Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory Background
3. Research Design
4. Current Status of RRI Research
4.1. Annual Trends in RRI-Related Publications
4.2. Journal Distribution of Publications on RRI Research
4.3. Disciplinary Distribution of RRI Research
5. Co-Citation Analyses on RRI Research
5.1. Author Co-Citation Analysis
5.2. Reference Co-Citation Analyses
5.2.1. Key Nodes in Reference Co-Citation Network
5.2.2. Reference Citation Burst Analysis
5.2.3. Identification of Hotspots through Citation Clustering
- Cluster 0: Emerging Technologies
- Cluster 1: Engagement
- Cluster 2: Technology Assessment
- Cluster 3: Science Policy
- Cluster 4: Ethics
5.3. Journal Co-Citation Analysis
6. Co-Authorship Analysis about RRI Research
7. Phased Keywords Analysis of RRI Research
- Phase I: Theory Development Phase (2010–2013)
- Phase II: Initial Application Phase (2014–2017)
- Phase III: Application Expansion Phase (2018–2021)
8. Evolutionary Trajectory and Future Research Directions
8.1. Theory
8.2. Practice
8.3. Subject
8.4. Context
9. Discussion
10. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AIRR framework | anticipation, reflection, inclusion, and responsiveness |
CSR | corporate social responsibility |
CTA | constructive technology assessment |
EC | the European Commission |
ELSA | ethical, legal, and social aspects |
ELSI | ethical, legal, and social implications |
EPSRC | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council |
EU | the European Union |
HBP | Human Brain Project |
JRI | Journal of Responsible Innovation |
LLR | log-likelihood ratio algorithm |
PE | public engagement |
PE2020 | Public Engagement Innovations for Horizon 2020 |
R&I | research and innovation |
RI | Responsible Research and Innovation |
RRI | Responsible Innovation |
S&T | science and technology |
STS | science and technology studies |
TA | technology assessment |
Appendix A
References | Topic | Strength | Duration |
---|---|---|---|
Stirling, A., 2008, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values, 33, 262 [52] | ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology | 7.92 | 4 |
Fisher, E., 2006, Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc., 26, 485 [48] | Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within | 7.09 | 5 |
Fisher, E., 2007, NanoEthics, 1, 155 | Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions | 5.98 | 4 |
Burget, M., 2017, Sci. Eng. Ethics, 23, 1 [15] | Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: A literature review | 5.82 | 3 |
Owen, R., 2010, Risk Anal., 30, 1699 [42] | Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council | 5.45 | 6 |
Barben, D., 2008, The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 0, 979 [25] | Anticipatory governance of nano-technology: Foresight, engagement, and integration | 4.86 | 6 |
Schuurbiers, D., 2009, Embo Rep., 10, 424 [50] | Lab-scale intervention | 4.84 | 6 |
Jasanoff, S., 2009, Minerva, 47, 119 [59] | Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea | 4.19 | 3 |
Macnaghten, P., 2011, Nature, 479, 293 [52] | Good governance for geoengineering | 4.13 | 5 |
van der Burg, S., 2009, Sci. Eng. Ethics, 15, 97 [51] | Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography | 3.81 | 5 |
Stahl, B.C., 2017, Sustainability-Basel, 9, 1036 [64] | The Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) maturity model: Linking theory and practice | 3.78 | 3 |
European Commission, 2013 [60] | Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation | 3.77 | 3 |
Rip, A., 2009, Embo Rep., 10, 666 [57] | Futures of ELSA | 3.25 | 4 |
Strand, R., 2015, Indicators for promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation [62] | Expert group on policy indicators for responsible innovation: Indicators for promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators | 3.22 | 2 |
Grunwald, A., 2011, Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, 31, 10–31. [63] | Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research | 3.19 | 2 |
Robinson, D.K.R., 2009, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 76, 1222 [53] | Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology | 3.09 | 6 |
Ribeiro, B.E., 2017, Sci. Eng. Ethics, 23, 81 [65] | A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research and innovation | 3.05 | 3 |
Owen, R., 2013 [31] | Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. | 2.99 | 2 |
Stegmaier, P., 2009, Embo Rep., 10, 114 [58] | The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge coproduction | 2.89 | 2 |
Kearnes, M., 2009, Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie, 97 [54] | The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology | 2.85 | 5 |
Wynne, B., 2006, Public Health Genomics, 9, 211 [55] | Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? | 2.78 | 3 |
Cluster ID | Cluster Label | Cluster Size | Silhouette | Mean (Year) |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | Emerging technologies | 90 | 0.688 | 2015 |
1 | Engagement | 86 | 0.714 | 2011 |
2 | Technology assessment | 53 | 0.887 | 2013 |
3 | Science policy | 51 | 0.863 | 2013 |
4 | Ethics | 41 | 0.813 | 2012 |
5 | Smart farming | 28 | 0.966 | 2017 |
6 | Social and ethical aspects | 27 | 0.918 | 2009 |
7 | Interviews | 24 | 0.935 | 2012 |
9 | Playfulness | 20 | 0.948 | 2012 |
12 | Globalisation | 6 | 0.995 | 2011 |
13 | Interactional expertise | 5 | 0.989 | 2011 |
References
- von Schomberg, R. A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J.R., Heintz, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 51–74. [Google Scholar]
