Wading through the Mud
Schuijer, J.W.
2021
document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in VU Research Portal
citation for published version (APA)
Schuijer, J. W. (2021). Wading through the Mud: Reflections on Shaping RRI in Practice.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
E-mail address:
Abels, G. (2009). Organizer, observer, participant. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 5, 19–35.
Åm, H. (2019). Limits of decentered governance in science-society policies. Journal of
Responsible Innovation, 6(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1605483
Amelung, N., & Grabner, L. (2017). Making citizen panels a “universal bestseller”: Transnational mobilization practices of public participation advocates. In L. Bherer, M. Gauthier, & L. Simard (Eds.), The professionalization of public participation (pp. 189–214). Routledge. Arentshorst, M. E., Broerse, J. E. W., Roelofsen, A., & De Cock Buning, T. (2014). Towards
responsible neuroimaging applications in health care: guiding visions of scientists and technology developers. In J. Van Den Hoven, N. Doorn, T. Swierstra, B. J. Koops, & H. Romijn (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues (pp. 255–280). Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1
Argenton, G. (2017). Mind the gaps: Controversies about algorithms, learning and trendy knowledge. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(3), 183–197. https://doi. org/10.1177/2042753017731358
Auger, J. (2012). Why robot?: speculative design, the domestication of technology and the
considered future. Royal College of Art, London.
Auger, J. (2013). Speculative design: Crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity, 24(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276
Ball, N., & Wolbring, G. (2014). Cognitive enhancement: Perceptions among parents of children with disabilities. Neuroethics, 7(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9201-8 Balmer, A. S., Calvert, J., Marris, C., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., Frow, E., Kearnes, M., Bulpin,
K., Schyfter, P., Mackenzie, A., & Martin, P. (2016). Five rules of thumb for post-ELSI interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(1), 73–80. https://doi. org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1177867
Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. A. (2015). Museums as brokers of participation : how visitors view the emerging role of European science centres and museums in policy. Science Museum
Group Journal, 3 (Spring 2015) [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.15180/150306
Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. A. (2012). Science centers and public participation: methods, strategies, and barriers. Science Communication, 35(4), 419–448. https://doi. org/10.1177/1075547012458910
Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. A. (2011). An experimental approach to strengthen the role of science centers in the governance of science. In J. C. Marstine (Ed.), The Routledge Companion
to Museum Ethics (pp. 164–173) (Issue April 2015, pp. 164–173). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203815465
Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of
nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. J. Hacket, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Third, pp. 1689–1699). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Barben, D, Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of
nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. Hackett, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd edn, pp. 979–1000). MIT Press.
R
Bauer, A., & Kastenhofer, K. (2018). Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.023
Bauer, M. W. (2002). Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/301
Baumann, K., Caldwell, B., Bar, F., & Stokes, B. (2018). Participatory design fiction: Community storytelling for speculative urban technologies. Extended Abstracts of
the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3170427.3186601
Ben-Arieh, A. (2000). Beyond welfare: Measuring and monitoring the state of children – New trends and domains. Social Indicators Research, 52(3), 235–257. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1007009414348
Ben-Arieh, A., & Frones, I. (2011). Taxonomy for child well-being indicators: A framework for the analysis of the well-being of children. Childhood, 18(4), 460–476. https://doi. org/10.1177/0907568211398159
Benard, M. (2014). Engaging society in pig research: a multi-stakeholder approach to enhance
animal welfare in pig production. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Benard, M., Schuitmaker, T. J., & de Cock Buning, T. (2014). Scientists and Dutch pig farmers in dialogue about tail biting: Unravelling the mechanism of multi-stakeholder learning.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(3), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10806-013-9471-x
Bennabi, D., Pedron, S., Haffen, E., Monnin, J., Peterschmitt, Y., & Van Waes, V. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation for memory enhancement: from clinical research to animal models. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8(September), 159. https://doi. org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00159
Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research, 37(4), 191–222. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1801 Betten, A. W. (2017). The art of reflection - towards meaningful deliberation of synthetic biology.
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Bherer, L., Gauthier, M., & Simard, L. (Eds.). (2017a). The professionalization of public
participation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816345.004
Bherer, L., Gauthier, M., & Simard, L. (2017b). The public participation professional: An invisible but pivotal actor in participatory processes. In L. Bherer, M. Gauthier, & L. Simard (Eds.),
The professionalization of public participation (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
Bleecker, J. (2009). Design Fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction. New Future Laboratory.
Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible onnovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In B.-J. Koops et al. (Ed.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and
applications. Springer International Publishing Switzerland .
