procedural approach are systematically present, I am able to link the EC’s RRI to a theoretical model of democracy which matches to those two assumptions. This model is the Habermasian model of democratic deliberation. The chapter opens by offering a summarized overview of Habermasian public sphere and communicative action. This allows me to connect this model to RRI as proposed in the EC report and in RRI Tools, on the basis of the procedural approach and stakeholder participation as deliberation found in both. By considering a selection of criticisms to Habermasian model, I identify both the assumption present in the EC’s RRI, as well as its
implications. These steps makes it possible to answer the first research question, explicating the implications of the assumptions present in the EC’s RRI policy.
In the fifth chapter, ‘Considerations on & Alternatives to the EC’s RRI’, I compare the assumptions found in both the EC report and in the RRI Tools project with essays from the book by Owen, Bessant and Heinz: Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible
Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, introduced above. After shortly considering
the parallels in the essays and the EC’s RRI, I highlight the gaps and differences in presumptions. This is done by first taking inventory of missing considerations from the essays that have been linked to the EC report and in the RRI Tools project. Subsequently, considerations from essay on responsible innovation that are left unconsidered in either the conceptualisation or operationalisation of RRI by the EC are shortly highlighted.
The final section of chapter five is the formulation of alternative operationalisations of RRI. Having criticized the model that is linked to implications of the assumptions of the EC’s policy of RRI in chapter four, and perceived gaps in the considerations of RRI in the first part of this chapter, I argue that these criticisms give way to two possible alternative ‘routes’ to operationalisation of RRI. These are based on Hannah Arendt’s public sphere, and Chantal Mouffe’s antagonist approach to democracy. Both alternatives could incorporate societal influence in research and innovation through stakeholder participation, whilst not employing a proceduralist approach, nor interpreting stakeholder participation as deliberation.
In the final chapter, I present the conclusions to my two research questions and offer reflection to the research process of the thesis.
2. RRI Conceptualisation
In this chapter, I consider the way in which RRI is conceptualized by the EC by analysing the problem representation and underlying assumptions of that representation in the EC report
Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation: Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation.
§ 2.1 Problem representation
The problem to which the EC report formulates solutions, is twofold. The first problem encountered is traditional, or ‘non-responsible’, R&I. It is considered to be problematic as it does not align with societal needs. To be more precise, the main problem that RRI is supposed to fix, according to this report, is a lack of “alignment of R & I programmes and agendas with societal needs and concerns” (EC, 2015: 9). The purposes of RRI should be reached through a process of involvement of those affected by a certain project (idem: 10). The second problem addressed, is the contested possibilities of assessment and monitoring of RRI policies. Methods for monitoring and assessing RRI are taken to be potentially problematic, as RRI has no settled definition or practices. I consider the two problems separately below.
§ 2.1.1 Problem One: RRI.
§ 2.1.1.a Purposes.
Starting with the problem the approach of Responsible Research and Innovation is represented to solve, R&I that does not use this approach is considered to be lacking in six key areas by the European Commission. These are “public engagement (PE), gender equality, science education, open access, ethics and governance” (idem: 10). The expert group that authored the report added two key areas, “sustainability and social justice/ inclusion”, stating that these are essential in the conception of RRI (idem: 10-11). The problem represented here is that research and innovation is found to be lacking in these areas and therefore missing alignment with societal needs. The key areas are presented as possibly overlapping, but at the same time necessary to lead R&I projects in desired directions. By considering these key areas in the process of research and development, the intention in the EC report is to stimulate researchers and innovators to address possibilities of unexpected consequences their work could have (ibid).
§ 2.1.1.b Process.
RRI’s purposes are only half of the EC’s approach, a fitting process is seen as an important dimension of RRI. The RRI approach is presented is a process in which:
societal actors work together during the whole research and innovation process. This is done in order to better align both the process and its outcomes, with the values, needs and expectations of European society. RRI is an ambitious challenge for the creation of a Research and Innovation policy driven by the needs of society and engaging all societal actors via inclusive participatory approaches (idem: 10).
In other words, the process dimension of involving societal actors in the whole research is presented to be a central solution to the problematization of traditional R&I, bringing it closer to the identified key areas. The report indicates that RRI’s processes are:
characterised by collaborative efforts of a variety of stakeholders who each have a particular
interest in this process. Overall goals are usually formulated in general terms and therefore
arguably meet consensus among most stakeholders (idem: 18; emphasis added).