- Stilgoe, J.; Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Pol. 2013, 42, 1568–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nestor, M.W.; Artimovich, E.; Wilson, R.L. The Ethics of Gene Editing Technologies in Human Stem Cells. Ethics Biol. Eng. Med. Int. J. 2014, 5, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brokowski, C. Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It? CRISPR J. 2018, 1, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lander, E.S.; Baylis, F.; Zhang, F.; Charpentier, E.; Berg, P.; Bourgain, C.; Friedrich, B.; Joung, J.K.; Li, J.; Liu, D. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature 2019, 567, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russell, S.; Hauert, S.; Altman, R.; Veloso, M. Robotics: Ethics of artificial intelligence. Nature 2015, 521, 415–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luccioni, A.; Bengio, Y. On the Morality of Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2020, 39, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taebi, B.; Roeser, S.; van de Poet, I. The ethics of nuclear power: Social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. Energy Policy 2012, 51, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kastenberg, W.E. Ethics, risk, and safety culture: Reflections on Fukushima and beyond. J. Risk Res. 2015, 18, 304–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- African AffairsKyne, D.; Bolin, B. Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collingridge, D. The Social Control of Technology; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, E.; Rip, A. Responsible innovation: Multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J.R., Heintz, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 165–183. [Google Scholar]
- Delgado, A.; Am, H. Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2003921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, E. Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1138–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burget, M.; Bardone, E.; Pedaste, M. Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2017, 23, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schuijff, M.; Dijkstra, A.M. Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 533–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thapa, R.K.; Iakovleva, T.; Foss, L. Responsible research and innovation: A systematic review of the literature and its app lications to regional studies. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 2470–2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harsanto, B.; Kumar, N.; Zhan, Y.; Michaelides, R. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in Emerging Economies: A Preliminary Review. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Cardiff, UK, 15–17 June 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Timmermans, J. Mapping the RRI Landscape: An Overview of Organisations, Projects, Persons, Areas and Topics. In Responsible Innovation 3: A European Agenda? Asveld, L., van Dam-Mieras, R., Swierstra, T., Lavrijssen, S., Linse, K., van den Hoven, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 21–47. [Google Scholar]
- Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. J. Informetr. 2011, 5, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyack, K.W.; Klavans, R. Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global model and map of science. JASIST 2014, 65, 670–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinch, T.J.; Bijker, W.E. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1984, 14, 399–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S.; Markle, G.E.; Peterson, J.C.; Pinch, T. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Barben, D.; Fisher, E.; Selin, C.; Guston, D.H. Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies; Hackett, E.J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 979–1000. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, J.D. Genes and politics. J. Mol. Med. 1997, 75, 624–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schot, J.; Rip, A. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1997, 54, 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arnstein, S.R. Technology assessment: Opp. ortunities and obstacles. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1977, 7, 571–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellström, T. Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technol. Soc. 2003, 25, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guston, D.H. Responsible innovation in the commercialised university. In Buying in or Selling Out: The Commercialisation of the American Research University; Stein, D.G., Ed.; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 161–174. [Google Scholar]
- Owen, R.; Stilgoe, J.; Macnaghten, P.; Gorman, M.; Fisher, E.; Guston, D. A Framework for Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 27–50. [Google Scholar]
- Owen, R. The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s commitment to a framework for responsible innovation. J. Responsible Innov. 2014, 1, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Owen, R.; Pansera, M. Responsible innovation and responsible research and innovation. In Handbook on Science and Public Policy; Simon, D., Kuhlmann, S., Stamm, J., Canzler, W., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; pp. 26–48. [Google Scholar]