Boenink, M. (2010). Imagining the future: how vignettes and scenarios might improve ethical reflection on synthetic biology for health purposes. In I. Szebik (Ed.), Ethics and clinical
applications of authentic biology: an interdisciplinary dialogue. (pp. 55–64). SYBHEL
Boenink, M., Swierstra, T., & Stemerding, D. (2010). Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality - a scenario study of experimenting with humans in
bionanotechnology. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.2202/1941-6008.1098
Boenink, M., & Swierstra, T. (2010). Anticipating the Interaction between Technology and Morality : A scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies
in Ethics Law and Technology, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1098
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002
Bosch, T. (2012). Sci-Fi writer Bruce Sterling explains the intriguing new concept of Design Fiction. Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/bruce-sterling-on-design-fictions.html Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory
challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11948-009-9142-5
Braun, K., & Könninger, S. (2018). From experiments to ecosystems? Reviewing public
participation, scientific governance and the systemic turn. Public Understanding of Science,
27(6), 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517717375
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using themtic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2000). Requirements for biotechnology development: the necessity for an interactive and participatory innovation process. I. International Journal of
Biotechnology, 2(4), 275–296.
Broms, L., Wangel, J., & Andersson, C. (2017). Sensing energy: Forming stories through speculative design artefacts. Energy Research and Social Science, 31, 194–204. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.025
Brooks, S., Leach, M., Lucas, H., & Millstone, E. (2009). Silver bullets, grand challenges and the
new philantrophy (STEPS Working Paper 24).
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and
technology (pp. 57–76). Routledge.
Burchell, K. (2009). A helping hand or a servant discipline? Science, Technology & Innovation
Studies, 5(5), 49–61.
Burget, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and conceptual dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics,
23, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1
Burri, R. V. (2018). Models of public engagement: Nanoscientists’ understandings of science– society interactions. NanoEthics, 12, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0316-y Cappelletti, M., Gessaroli, E., Hithersay, R., Mitolo, M., Didino, D., Kanai, R., Cohen Kadosh, R., & Walsh, V. (2013). Transfer of cognitive training across magnitude dimensions achieved with concurrent brain stimulation of the parietal lobe. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(37), 14899–14907. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1692-13.2013
Carrier, M., & Gartzlaff, M. (2019). Responsible research and innovation: hopes and fears in the scientific community in Europe. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 9460. https://doi.org/10 .1080/23299460.2019.1692571
R
Carvalho, A., & Nunes, J. A. (2013). Technology, methodology and intervention: performing nanoethics in Portugal. NanoEthics, 7, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0175-5
Carvalho, A., & Nunes, J. A. (2018). Assembling upstream engagement: the case of the Portuguese Deliberative Forum on nanotechnologies. NanoEthics, 12, 99–113. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11569-018-0314-0
Chatterjee, A. (2013). The ethics of neuroenhancement. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 118, 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53501-6.00027-5
Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. In Science Technology and Human Values (Vol. 33, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439073075941
Chilvers, J. (2010). Sustainable participation ? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public
dialogue on science and technology. http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/
Uploads/Strategic-Research-documents/Sustainable-Participation-report-03-10.pdf Chilvers, J. (2012). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue
on science and technology. Science Communication, 35(3), 283–310. https://doi. org/10.1177/1075547012454598
Chilvers, J., & Kearnes, M. B. (2016). Remaking Participation: science, environment and emergent
publics (J. Chilvers & M. Kearnes (Eds.)). Routledge.
Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006
Cohen Kadosh, R., Levy, N., O’Shea, J., Shea, N., & Savulescu, J. (2012). The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation. Current Biology, 22(4), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cub.2012.01.013
Cohen Kadosh, R., Soskic, S., Iuculano, T., Kanai, R., & Walsh, V. (2010). Modulating neuronal activity produces specific and long-lasting changes in numerical competence. Current
Biology : CB, 20(22), 2016–2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.007
Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. London: Pinter.
Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
Conceição, C. P., Ávila, P., Coelho, A. R., & Costa, A. F. (2020). European action plans for science– society relations: Changing buzzwords, changing the agenda. Minerva, 58(1), 1–24. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09380-7
Cooper, E., & Smith, G. (2012). Organizing deliberation: The perspectives of professional participation practitioners in Britain and Germany. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 8(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.125
Crow, M. M., & Sarewitz, D. (2001). Nanotechnology and societal transformation. Societal
Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, March, 45–54.
Cuppen, E., Hisschemöller, M., & Midden, C. (2009). Bias in the exchange of arguments: The case of scientists’ evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food. Public Understanding of
Science, 18(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508091021
Davies, S.R., & Horst, M. (2016). Scientific citizenship: The role of science communication in democracy. In Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship (pp. 187–212). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix063
Davies, S. R. (2011a). How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople’s talk.