In this report, there was a focus on concepts such as “anticipatory, inclusive, reflexive and responsive” when considering the RRI process (idem: 11). Such considerations are also present in the definition adopted in this report, offered by Von Schomberg: “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” (ibid).
A conception of RRI, used in this report for orientation of the concept, has come from an a previous EC report on the state of RRI in Europe. This report proposed RRI as:
ways of proceeding in research and innovation that allow those who initiate and are involved in the processes of research and innovation at an early stage (A) to obtain relevant knowledge on the consequences of the outcomes of their actions and on the range of options open to them and (B) to effectively evaluate both outcomes and options in terms of moral values (including, but not limited to wellbeing, justice, equality, privacy, autonomy, safety, security, sustainability, accountability, democracy and efficiency) and (C) to use these considerations (under A and B) as functional requirements for design and development of new research, products and services (idem: 10-11).
Knowledge, participation, evaluation and influence of stakeholders form the backbone of the process of RRI as sketched in this report. This leads me to conclude that, according to the EC, there is a perceived gap between the needs of society and that this problem must be solved by involving ‘society’ in R&I. The traditional, linear process of R&I is problematized by offering a more dynamic alternative.
§ 2.1.2 Problem Two: Measuring Impact of RRI
I now continue with the second problem presented in this report, encountered by the monitoring the impacts of RRI projects. “As a policy principle, RRI is young and unconsolidated in the sense that there is neither an authoritative definition nor a consensus on how to understand it” (idem: 37). Due to the contested nature of theories and practices of RRI, no general set of measurement practices can be implemented. “The same can be said about RRI impacts, which are wrought with their own uncertainties and indeterminacies” (idem: 9).
One of the factors of this problem is that monitoring impacts of RRI can be counterproductive in light of its purposes and process (idem: 11). Another is that there are multiple possible forms of indicator measurement (ibid). The second problem represented in the report is thus one of inaccuracy. It is unclear what should be measured and how it should be measured, making it difficult to consider impacts of RRI projects. Since RRI’s theories and practices are not set, and since RRI projects are always in the process of change, and since impact measurements are not uncontested in their own right, issuing set indicators for measurement is difficult, if not impossible (idem: 13-5). The problematization is the lack of possibilities to monitor the impact of RRI projects adequately.
§ 2.2 Presuppositions and assumptions
In this section, I consider the second question of the WPR approach, analysing deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions which underlie the representation of the problems analyzed above. I start by evaluating the presuppositions of the first problem, the reason for the RRI approach, constructed by its purposes and its process. Afterwards I consider the presuppositions of the monitoring of impacts of RRI projects. As noticed by the authors of the report, there is a considerable consistency between the approach to RRI in this report, and that of literature on the subject. Both are broadly “on one hand characterised by a focus on ethical aspects and societal needs and on the other a set of norms or even virtues for practice” (idem: 11). Due to this consistency, I consider similarities to essays from the book
Responsible Innovation (Owen et al., 2013a) in the rest of this chapter, to clarify the
assumptions present in this report.
§ 2.2.1 Problem one: RRI.
§ 2.2.1.a Purposes.
Considering the assumptions on which the problematisations of the purposes of RRI are based, the key areas indicated to be essential for RRI, could be considered a good starting point. Each of these areas suggest a possibility for improvement of R&I, problematizing R&I
projects that deviate in focus. The key areas are: public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics, governance, sustainability and social justice/ inclusion. These key areas are all concepts with their own history and discourses, and thus their own presuppositions. Due to time and space restrictions and my focus on operationalisation, I do not consider these concepts extensively. Instead, I consider their commonalities as part of innovation governance by suggestions of responsible innovation, with governance explained, in a Foucauldian manner, as a motif of rule (Bacchi, 2010: 5).
