Responsible Research and Innovation: Using the Requirements Tool for Stakeholder Engagement in Developing a Universal Design for Learning Guidelines for Practice
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Anticipation—which tries to predict societal impact from technological development,
- Transparency—to guarantee openness to include dissemination and discussion of all outcomes.
- Responsiveness—to be willing and able to act to adapt and revise practice, procedure and behaviour as circumstances and needs change.
- Reflexivity—Two orders of reflexivity include considering how far something could be adapted or changed to improve outcomes and to acknowledge how researchers are framing their work and the assumptions and unconscious bias that may affect their decisions.
- Participation—ensures that all stakeholders should be engaged in meaningful involvement from the outset and throughout a project.
2. Rationale and Methods
2.1. The Requirements Gap
2.2. The Requirements Tool
2.3. A Guide for Universal Design for Learning
2.4. Identifying and Engaging with Participants
- 1 Full Professor
- 4 Associate Professors
- 6 Senior Lecturers
- 7 Full time Lecturers
- 1 Part time Lecturer
2.5. Workshops
2.5.1. Workshop 1—Adapting the Requirements Tool
2.5.2. Workshop 2—Revising the guidelines
3. Results, Outcomes and Outputs
3.1. Review and Inclusion of New Requirements into Existing Guidelines
3.2. The Requirements Tool in Practice
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Requirements Tool Development Process
General Requirements | Requirements Specific to Project, Area of Enquiry, or Stakeholder Group | Issues and Concerns | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Use a common language that overlaps all disciplines. | May require use of some discipline specific language (Glossary D2.1) for clarity and precision. | Over simplification or too much complexity in the discipline specific language may result confusion or the evasion of the ‘spirit’ of RRI in practice. |
2 | Be concise and ensure it is practical and usable (bullet points etc.) Shorter documents are more likely to be read and understood. | Some projects, areas of enquiry or stakeholder groups may need detailed descriptions to ensure value and relevance. | If the guidelines are too brief they may lead to lack of clarity and detail. |
3 | Use good style to enhance readability (colours, diagrams, pictures other types of media). Make it attractive and easy to understand. | Could trivialise or over complicate the message. | |
4 | Provide interactive document (e.g., links to RRI websites, case studies, examples of good/bad practice, tools and resources). | To inform from the specific project, area of enquiry or stakeholder group as well as more broadly. Provide access to multiple sources and perspectives and provide a contextualised approach. | Information overload and accessibility issues. |
Content Related Requirements | |||
5 | Provide a pitch to grab attention for example, a cover page with the key points. | Graphics and wording to aim at specific target audience | Tone may be inappropriate, over simplification |
6 | Provide a single definition of RRI and other key terms and provide a description of meaning, scope, and complexity within the document through links to the Glossary (D2.1). | May be too narrow, overly prescriptive, or irrelevant in stakeholders’ particular contexts | |
7 | Provide links to different definitions of RRI to broaden awareness of RRI principles and to encourage the use of RRI theory to relate to user’s own practice. | Perspectives included in definitions may be limited or conversely, information overload may create confusion or possible narrowing of perspectives. | |
8 | Provide links to projects, case studies, examples or normative dilemmas of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practices to provide examples for discussion and to provide relevance for specific stakeholder groups. | Case studies may be limited or not sufficiently relevant. | |
9 | Provide links to RRI and governance tools to provide information and explanations on existing RRI approaches and resources including web links and references. This will provide examples for discussion leading to organisational/individual learning. | Facilitate awareness and understanding of domain specific approaches e.g., FRRIICT strengthens perception of the legitimacy of the guidelines in ICT. | Tools may not be useful or relevant. May be confusing if too many options are available. Existing approaches may be limited, too complex or unsuitable |
10 | Provide methods to re-asses and challenge the guidelines including a regular review. | If too flexible, may have little impact as the guidelines may be too weak to be effective. | |
11 | Respond to EC framework, e.g., intervention logic model (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, utility) and relate the benefits and problems of RRI to EC framework. | Identify and respond to aspects of EC framework that are specific to project, area of enquiry, stakeholder group. | May be too prescriptive. May not be accepted in other geographical regions. May narrow scope and constrain innovation or may create confusion due to contradictions. May lead to superficial or ‘tick-box’ compliance. |
12 | Utilise the findings from the GREAT project empirical work to inform development of the guidelines. This will not be included in the guidelines themselves but a link to the project website will be provided. | May be too narrow in scope. |
Appendix A.2. The Requirements Tool—Requirements for Guidelines for RRI
References
- Gray, D.J. Value-free Sociology: A Doctrine of Hypocrisy and Irresponsibility. Sociol. Q. 1968, 9, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouldner, A.W. Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Value-Free Sociology. Available online: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/socprob9&i=209 (accessed on 18 April 2019).