Futures, 43(3), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.07.003
Davies, S. R. (2011b). The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events. Public
Understanding of Science, 22(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511399685
Davies, S. R., & Macnaghten, P. (2010). Narratives of mastery and resistance: Lay ethics of nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 4, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0096-5 Davies, S. R., Selin, C., Gano, G., & Pereira, Â. G. (2012). Citizen engagement and urban change:
Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities, 29, 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2011.11.012
Davies, S.R., Mccallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J. L., & Duensing, S. (2009). Discussing dialogue : perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public
Understanding of Science, 18(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507079760
de Jong, M. (2015). What’s that thing called RRI? The case of neuroimaging in justice and security. VU University, Amsterdam.
de Jong, I.M., Kupper, F., & Broerse, J. (2016). Inclusive deliberation and action in emerging RRI practices: the case of neuroimaging in security management. Journal of Responsible
Innovation, 9460(June), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1137752
de Jong, I.M., Kupper, F., Roelofsen, A., & Broerse, J. (2015). Exploring responsible innovation as a guiding concept: The case of neuroimaging in justice and security. In Responsible
Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications (pp. 57–84). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_4
de Saille, S. (2015). Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation.’ Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/2329 9460.2015.1045280
Delgado, a., Lein Kjolberg, K., & Wickson, F. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of
Science, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510363054
Delgado, A., & Åm, H. (2018). Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good. PLoS Biology, 16(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pbio.2003921
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its Problems. New York: Holt Publishers.
Dewulf, A., & Bouwen, R. (2012). Issue Framing in Conversations for Change. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 48(2), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312438858
Di Giulio, G., Groves, C., Monteiro, M., & Taddei, R. (2016). Communicating through vulnerability: knowledge politics, inclusion and responsiveness in responsible research and innovation.
Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(2), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1
166036
Dijkstra, A. M., & Critchley, C. R. (2016). Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés: Public risk perceptions contextualised. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 71–87. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662514528080
Donovan, C. (2005). The governance of social science and everyday epistemology. Public
R
Dresler, M., Sandberg, A., Ohla, K., Bublitz, C., Trenado, C., Mroczko-Wąsowicz, A., Kühn, S., & Repantis, D. (2013). Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Neuropharmacology,
64, 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.07.002
Dreyer, M., Chefneux, L., Goldberg, A., von Heimburg, J., Patrignani, N., Schofield, M., & Shilling, C. (2017). Responsible innovation: A complementary view from industry with proposals for bridging different perspectives. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10), 1–25. https://doi. org/10.3390/su9101719
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Earp, B. D., Sandberg, A., Kahane, G., & Savulescu, J. (2014). When is diminishment a form of enhancement? Rethinking the enhancement debate in biomedical ethics. Frontiers in
Systems Neuroscience, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00012
EC. (2013). HORIZON 2020 – work programme 2014-2015. https://ec.europa.eu/research/ participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/common/1597688-part_05ii_nmpb_v1.1_en.pdf Einsiedel, E. F. (2014). Publics and their participation in science and technology: Changing
roles, blurring boundaries. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public
Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 125–139). London: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203483794
Emery, S. B., Mulder, H. A. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2015). Maximizing the policy Impacts of public engagement: a European study. Science Technology and Human Values, 40(3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914550319
Erwee, R., & Conway, J. (2006). Cocreation of knowledge: Roles of coresearchers in research teams. Educational Forum, 70(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720608984887 Escobar, O. (2009). The dialogic turn: dialogue for deliberation. In-Spire Journal of Law, Politics
and Societies, 4(2), 42–70.
Escobar, O. (2011). Public Dialogue and Deliberation: A communication perspective for public
engagement practitioners. UK Edinburght Beltane - UK Beacons for Public Engagement.
http://edinburgh.academia.edu/OliverEscobar/Books/1191419/Public_Dialogue_and_ Deliberation_A_Communication_Perspective_for_Public_Engagement_Practitioners Escobar, O., Faulkner, W., & Rea, H. J. (2014). Building capacity for dialogue facilitation in public
engagement around research. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 2(1), 87–111. http://www. dialoguesociety.org/publications/Journal-of-Dialogue-Studies_Volume-2_Number-1.pdf Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2006). Children’s conceptualisation(s) of their well-being.
Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9019-9
Felt, U., Schumann, S., Schwarz, C. G., & Strassnig, M. (2014). Technology of imagination: a card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative
Research, 14(2), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468468
Felt, U. (2015). Keeping technologies out: Absent presences, sociotechnical imaginaries and national identity formation. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of Modernity:
Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (pp. 103–125). Chicago University
Press.
Felt, U. (2017). “Response-able practices” or “new bureaucracies of virtue”: the challenges of making RRI work in academic environments. In L. Asveld, R. van Dam-Mieras, T. Swierstra, S. Lavrijssen, K. Linse, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 3: A European
Felt, U. (2018). ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. In Sarah Gibbon, Barbara Prainsack, Stephen Hilgartner and Janette Lamoreaux (eds.) Handbook of Genomics, Health and Society. London/New York: Routledge.