The purposes of RRI, represented by the key areas mentioned above, fit in the discourse of innovation governance by responsible innovation. The key areas identified in the conceptualisation of RRI, are present in the identification of grand challenges in multiple essays in the book Responsible Innovation (for example in Bessant, 2013: 9-14; Von Schomberg, 2013: 58). What ties the key assumptions or grand challenges together is their assumption of influence of governance on research and innovation. R&I and its outcomes are assumed to be manageable, with a presupposition of oversight of consequences. Focus on procedure to gain legitimacy is a key factor in such attempts, mirroring a rational, procedural conception of democracy (Benhabib, 1996b: 73; Cohen, 1996: 96-7). Such a conception “emphasizes first and foremost certain institutional procedures and practices for attaining decisions on matters that would be binding on all” (Benhabib, 1996b: 73; emphasis added). The logic that underlies the purposes set out in RRI, is constructed by presenting the problem as something that can be rationally fixed by looking at causality in certain problems, introduced as key areas (EC, 2015: 10-11).
§ 2.2.1.b Process.
In this section, I consider the assumptions on which the problematisations of the process of RRI are constructed. These assumptions can be made clear by clarifying the focus on responsiveness in the EC report, which is taken to be essential in the process of stakeholder participation (EC, 2015: 18-9).
R&I that is not responsible is taken to miss interaction from outside and thereby the opportunity to respond to unvoiced objections (EC, 2015: 12). The idea of responsiveness as central to responsible (research and) innovation is part of the governance of innovation discourse touched upon above. It is necessary to receive answers to questions of responsibility on the one hand, and it is necessary to design systems in a more flexible manner on the other hand.
As Stilgoe asserts that responsible innovation:
is necessarily responsive, in two senses of that word. First, asking the questions is not enough. We need to start demanding answers, particularly from those institutions involved in the governance of innovation. And second, we need to make our innovation systems more flexible, more resilient (Stilgoe, 2013: xiv).
It is in this light of responsiveness that the process of stakeholder participation is proposed in the literature on responsive innovation. The focus on responsiveness is one of the dimensions of responsibility which “allow consideration of purposes and accommodate uncertainty, a defining feature of innovation” (Owen et al., 2013b: 29). Owen et al. go on to:
suggest that to innovate responsibly entails a continuous commitment to be anticipatory,
reflective, inclusively deliberative, and responsive. [...] Important here is the dimension of
responsiveness, that is, the coupling of reflection and deliberation to action that has a material influence on the direction and trajectory of innovation itself (idem: 29).
To be be able to achieve responsiveness in research and innovation stakeholders are taken to be essential in the research process (idem: 36). In the report, there is a mirroring, systematic assumption that stakeholder participation is desirable and necessary to create responsible R&I. To be more specific, early and far-reaching involvement of stakeholders is assumed to beneficial for research (EC, 2015: 11). To be able to facilitate such a process of participation, a selection of who is and is not a stakeholder must be made. In the report, stakeholders are roughly defined to be “those who initiate and are involved in the processes of research and innovation” (ibid). However, the identification of stakeholders is only a part of this process, the design of the manner in which participation will take place, takes up a central place in an RRI process (ibid). This results in the necessity of consideration of two components: stakeholder selection and the form of stakeholder participation.
Stakeholder selection
A part of the problematization RRI is supposed to fix is the exclusivity of those involved in R&I. Involvement of stakeholders from outside the traditional R&I setting are considered to be a solution to this problem. In the report, selection of stakeholders is a part of the responsibilities of key actors, who are assumed to be those leading or having influence on the project (idem: 17; 28).
At several points in the report it is stated that RRI necessitates interaction with “relevant
stakeholders” (for example, idem: 5; 6; 12; 13). Relevance is assumed to be an indicator that
can be judged by key actors (idem: 17). I derive that for such a judgement to be possible, in the EC report there is an assumption of overview as a characteristic of the position of a key actor.
Taking the selection process of RRI indicators as an example for an RRI approach, it is stated that:
it is up to the key actors to put the topic of RRI on the agenda and to develop a responsible framework for impact measurement that fits the purpose of their network in the best possible way. This includes the identification of RRI activities relevant to all
stakeholders and the selection of indicators or other effective means that measure impact
(idem: 17; emphasis added).