- Bernal, J.D. The Social Function of Science; Stephen Austin and Sons: Hertford, UK, 1939. [Google Scholar]
- Douglas, H. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal; University of Pittsburgh Pre: Pitsburg, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Harley, J.B. Can there be a cartographic ethics? Cartogr. Perspect. 1991, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J.K. Post-normal science. In Companion to Environmental Studies; Routledge in Association with GSE Research: Abingdon, UK, 2018; Volume 443, pp. 443–447. [Google Scholar]
- Lacey, H. Is Science Value Free?: Values and Scientific Understanding; Routledge: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Kincaid, H.; Dupré, J.; Wylie, A. Value-Free Science: Ideals and Illusions? Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Proctor, R.N.; Proctor, R. Value-Free Science?: Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Tsui, A. Reflections on the so-called value-free ideal: A call for responsible science in the business schools. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 2016, 23, 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourany, J.A. Philosophy of Science after Feminism; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, M.J. The source and status of values for socially responsible science. Philos. Stud. 2013, 163, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen, J.R.; Kemp, D. Social licence and mining: A critical perspective. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prno, J. An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining industry. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 577–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benn, S.; Edwards, M.; Williams, T. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Stahl, B.; Obach, M.; Yaghmaei, E.; Ikonen, V.; Chatfield, K.; Brem, A. The Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) maturity model: Linking theory and practice. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brand, T.; Blok, V. Responsible innovation in business: A critical reflection on deliberative engagement as a central governance mechanism. J. Responsib. Innov. 2019, 6, 4–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álvarez Jaramillo, J.; Zartha Sossa, J.W.; Orozco Mendoza, G.L. Barriers to sustainability for small and medium enterprises in the framework of sustainable development—Literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 28, 512–544. [Google Scholar]
- Stahl, B. Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Sci. Publ. Policy 2013, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Schomberg, R. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation . In Technikfolgen Abschätzen Lehren; Dusseldorp, M., Beecroft, R., Eds.; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 39–61. [Google Scholar]
- Stilgoe, J.; Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 2013, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edelenbos, J.; Klijn, E. Managing stakeholder involvement in decision-making: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in The Netherlands. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2006, 16, 417–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Envision2030: Goal 16. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030-goal16.html (accessed on 5 April 2019).
- Envision2030 Goal 17. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030-goal17.html (accessed on 5 April 2019).
- Moffat, K.; Lacey, J.; Zhang, A.; Leipold, S. The social licence to operate: A critical review. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2016, 89, 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dare, M.; Schirmer, J.; Vanclay, F. Community engagement and social licence to operate. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2014, 32, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, N.; Lacey, J.; Carr-Cornish, S.; Dowd, A. Social licence to operate: Understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 86, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutilier, R.G. Frequently asked questions about the social licence to operate. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2014, 32, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faucheux, S.; Combe, C.G.; Kuszla, C.; O’Connor, M. Social Costs of Non-Responsible Research. In Responsible Organizations in the Global Context; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 199–219. [Google Scholar]
- Holbrook, J.B. Designing responsible research and innovation to encourage serendipity could enhance the broader societal impacts of research. J. Responsib. Innov. 2019, 6, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albareda, L.; Hajikhani, A. Innovation for Sustainability: Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. In Innovation for Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 35–57. [Google Scholar]
- Ferri, F.; Dwyer, N.; Raicevich, S.; Grifoni, P.; Altiok, H.; Andersen, H.T.; Laouris, Y.; Silvestri, C. Governance and Sustainability of Responsible Research and Innovation Processes: Cases and Experiences; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lubberink, R.; Blok, V.; van Ophem, J.; Omta, O. Responsible innovation by social entrepreneurs: An exploratory study of values integration in innovations. J. Responsib. Innov. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Responsible Research & Innovation—Horizon 2020—European Commission. Available online: /programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation (accessed on 11 December 2018).