Felt, U., Schumann, S., & Schwarz, C. G. (2015). (Re)assembling natures, cultures, and (nano) technologies in public engagement. Science as Culture, 24(4), 458–483. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09505431.2015.1055720
Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Gonçalves, M. E., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., Joly, P.-B., Konopasek, Z., May, S., Neubauer, C., Rip, A., Siune, K., Stirling, A., & Tallacchini, M. (2007). Taking
European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the expert group on science and
governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate general for research, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
Fergusson, L., van der Laan, L., & Baker, S. (2019). Reflective practice and work-based research: a description of micro- and macro-reflective cycles. Reflective Practice, 20(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2019.1591945
Fiorini, D. (1989). Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review. Columbia
Journal of Environmental Law, 14, 501–547.
Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology:
Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0270467606295402
Fisher, E., & Maricle, G. (2015). Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting. Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu017
Fitz, N. S., & Reiner, P. B. (2014). The perils of using electrical human brains. In The Stimulated
Brain (pp. 61–83). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-404704-4.00003-X
Flanigan, J. (2013). Adderall for all: A defense of pediatric neuroenhancement. HEC Forum : An
Interdisciplinary Journal on Hospitals’ Ethical and Legal Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10730-013-9222-4
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Making social science matter. In G. Papanagnou (Ed.), Social Science and
policy challenges - Democracy, values and capacities & Policy. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Forlano, L., & Mathew, A. (2014). From design fiction to design friction: Speculative and participatory design of values-embedded urban technology. Journal of Urban Technology,
21(4), 7–24.
Forlini, C., & Racine, E. (2012). Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to “academic” cognitive enhancement: Unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies. Public Understanding
of Science (Bristol, England), 21(5), 606–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510385062
Forsberg, E., Shelley-Egan, C., Ladikas, M., & Owen, R. (2018). Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation in research funding and research conducting organizations - what have we learned so far? In F. Ferri, N. Dwyer, S. Raicevich, P. Grifoni, H. Altiok, H. T. Andersen, Y. Laouris, & C. Silvestri (Eds.), Governance and sustainability of Responsible
Research and Innovation processes, cases and experiences (pp. 3–12). Springer.
Fraaije, A., & Flipse, S. M. (2020). Synthesizing an implementation framework for responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 113–137. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23299460.2019.1676685
R
Franke, A. G., Lieb, K., & Hildt, E. (2012). What users think about the differences between caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement. PloS One, 7(6), e40047. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040047
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). The emergence of post-normal science. In René von Schomberg (Ed.), Science, politics and morality. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13(12), 1881–1885. https://doi.org/10.1021/
i650589a724
Gaucher, N., Payot, A., & Racine, E. (2013a). Cognitive enhancement in children and
adolescents: is it in their best interests? Acta Paediatrica, 102(12), 1118–1124. https://doi. org/10.1111/apa.12409
Gaucher, N., Payot, A., & Racine, E. (2013b). Cognitive enhancement in children and
adolescents: is it in their best interests? Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 102(12), 1118–1124. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.12409
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: SAGE Publications.
Gisler, P., & Schicktanz, S. (2009). Introduction: Ironists, reformers, or rebels? Science,
Technology & Innovation Studies, 5, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-8460
Glerup, C., Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2017). ‘Nothing really responsible goes on here’: scientists’ experience and practice of responsibility. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 4(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1378462
Godenhjelm, S., Lundin, R. A., & Sjöblom, S. (2015). Projectification in the public sector – the case of the European Union. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(2), 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2014-0049
Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(6), 639–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906291865
Graf, W. D., Nagel, S. K., Epstein, L. G., Miller, G., Nass, R., & Larriviere, D. (2013). Pediatric neuroenhancement: ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications.
Neurology, 80(13), 1251–1260. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318289703b
Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology, &
Human Values, 21(1), 72–99.
Grunwald, A. (2010). From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology.
NanoEthics, 4(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0088-5
Guston, D. H. (2012). The pumpkin or the tiger? Michael Polanyi, Frederick Soddy, and Anticipating Emerging Technologies. Minerva, 50(3), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11024-012-9204-8
Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding “anticipatory governance.” Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669
Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society,
24, 93–109.
Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44, 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11024-006-0012-x
Hamilton, R., Messing, S., & Chatterjee, A. (2011). Rethinking the thinking cap: ethics of neural enhancement using noninvasive brain stimulation. Neurology, 76(2), 187–193. https://doi. org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318205d50d
Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498–501. https://doi. org/10.1093/humrep/dev334
Hartley, S., Pearce, W., & Taylor, A. (2017). Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance. Policy and Politics, 45(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1332/0305573 16X14681503832036
Heidingsfelder, M., Kimpel, K., Best, K., & Schraudner, M. (2015). Shaping Future - Adapting design know-how to reorient innovation towards public preferences.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2015.03.009
Heidingsfelder, M. L., Schütz, F., & Kaiser, S. (2016). Expanding participation Participatory design
in technology agenda-setting. 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2948076.2948087
Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2008.01.008
Hildt, E. (2014). On the current neuroenhancement use of transcranial direct current stimulation by healthy individuals–a non-fictional snap-shot: commentary on Lapenta et al. 2014. Psychology and Neuroscience, 7(2), 181–182. https://doi.org/10.3922/j. psns.2014.011
Holm, S. (2017). Going to the roots of the stem cell controversy. Genetics and Gene Therapy,
16(6), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254517-22
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Kitzinger, J. (2007). Bricolage in action: Learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modified crops and food. Health, Risk
and Society, 9(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570601181623
Horvath, J. C., Forte, J. D., & Carter, O. (2015a). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulation, 8(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. brs.2015.01.400
Horvath, J. C., Forte, J. D., & Carter, O. (2015b). Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: A systematic review. Neuropsychologia,
66, 213–236. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.021
Ihde, D. (2006). The designer fallacy and technological imagination. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defining
Technological Literacy (pp. 121–131). Palgrave Macmillan.
Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social
Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706053350
Irwin, A. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513510646
Irwin, A., Jensen, T. E., & Jones, K. E. (2013). The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science, 43(1), 118–135. https://doi.
R
Jasanoff, S. (2002). New modernities: Reimagining science, technology and development.
Environmental Values, 11, 253–276. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327102129341082
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva,
41(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social Order. London: Routledge.
Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., & Wynne, B. (2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the uk agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture,
15(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430601022619
Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00274
Kloet, R. R., Hessels, L. K., Zweekhorst, M. B. M., Broerse, J. E. W., & de Cock Buning, T. (2012). Understanding constraints in the dynamics of a research programme intended as a niche innovation. Science and Public Policy, 40, 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs081 Knorr Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and
contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon International Library.
Krabbenborg, L. (2013). Dramatic rehearsal on the societal embedding of the lithium chip. In S. van der Burg & T. Swierstra (Eds.), Ethics on the laboratory floor (pp. 168-187). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krabbenborg, L., & Mulder, H. A. J. (2015). Upstream Public Engagement in Nanotechnology.
Science Communication, 37(4), 452–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015588601
Kupper, F. (2017). The theatrical debate: Experimenting with technologies on stage. In I Van de Poel, L. Asveld, & D. Mehos (Eds.), New Perspectives on Technology in Society (pp. 80–102). Routledge.
Kupper, F., & De Cock Buning, T. C. (2011). Deliberating Animal Values: A Pragmatic-Pluralistic Approach to Animal Ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24, 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9260-8
Kupper, F., Klaassen, P., Rijnen, M., Vermeulen, S., & Broerse, J. (2015). Report on
the quality criteria of Good Practice Standards in RRI. http://www.rri-tools.eu/
documents/10184/107098/D1.3_QualityCriteriaGoodPracticeStandards.pdf/ca4efe26-6fb2-4990-8dde-fe3b4aed1676
Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509104723
Kuzma, J., & Roberts, P. (2018). Cataloguing the barriers facing RRI in innovation pathways: a response to the dilemma of societal alignment. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(3), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1511329
Kuzmanovic, M., & Gaffney, N. (2016). Enacting futures in postnormal times. Futures, 86, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.007
Langenhove, L. (2011). Social sciences and policy impact: the case for a participatory approach. In Social science and policy challenges - democracy, values and capacities & policy (pp. 95–112).