Key actors are assumed to be in the know of all stakeholders to be able to “identify relevant RRI activities” and to select impact measurements. Following this assumed necessity of overview, it must be rationally knowable who are the stakeholders that are relevant in a project. 2
To be able to practices such identifications, I take knowledge and overview of all stakeholders relevant to the project is assumed and all activities possible in the project as a condition. Among the stakeholders that are relevant, it is highly likely that not all share the same values when considering the project and its outcomes. In the report, this is assumption of diverging values is as well. For example, when discussing indicators for ethics considerations: “As the main issue of research integrity is to monitor the level of awareness and ability to adequately handle the tensions and discrepancies [...] between different norms and values” (idem: 34). If all relevant stakeholders must be present and must be selected by key actors, I concur that it must be assumed that those key actors are not biased in their selection. If a biased selection would take place, there can be no process in which all relevant stakeholders are present. This would implicate that a RRI project, if functioning on a biased stakeholder selection, would not be able to achieve acceptable solutions in the key areas identified above.
At the same time, this seems to me to be an impossible task for key actors whose tasks involve more than stakeholder selection. This would be a practical problem, in which an ideal situation is unfeasible, yet desirable. Indeed, to be able to approach the ideal situation, stakeholder selection is also introduced in the report as the constructed from a network of actors. “Producing RRI thus becomes the result of the collaborative effort of actors in a network” (idem: 16). The process of RRI, and of the corresponding identification of stakeholders, will logically be less centered. In fact it is stated that “many different actors need to be involved, and the perspectives on what is the problem and what constitutes its resolution differ across various societal groups” (idem: 12). One could argue that this
Rationally in this sense, is in line with Habermas’s conception of relational rationality. For Habermas, rationality
2
is not founded on the possession of knowledge, but in its performative validity claims. If one is conceived as a competent speaker, whose validity claims are assumed to be based on knowledge, she is considered ‘rational’ (Habermas, 1986: 11). This definition is not necessarily in line with mine, but mirrors assumptions present in the EC report. For further exploration of Habermas’ rationality see chapter 6.
broadening of actors involved in selection of stakeholders, would lead to a less strict norm of neutrality being necessary (Stilgoe, 2013: xx). This would lead to a workable RRI approach and a situation closer to the ideal of unbiased selection. The network of actors used to choose stakeholders will lead to a broader selection, bringing it closer to involving all those that are relevant. I take this approach to stakeholder selection to reflect the assumption of the purposes of RRI (§2.2.1.a). Both are based on assumptions of procedural legitimation of the approach, with the presupposition that if procedures are executed correctly, the outcome of the process will be desirable.
However, I consider this assumption to be somewhat misguided, as the initial selection of relevant stakeholders or actors could still easily lead to a biased selection. The actors selected to participate in the network, are picked by key actors. If the actors in the network have power of a further stakeholder selection, for the final group of stakeholders present in a project to be “relevant actors”, the first selection of actors must be unbiased. If the first group of actors would be biased, the stakeholders selected would likely be broader than if less actors were active in selection. Key actors can instill their bias (unconsciously) in the initial actor selection, any selection resulting from the initial draft of actors, will in that case result in a biased selection. 3
In the belief that the proposed process of stakeholder selection is correct, I derive that the report assumes a presupposition of a procedural approach. This assumption is present throughout the report, for example:
The purpose of RRI policy is to help achieve […] solutions in interaction with relevant stakeholders in society in ways that adhere to democratic norms and values (ethical, sustainable, transparent, accountable, etc.). The governance of science and innovation then becomes of central importance in this process (idem: 12).
And in the statement that RRI as a concept, refers:
to ways of proceeding in research and innovation that allow those who initiate and are
involved in the processes of research and innovation at an early stage (A) to obtain relevant knowledge on the consequences of the outcomes of their actions and on the
range of options open to them and (B) to effectively evaluate both outcomes and options in terms of moral values (including, but not limited to wellbeing, justice, equality, privacy, autonomy, safety, security, sustainability, accountability, democracy and efficiency) and (C) to use these considerations (under A and B) as functional requirements for design and
development of new research, products and services (idem: 11; emphasis added).
In this report, governance is considered possible through interaction with stakeholders in a manner that is based on democratic norms and values, like transparency, accountability,
This argument is present in literature on stakeholder participation (for example Nabatchi, 2012). 3
ethics and sustainability. RRI projects are also presumed to rely on “relevant knowledge” and effective evaluation of moral values by those “involved in the processes” to consider the “design and development” (ibid). I presume that such considerations, based on knowledge, require a rational approach in RRI processes. On top of such rational considerations, I deduce that the assumption of possibility of identification of relevant knowledge, signals the presupposition that the research process is neutral in such a manner that all knowledge is accessible, allowing the selection of relevant knowledge.