- Framework for Responsible Innovation. Available online: https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/framework/ (accessed on 25 March 2019).
- Silva, L.M.D.; Bitencourt, C.C.; Faccin, K.; Iakovleva, T. The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limson, J. Putting responsible research and innovation into practice: A case study for biotechnology research, exploring impacts and RRI learning outcomes of public engagement for science students. Synthese 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GREAT. Available online: http://www.great-project.eu/ (accessed on 7 February 2019).
- Universal Design for Learning at DMU. Available online: https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2017/april/dmu’s-sector-leading-support-for-students-wins-high-praise.aspx (accessed on 16 April 2019).
- Disabled Students’ Allowances: Written Statement—HCWS347. Available online: https://www.parliament.uk/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-12-02/HCWS347 (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- Rose, D.H.; Meyer, A. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Timmermans, J.; Stahl, B. Annual Report on the Main Trends of SiS in Particular the Trends Related to RRI. Available online: http://www.great-project.eu/research/deliverables (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- Pelle, S.; Reber, B. The Theoretical Landscape. Available online: http://www.great-project.eu/research/deliverables (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- Lenoble, J.; Maesschalck, M. Toward a Theory of Governance: The Action of Norms; Kluwer Law International: Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Stahl, B.C. Responsible research and innovation in information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2012, 21, 207–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellizzoni, L. Responsibility and Environmental Governance. Environ. Polit. 2004, 13, 541–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iordanou, K. Involving Patients in Research? Responsible Research and Innovation in Small-and Medium-Sized European Health Care Enterprises. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 2019, 28, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nulli, M.; Stahl, B. RRI in Higher Education. Orbit J. 2018, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurzawska, A.; Mäkinen, M.; Brey, P. Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilford, S.H. What is required of requirements? A first stage process towards developing guidelines for responsible research and innovation. Sigcas Comput. Soc. 2015, 45, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardone, E.; Lind, M. Towards a phronetic space for responsible research (and innovation). Life Sci. Soc. Policy 2016, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coenen, C.; Grunwald, A. Responsible research and innovation (RRI) in quantum technology. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2017, 19, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Germonprez, M.; Hovorka, D.S. Member engagement within digitally enabled social network communities: New methodological considerations. Inf. Syst. J. 2013, 23, 525–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gandy, R.; Wilford, S. End of life services: Public and patient involvement. Br. J. Healthc. Manag. 2012, 18, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilford, S. First Line Steps in Requirements Identification for Guidelines Development in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2018, 31, 539–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilford, S.H.; Fisk, M.; Stahl, B. Guidelines for Responsible Research and Innovation; Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University: Leicester, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Jirotka, M.; Grimpe, B.; Stahl, B.; Eden, G.; Hartswood, M. Responsible research and innovation in the digital age. Commun. ACM 2017, 60, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilford, S.; Timmermans, J.; Grimpe, B.; Jirotka, M. Requirements for Guidelines. Available online: http://www.great-project.eu/research/deliverables (accessed on 8 April 2019).