Lapenta, O., Valasek, C., Brunoni, A., & Boggio, P. (2014). An ethical discussion of the use of transcranial direct current stimulation for cognitive enhancement in healthy individuals: a fictional case study. Psychology and Neuroscience, 7(2), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.3922/j. psns.2014.010
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Lee, B. J. (2014). Mapping domains and indicators of children’s well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of Child Well-being: theories, methods
and policies in global perspective (pp. 2797–2805). New York: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-90-481-9063-8
Lehoux, P., Miller, F. A., & Williams-Jones, B. (2020). Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.119800
Lehoux, P., Miller, F. A., Grimard, D., & Gauthier, P. (2017). Anticipating health innovations in 2030–2040: Where does responsibility lie for the publics? Public Understanding of Science,
27(3), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517725715
Lekka-Kowalik, A. (2010). Why science cannot be value-free: Understanding the rationality and responsibility of science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 33–41. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11948-009-9128-3
Lev, O. (2010). Should children have equal access to neuroenhancements? American
Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, 1:1, 21–23. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
full/10.1080/21507740903504442#.VK_cI8Y4Q0s
Levidow, L. (2007). European public participation as risk governance: enhancing democratic accountability for agbiotech policy? East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An
International Journal, 1, 19–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12280-007-9001-x
Levin, M. (2012). Academic integrity in action research. Action Research, 10(2), 133–149. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1476750312445034
Levy, N., & Savulescu, J. (2014). The neuroethics of transcranial electrical stimulation. In The
Stimulated Brain (pp. 499–521). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-404704-4.00018-1
Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
Li, F., Owen, R., & Simakova, E. (2015). Framing responsible innovation in synthetic biology: the need for a critical discourse analysis approach. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.1002059
Lindley, J., & Coulton, P. (2015). Back to the future: 10 years of design fiction. Proceedings of the
2015 British HCI Conference, 210–211. https://doi.org/10.1145/2783446.2783592
Loorbach, D. A. (2007). Transition Management. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing Expectations: Towards a Toolbox for an Ethics of Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0119-x
R
Macnaghten, P. (2020). The Making of Responsible Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macnaghten, P., Davies, S. R., & Kearnes, M. (2019). Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning, 21(5), 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110
Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281531
Maier, L. J., & Schaub, M. P. (2015). The use of prescription drugs and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement in Europe. European Psychologist, 20(3), 155–166. https://doi. org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000228
Marcu, A., Gaspar, R., Rutsaert, P., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., Verbeke, W., & Barnett, J. (2014). Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 547–562. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662514521106
Marschalek, I. (2017). Public engagement in responsible research and innovation: a critical
reflection from the practitioner’s point of view. Universität Wien.
Martin, D. M., Liu, R., Alonzo, A., Green, M., & Loo, C. K. (2014). Use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to enhance cognitive training: effect of timing of stimulation.
Experimental Brain Research, 232(10), 3345–3351.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4022-x
Martuzzi, M., & Tickner, J. a. (2004). The precautionary principle : protecting public health , the
environment and the future of our children. World Health Organisation. http://www.euro.
who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf
Maslen, H., Douglas, T., Cohen Kadosh, R., Levy, N., & Savulescu, J. (2014). The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: extending the medical model. Journal of Law and the
Biosciences, 1(1), 68–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lst003
Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information
Communication and Society, 20(6), 930–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/136911
8X.2017.1293130
Moore, K. A., & Theokas, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a monitoring system for indicators in middle childhood. Child Indicators Research, 1(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12187-008-9011-9
Mouffe, C. (1996). Democracy, power, and the “political.” In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and
Difference (pp. 245–256). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.
Nagel, S. K. (2014). Enhancement for well-being is still ethically challenging. Frontiers in Systems
Neuroscience, 8, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00072
Nagel, S. K., & Graf, W. D. (2013). Enhancement in children and adolescents: scrutinizing effects beyond cognition. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, 4(1), 22–24. http://www. tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21507740.2012.748708
NANO2ALL. (n.d.). What we do. Retrieved October 8, 2019, from http://www.nano2all.eu/what-we-do/#1547728929137-b65adac9-4fe7
NANO2ALL. (2018). Responsible Innovation Agendas at national level (project deliverable). http:// www.nano2all.eu/resources/nano2all-dialogue-materials-and-results/
Nielsen, M. V. (2016). The concept of responsiveness in the governance of research and innovation. Science and Public Policy, scv078. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv078 Nordmann, A., & Rip, A. (2019). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 273–274.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0141-z
Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public
Policy, 30(3), 151–156.
OECD. (2009). Comparative child well-being across the OECD. In Doing better for children (pp. 21–63). OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/43570328.pdf
Oudheusden, M., & Laurent, B. (2013). Shifting and deepening engagements. Science,
Technology & Innovation Studies, 9(1), 3–22.
Owen, R, Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
Owen, R, & Pansera, M. (2017). Responsible Innovation and Responsible Research and Innovation. In D. Simon, S. Kuhlmann, J. Stamm, & W. Canzler (Eds.), Handbook on Science
and Public Policy (pp. 26–48). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pallett, H., & Chilvers, J. (2013). A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: Institutionalising reflexivity? Environment and Planning A, 45(5), 1162–1183. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45252
Pallett, H., & Chilvers, J. (2015). Organizations in the making: Learning and intervening at the science-policy interface. Progress in Human Geography, 39(2), 146–166. https://doi. org/10.1177/0309132513518831
Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA).
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2005.06.002
Papanagnou, G. (2011). Building bridges? The challenges of social science for policy. In G. Papanagnou (Ed.), Social science and policy challenges - Democracy, values and capacities (pp. 7–23). UNESCO Publishing.
Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Pellé, S. (2016). Process, outcomes, virtues: the normative strategies of responsible research and innovation and the challenge of moral pluralism. Journal of Responsible Innovation,
3(3), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1258945
Pellizzoni, L. (2001). The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. British
Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020023037
Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229034
Pestre, D. (2003). Regimes of knowledge production in society; towards a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41, 245–261.