This leads to a further deduction, as I observe an assumption that RRI, if done rationally and neutrally, is inherently good, as it leads to relevant knowledge. The process of RRI seems to considered to be an objective tool in the report, usable to create a good outcome only. If R&I is designed by way of RRI, by stakeholder selection based on rational procedures, its process is desirable, rendering its outcome desirable.
Therefore, in this report there is an assumption of rational procedure as essential in the process of stakeholder selection, stemming from the problematization of the exclusivity of R&I and the solution proposed in stakeholder participation. This leads me to deduce that there is an assumption in the EC report that if RRI is performed in a correct manner, the outcome of an RRI project is desirable, adding weight to the process dimension of RRI.
Stakeholder participation
Once stakeholders have been selected according to procedure, the question of design of stakeholder participation remains. Stakeholder participation is considered to be the solution to the problematic dimension of exclusivity of R&I in this report. Responsive, equal stakeholders and reflexive dialogue are systematically assumed in the report, for example, in the section of the report considering the EU’s account of ethical and regulatory challenges, in which:
the focus of governance shifted to reaching a consensus in a network of relevant stakeholders. In relation to governance in the context of RRI, this development is reflected in the well-known definition of RRI by von Schomberg (2011).
‘Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which
societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to
the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).’
The question then, of course, is how such an interactive process can be governed, especially because it is based on the assumption of trustworthy relationships among all
societal actors. The solution in our view has to be sought in the active participation of all relevant stakeholders in developing an RRI policy (idem: 18-9; emphasis added).
These presuppositions of responsive, equal stakeholders and reflexive dialogue in the interpretation of participation, display the assumption of stakeholder participation as deliberation. 4
Such a deliberative assumptions are also present in an essay on adaptive governance for responsible innovation:
Responsible innovation seeks to achieve desirable outcomes [...]. This is seen not as an aim in itself but rather as a contributing factor to the overall good [...]. So responsible (research and) innovation implies a dialogue between those involved in the process of innovation and wider society “with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products . . . ” (Von Schomberg, this volume). This implies a mutuality of interest and a collective responsibility for scientific advance. Such a notion of “responsibility” is widely drawn and conforms to common understandings of the term as referring to a capability of fulfilling an
obligation, as well as a quality of being trustworthy or reliable (Oxford English Dictionary
(OED)). Thus a researcher may be some way from envisioning the technological end use of an innovative breakthrough, but is not absolved from responsibility for reflecting on where the findings might lead, or from a degree of stewardship over the research that reflects the trust that scientists might wish society to place in them (Lee & Petts, 2013: 147; emphasis added).
There is a similitude in wording between the EC report and Lee and Petts’ article when describing the deliberative participation process. The first describes actors becoming “mutually responsive” (EC, 2015: 18) and the latter outlines a dialogue between those involved leading to “mutuality of interest and a collective responsibility” (Lee & Petts, 2013: 147). This similitude is a result of both drawing on Von Schomberg to define RRI. As stated in the EC report, Von Schomberg defines RRI as:
a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society) (idem: 18-9; Von Schomberg, 2013: 63).
Von Schomberg emphasises the necessity of dialogue and deliberation in the implementation of RRI (Von Schomberg, 2013: 70-1). Keeping this in mind whilst contemplating how “trustworthy relationships between all societal actors or stakeholders”, in
Deliberation, in the sense of deliberative democracy, is defined as open, equal, reflective, and inclusive
4
communication on those topics that are of collective interest (Benhabib, 1996b: 30-1). In responsible innovation, the following conception has been suggested: “inclusively opening up visions, purposes, questions, and dilemmas to broad, collective deliberation through processes of dialogue, engagement, and debate, inviting and listening to wider perspectives from publics and diverse stakeholders” (Owen et al. 2013b: 38).
an “interactive research project” can be formed by “active participation of all relevant stakeholders in developing an RRI policy” (EC, 2015: 19), causes me to deduce a centrality of dialogue in stakeholder participation as proposed by the EC report. Lee and Petts mirror such an assumption, as they imagine such active participation, to be a “dialogue between those involved in the process of innovation and wider society” (Lee & Petts, 2013: 147).