- Responsible Innovation Compass. Available online: https://innovation-compass.eu/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
- Progressive Standards around ICT for Active and Healthy Ageing. Available online: https://progressivestandards.org/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
- Krueger, R.; Casey, M. Focus Group: A Practical Guide for Applied Research; Public Understanding of Scienc; Sage Publications: Singapore, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- AnonymousCAST: Center for Applied Special Technology. Choice Rev. Online 2014, 51, 5146. [CrossRef]
- Rose, D. Universal design for learning. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2000, 15, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pettit, I.; Hall, R. Change Management in Ukhe—A Case Study of a Large-Scale Multimedia Roll-Out; De Montfort University: Leicester, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, J.B.; Hall, R.; Lishman, R.; Rushworth, J.; Snape, J.R. Designing for Difference: Lessons from a Cross-Disciplinary Implementation of Universal Design for Learning; University of Utah: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Black, R.D.; Weinberg, L.A.; Brodwin, M.G. Universal design for learning and instruction: Perspectives of students with disabilities in higher education. Except. Educ. Int. 2015, 25, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Funtowicz, S.; Shepherd, I.; Wilkinson, D.; Ravetz, J. Science and governance in the European Union: A contribution to the debate. Sci. Public Policy 2000, 27, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilford, S.H.; Fisk, M.; Stahl, B.C. Guidelines for Responsible Research and Innovation. GREAT (Governance of Responsible Innovation) FP7 Grant Agreement No: N°321480; European Commission 2016. Available online: http://www.great-project.eu/Deliverables10 (accessed on 8 April 2019).
General Requirements | Requirements Specific to Project, Area of Enquiry, Specialism or Stakeholder Group | Issues and Concerns | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Use a common language that overlaps all disciplines within the school | May require use of some technical language (Glossary) for clarity and precision. | Over simplification or too much technical language may result in evasion of the ‘spirit’ of UDL in practice |
2 | Be concise and ensure it is practical and usable (bullet points, etc.). Shorter documents are more likely to be read and understood. | Some schools may need detailed descriptions to ensure value and relevance. | Too brief may lead to lack of clarity |
3 | Use good style to enhance readability (colours, diagrams, pictures, etc.) Attractive and easy to understand | Could trivialise or over complicate the message | |
4 | Provide an interactive document (e.g., links to UDL websites, case studies, examples of good/bad practice, tools and resources) | To inform from the perspective of the specialism of the school. Provide access to multiple sources and perspectives, provide contextualised approach | Information overload and accessibility issues |
Content Related Requirements | |||
5 | Provide a range of UDL Definitions to broaden awareness of UDL principles and to encourage the use of UDL theory to relate to practice. | Perspectives included in definitions may be limited or narrow, or, conversely, information overload may create confusion. | |
6 | Comment on UDL Definitions—description, scope, and complexity | Interpretive and limited, possible narrowing of perspectives | |
7 | Include case studies—‘Bad’ practices or normative dilemmas to provide examples for discussion. | Case studies may be limited or not sufficiently relevant | |
8 | Include case studies—‘Best’ practices to provide examples for discussion. | Case studies may be limited or not sufficiently relevant | |
9 | Include UDL tools—to provide examples for discussion leading to organisational/individual learning | Tools may not be useful or relevant | |
10 | Acknowledge that tools and case studies provided may not always be relevant and should be adaptable to encourage stakeholders to produce new approaches based on their own experience and expertise | If too flexible, may have little impact as too weak to be effective | |
11 | Respond to DMU teaching and learning policy and the strategic plan | Identify and respond to aspects of DMU policy that are specific to implementation of UDL | May be too prescriptive. May not be accepted in other geographical regions. May narrow scope and constrain innovation or may create confusion due to contradictions. |
12 | Use empirical analysis to inform development of guidelines. Avoid uncritical approaches and to facilitate specific development across the school. Provide background understanding of the needs of the school | Limited scope could cause narrowing of perspectives | |
13 | Provide information and explanations on existing UDL approaches and resources including web links and references | Facilitate awareness and understanding of school specific approaches | Existing approaches may be limited or too complex or unsuitable |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wilford, S.H. Responsible Research and Innovation: Using the Requirements Tool for Stakeholder Engagement in Developing a Universal Design for Learning Guidelines for Practice. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102963
Wilford SH. Responsible Research and Innovation: Using the Requirements Tool for Stakeholder Engagement in Developing a Universal Design for Learning Guidelines for Practice. Sustainability. 2019; 11(10):2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102963
Chicago/Turabian StyleWilford, Sara H. 2019. "Responsible Research and Innovation: Using the Requirements Tool for Stakeholder Engagement in Developing a Universal Design for Learning Guidelines for Practice" Sustainability 11, no. 10: 2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102963