R
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each otther. In T. P. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the
sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). MIT Press.
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C. I., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hadorn, G. H., & Urs, W. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 267–281. https://doi. org/10.3152/030234210X496628
Pollard, E., & Lee, P. (2003). Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59–78. http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1023/A:1021284215801
Powell, M. C., & Colin, M. (2008). Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: What would it really take? Science Communication, 30(1), 126–136. https://doi. org/10.1177/1075547008320520
Radstake, M., Nelis, A., & van den Heuvel-Vromans, E. (2009). Mediating online DNA-Dialogues: From public engagement to interventionist research. Science, Technology & Innovation
Studies, 5, 37–47.
Randles, S., Laredo, P., Loconto, A., Walhout, B., & Lindner, R. (2016). Framings and frameworks: six grand narratives of de facto RRI. In R. Lindner, S. Kuhlmann, S. Randles, B Bedsted, G. Gorgoni, E. Griessler, A. Loconto and N. Mejlgaard (Eds.) Navigating Towards Shared
Responsibility in Research and Innovation: Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project (pp. 31-36), Karlsruhe.
Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2015). Risk governance and resilience: new approaches to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity. In U. Fra Paleo (Ed.), Risk governance: the articulation of
hazard, politics and ecology (pp. 19–41). New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9328-5
Renn, O., Klinke, A., & Van Asselt, M. (2011). Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: A synthesis. Ambio, 40(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0
Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D. J., & Millar, K. (2017). A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics,
23, 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6
Rip, A. (1995). Introduction of new technology: Making use of recent insights from sociology and economics of technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329508524223
Rip, A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(17), 1–15. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4
Rip, A. (2016). The clothes of the emperor. An essay on RRI in and around Brussels. Journal of
Responsible Innovation, 3(3), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701
Roeser, S., Alfano, V., & Nevejan, C. (2018). The role of art in emotional-moral reflection on risky and controversial technologies : the case of BNCI. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21, 275–289. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9878-6 The
Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Introduction: Engaging with
nanotechnologies - Engaging differently? NanoEthics, 1, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11569-007-0013-8
Rowe, G, & Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.
Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/016224390002500101
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science,
Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
Rowe, G., & Watermeyer, R. P. (2018). Dilemmas of public participation in science policy. Policy
Studies, 39(2), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1451502
Rozendaal, M. C., Heidingsfelder, M. L., & Kupper, F. (2016). Exploring Embodied Speculation in Participatory Design and Innovation. Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design
Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops-Volume 2, 100–102.
Salmon, R. A., Priestley, R. K., & Goven, J. (2017). The reflexive scientist: an approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0274-4
Sarewitz, D. (2015). CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature, 522, 413–14.
Savulescu, J., Sandberg, A., & Kahane, G. (2011). Well-being and enhancement. In J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, & G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing Human Capacities (pp. 3–18). Wiley-Blackwell. Schleim, S. (2014). Whose well-being? Common conceptions and misconceptions in the
enhancement debate. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 148. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnsys.2014.00148
Schomberg, R Von. (2013). A vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible
Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (pp. 51–74). Wiley. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch3
Schön, D. A., & Rein, A. (1994). Policy controversies as frame conflicts. In Frame reflection:
toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies (pp. 22–36). New York: Basic
Books.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1995). Frame Reflection. New York: Basic Books.
Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.
Schulz-Schaeffer, I., Weyer, R., & Johannes, W. (2009). Editorial: The new role(s) of social sciences Since. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 5(1), 3.
Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769–788. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8
Schwarz-Plaschg, C. (2016). Nanotechnology is like … The rhetorical roles of analogies in public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 153–167. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662516655686
Schwarz-Plaschg, C. (2018). The power of analogies for imagining and governing emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0315-z
R
Selin, C., Rawlings, K. C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., Davies, S. R., & Guston, D. H. (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of
Science, 26(6), 634–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515620970
Singh, I., & Kelleher, K. J. (2010). Neuroenhancement in young people: Proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(February 2015), 3–16. https://doi. org/10.1080/21507740903508591
Small, S. A. (1995). Action-oriented research : Models and methods. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 57(4), 941–955.
Small, S. A., & Uttal, L. (2005). Action-oriented research: Strategies for engaged scholarship.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 936–948.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00185.x
Smith, M. E., & Farah, M. J. (2011). Are prescription stimulants “smart pills”? The epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience of prescription stimulant use by normal healthy individuals.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023825
Smits, M., Vermeulen, S., & Schuijff, M. (2013). Goed, beter, betwist.
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science ? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963662513518154
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2013.05.008
Stirling, A. (2007). Deliberate futures: Precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology. Sustainable Development, 15(5), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.347 Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the
social appraisal of technology. Science Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265
Stirling, A.. (2014). Emancipating Transformations: From controlling “the transition” to culturing
plural radical progress.
Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1, 3–20. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
Swierstra, T., Stemerding, D., & Boenink, M. (2009a). Exploring Techno-Moral Change: The Case
of the ObesityPill (pp. 119–138). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_9
Swierstra, T., Stemerding, D., & Boenink, M. (2009b). Exploring techno-moral change. The case of the Obesity Pill. In P. Sollie & M. Duwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies (Vol. 22, Issue 7, pp. 119–138). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71219-2_11 Sykes, K., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Responsible Innovation - Opening up dialogue and
debate. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the
responsible emergence of science and onnovation in society (pp. 85–107). New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch5
Taebi, B., Roeser, S., & van de Poel, I. (2012). The ethics of nuclear power: Social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. Energy Policy, 51, 202–206. https://doi.
Thompson Klein, J. (2001). The discourse of transdisciplinarity: an expanding global field. In J. Thompson Klein, R. Häberli, R. W. Scholz, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, A. Bill, & M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society (pp. 35-44). Basel: Birkhäuser.
Thorpe, C., & Gregory, J. (2010). Producing the post-fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 19(3), 273–301. https://doi. org/10.1080/09505430903194504
Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Schunke (Eds.),
Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119–135). Springer.
Tromsoco, A. (2019). Recommendations from mobile nuclei. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/
downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5c557e587&appId=PPGMS
Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs114
van de Poel, I. (2013). Why new technologies should be conceived as social experiments. Ethics,
Policy & Environment, 16(3), 352–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2013.844575
van der Meij, M. (2017). Playful reflection: designing playful reflection on research and
innovation. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
van der Meij, M. G. (2015). Reflections on the impact of (playful) deliberation processes in contexts of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Science Communication, 14(3), 1–8.
van der Meij, M. G., Broerse, J. E. W., & Kupper, F. (2017). Conceptualizing playfulness for reflection processes in responsible research and innovation contexts: a narrative literature review. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 0(0), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23 299460.2017.1326258
van der Meij, M. G., Heltzel, A. A. L. M., Broerse, J. E. W., & Kupper, F. (2018). Frame reflection lab: a playful method for frame reflection on synthetic biology. NanoEthics, 12(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0318-9
van Est, R., Walhout, B., Rerimassie, V., Stemerding, D., & Hanssen, L. (2012). Governance of nanotechnology in the Netherlands, informing and engaging in different social spheres.
Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 10(1), 6–26.
van Hove, L., & Wickson, F. (2017). Responsible Research is not good science: divergences inhibiting the enactment of RRI in nanosafety. NanoEthics, 11(3), 213–228. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11569-017-0306-5
van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
van Raak, R. (2015). Transition policies: Connecting system dynamics, governance and
instruments in an application to Dutch Healthcare [Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam].
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t894p0.9 VERBI Software. (2018). MAXQDA 2018. VERBI.
R
Verhoeff, R., & Kupper, F. (2020). Science in dialogue. In F. van Dam, L. de Bakker, A. M. Dijkstra, & E. A. Jensen (Eds.), Science communication: an introduction (pp. 65–90). World Scientific Publishing.
von Schomberg, R. (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. Technikfolgen Abschätzen Lehren, 39–61. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-531-93468-6_2
Voß, J. P., & Amelung, N. (2016a). Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement. Social Studies of Science, 46(5), 749–772. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0306312716641350
Voß, J. P., & Amelung, N. (2016b). Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement. Social Studies of Science, 46(5), 749–772. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0306312716641350
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and habitus : Organization Studies, 7(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003909
Wexler, A. (2015). A pragmatic analysis of the regulation of consumer transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) devices in the United States: Table 1. Journal of Law and the
Biosciences, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv039
Wickson, F., & Carew, A. L. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.963004
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: why public engagement needs to move
upstream. London: Demos.
Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that
science really matters. London: Demos.
Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9, 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-014-0258-4
Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1215/s12280-007-9004-7
Wynne, B.. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600108
Wynne, B.. (2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50(3), 459–477. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0011392102050003010
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220. https://doi. org/10.1159/000092659
Wynne, B.. (2007). Dazzled by the mirage of influence? Science, Technology, & Human Values,
Zuiderent-Jerak, T. (2015). Situated Intervention: Sociological experiments in health care. In Inside Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.004
Zuiderent-Jerak, T., & Bruun Jensen, C. (2007). Editorial introduction: Unpacking ‘intervention’ in science and technology studies. Science as Culture, 16(3), 227–235. https://doi. org/10.1080/09505430701568552
Zwissler, B., Sperber, C., Aigeldinger, S., Schindler, S., Kissler, J., & Plewnia, C. (2014). Shaping memory accuracy by left prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation. The Journal
of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 34(11), 4022–4026.