I take that for such a dialogue to be possible, the environment in which the participation takes place, must not be viewed as advantageous to one of the stakeholders present. If one of the stakeholders has such an advantage, I assume “the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process” (Von Schomberg, 2013: 63) or “the assumption of trustworthy relationships among all societal actors” would be absent. If there is a perceived imbalance of power in such a space, I take that no trustworthy relationship can be built, due to absence of equality.
Lee and Petts notice that responsibility is at least partially based on the idea of obligation and reliability (Lee & Petts: 2013: 147). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines reliability as “the quality of being trustworthy or of performing consistently well” (OED, 2018b). This leads me to infer that for responsibility as interpreted by Lee and Petts (based on Von Schomberg and mirrored in the EC report) there is an assumption of rational procedure present. As stated above, following this an interpretation of RRI, a rational process based on procedure, is considered necessary. If there would be a perceived imbalance of power in such a space, no trustworthy relationship can be built.
Following correct procedures to be able to reach legitimacy of an RRI project is also present in the focus on consensus in the EC report. It combines Von Schomberg’s definition of RRI with the assumption of the cruciality of “reaching a consensus in a network of relevant stakeholders” in the governance process (EC, 2015: 18). I take that by this link, rationality and neutrality of the process is assumed to be crucial. If the definition of RRI by Von Schomberg is followed to the letter (see previous page), this definition does not seem to assume rationality or neutrality in the process of RRI. Societal actors and innovators must become mutually responsive, yet no mention is made of a trustworthy relationship or of a necessity of consensus. One can imagine a mutually responsivity in which exchanges are not rational, or that takes place in a research design that is advantageous to one or more of the participants.
However responsiveness is interpreted as rational, in the sense of based on reflective on reason and assumptions of knowledge, and neutral, in the sense of unbiased, in the discourse of innovation governance. For example, responsiveness is introduced as a dimension of responsibility that is relevant. It:
allow us to reflect on the purposes of science and innovation, to articulate what we want
science and innovation to do [...] and to be responsive to views and knowledge (of many
different kinds) both in terms of defining the targets for innovation and how its trajectory then evolves. Responsiveness is a key dimension that allows options to be kept open [...]. Importantly, it not only embeds the concept of responding to a changing information
environment, that is, being adaptive, but also to responding to the views, perspectives, and framings of others […], that is, being deliberative. This introduces the principle of
deliberative democracy into the dimension of responsiveness (Owen et al., 2013b: 35; emphasis added).
Responsiveness in the process in a RRI process, is interpreted as reflecting on “purposes of science and innovation”, as responding “to views [...] of others” and as adapting to “a changing information environment” (ibid). Stakeholder participation in this essay, is centered on deliberation and necessity of adhering to rational procedure, leading to the accepted goal of improvement of R&I projects. This view on stakeholder participation is mirrored in the EC report, whilst an emphasis is also placed on the necessity of neutrality in the research procedures.
In the EC report, a focus on neutral procedures in stakeholder discussions can be found in the emphasis on reaching collective agreement and creating feelings of responsibility. When discussing indicator frameworks, the report states that:
it is up to the key actors to put the topic of RRI on the agenda and to develop a responsible framework for impact measurement that fits the purpose of their network in
the best possible way. This includes the identification of RRI activities relevant to all stakeholders and the selection of indicators or other effective means that measure impact. Stakeholders should find ways to discuss the best set of indicators for their purpose and make sure that robust data are going to be available to monitor the impact of
RRI activities. This is easier said than done, however we believe that RRI is only possible if stakeholders collectively agree about its necessity, and consequently feel responsible for RRI being an integral part of their activities (EC, 2015: 17; emphasis added).
No direct reference is made to procedure, however, the emphasis on the conscious selection of fitting and effective measurements (to the key actors network), robust data and the identification of relevant RRI activities displays the recommendation of procedure to result in a responsible, responsive, research design. It is assumed that such a design, by virtue of being conscious and rational, leads to the necessary consensus. Whilst stating that
achieving such a collective agreement will be difficult, the report considers it a requirement for any RRI project to be considered legitimately ‘RRI’ (idem: 16).
If the research and innovation process is well-designed, key actors can move form “their network” to “identification of RRI activities relevant to all stakeholders”. I deduce the assumption present in the report that by way of following the procedure, key actors can shed their biased selection (presented in their network) and ascend to not only all relevant stakeholders, but even “RRI activities relevant to all stakeholders” (ibid).
Additionally, by stating that “stakeholders should find ways to discuss the best set of indicators for their purpose” (ibid), I deduce procedural assumptions in the responsibility for selection of the “best set of indicators”. These identifications demand not only knowledge of indicators, but also opinions on their hierarchical ordering. Through procedures of discussion, based on these opinions and availability of “robust data”, it is assumed that it can be determined which indicator set is best. By way of deliberation, rationally discussion, the EC report assumes to be able to overcome a problematic bias that would be otherwise present in the selection of indicators, through the design of the research process.
2.2.2 Problem Two: Measuring Impact of RRI.
For the second problem addressed in the EC report, which is the problematisation of lack of reliable indicators for impact of RRI projects, there are several assumptions. I consider three essential assumptions here: the possibility of causality measurement, the desirability of impact measurement and the neutrality of impact indicators.
§ 2.2.2.a Possibility of causality measurement.
The first essential assumption is that indicators for measurement of RRI projects’ impacts are possible, in one way or the other. The report address this presupposition: “One assumption underlying our objective is the possibility of causal relationships between RRI activities and initiatives and their impacts or effects on R & I in terms of its degree of becoming (more) responsible” (EC, 2015: 15). Refraining from a quantitative exploration of causal effects of RRI projects, in this report there has:
a focus on indicators for ‘impacts’ referring to outcomes, processes and perceptions of RRI. The causality between a given RRI activity and a given RRI impact would then be an empirical question to be investigated in part by use of the indicators, but also by a careful study of other activities, initiatives and developments that might influence the state of affairs. The goal of such an operation would then shift from accountability to learning from developing practices and perceptions, which arguably would help to build a European Union RRI awareness and culture (ibid).
The process of a RRI project itself is understood as a part of what should be measured when considering impacts. Indicators depicted in this assumption rely less on outcomes, producing assessments as iterative processes instead of linear operations.
However, despite from refraining from a focus on precise causality of outcomes of RRI projects, I discern an assumption of possibility of measurement of general causality. This general causality is present in the idea of impact measurement, as it implies that influence of RRI projects on its environment can be charted. The intention of measuring the impact of a RRI project, assumes in advance that such a project causes a least one effect and that such an effect can be measured.
§ 2.2.2.b Desirability of impact measurement.
Following the assumption of measurability of impacts, the second assumption I discern, is that indicators for measurement are assumed not only possible, but desirable in the EC report. Indicators are considered to contribute to the functioning of RRI projects: “Performance indicators are supposed to shape behaviour and practices in some desirable direction — in our case into a system of R & I that acts ‘responsibly’” (idem: 14). However, a possibility of bad effects by monitoring impacts of RRI projects is also taken to be possible, for example reduction of autonomy, a heightened focus of perception over performance, distraction from the goal of the project, unintended side-effects, deconstruction of intrinsic motivation and extra costs (idem: 14-5). Also:
The consequential systems of performance indicators are often perceived as an expression of mistrust from those who will use these indicators towards those who are performing; the observer mistrusts the actor to regulate his or her affairs autonomously. Where there was self-regulation, there shall be oversight. Thus, systems replace trust with a set of indicators of oversight. Where there is trust there is no need for such indicators. Indicators can be destabilising and take away legitimacy from current practices. Constructing an indicator system is an audit process in order to provide assurance to an outside and overseeing observer that things are done responsibly and are moving in the right direction. However, to strengthen the legitimacy and use of
indicators, it is necessary that the R & I community somehow assumes a sense of ownership; then the two dimensions involved in this process — performance and
perception — will arguably get a meaningful interpretation and implementation” (idem: 13-4).
Despite the problems focus on indicators for impact measurement can cause, in this report such a practice is considered necessary to “shape behaviour” (idem: 14). To circumvent possible drawbacks, the R&I community must “assume a sense of ownership” over these indicators (ibid). Such ownership would lead to a process that prevents negative effects. I discern the assumption that, by designing a RRI process appropriately, following the