- von Schomberg, R. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen Abschätzen Lehren: Bildungspotenziale Transdisziplinärer Methoden; Dusseldorp, M., Beecroft, R., Eds.; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012; pp. 39–61. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. JASIST 2006, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, C. Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 5303–5310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, C. CiteSpace: A Practical Guide for Mapping Scientific Literature; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.; Hou, J. The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. JASIST 2010, 61, 1386–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2017, 2, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, C.; Xu, T.; Feng, H.; Chen, S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, M.; Porter, A.L.; Suominen, A. Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 129, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen, R.; Goldberg, N. Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Anal. 2010, 30, 1699–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samoylenko, I.; Chao, T.-C.; Liu, W.-C.; Chen, C.-M. Visualizing the scientific world and its evolution. JASIST 2006, 57, 1461–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, C.; Paul, R.J. Visualizing a knowledge domain’s intellectual structure. Computer 2001, 34, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwart, H.; Landeweerd, L.; van Rooij, A. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sci. Soc. Policy 2014, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, C.; Dubin, R.; Kim, M.C. Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: A scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2014, 14, 1295–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisher, E.; Mahajan, R.L.; Mitcham, C. Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2006, 26, 485–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisher, E. Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. NanoEthics 2007, 1, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuurbiers, D.; Fisher, E. Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Rep. 2009, 10, 424–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van der Burg, S. Imagining the Future of Photoacoustic Mammography. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2009, 15, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Macnaghten, P.; Owen, R. Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 2011, 479, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, D.K.R. Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 1222–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kearnes, M.; Rip, A. The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology. In Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum Politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie; Gammel, S., Lösch, A., Nordmann, A., Eds.; Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 97–121. [Google Scholar]
- Wynne, B. Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science—Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Public Health Genom. 2006, 9, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stirling, A. “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2008, 33, 262–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rip, A. Futures of ELSA. EMBO Rep. 2009, 10, 666–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stegmaier, P. The rock ‘n’ roll of knowledge co-production. EMBO Rep. 2009, 10, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jasanoff, S.; Kim, S.-H. Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 2009, 47, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation: Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation; European Commission Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Owen, R.; Bessant, J.R.; Heintz, M. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation: Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Grunwald, A. Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research. Enterp. Work. Innov. Stud. 2011, 31, 10–31. [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] [Green Version]
- Ribeiro, B.E.; Smith, R.D.J.; Millar, K. A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2017, 23, 81–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiorino, D.J. Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review. Colum. J. Environ. Law 1989, 14, 501–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, H.; Fisher, E.; Schuurbiers, D. Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations. Res. Pol. 2013, 42, 1126–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Widziewicz-Rzońca, K.; Tytła, M. First systematic review on PM-bound water: Exploring the existing knowledge domain using the CiteSpace software. Scientometrics 2020, 124, 1945–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guston, D.H. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2014, 44, 218–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nordmann, A. The mundane alternative to a demiurgical conceit. Comment on Ribeiro et al. ‘Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation’. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S.; Kim, S.-H. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, E.; Maricle, G. Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting. Sci. Public Policy 2015, 42, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuurbiers, D. What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2011, 17, 769–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Saille, S. Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. J. Responsible Innov. 2015, 2, 152–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahl, B.C. Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Sci. Public Policy 2013, 40, 708–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doezema, T.; Ludwig, D.; Macnaghten, P.; Shelley-Egan, C.; Forsberg, E.M. Translation, transduction, and transformation: Expanding practices of responsibility across borders. J. Responsible Innov. 2019, 6, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Asante, K.; Owen, R.; Williamson, G. Governance of new product development and perceptions of responsible innovation in the financial sector: Insights from an ethnographic case study. J. Responsible Innov. 2014, 1, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management–an exploratory literature review. RD Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rip, A.; van Lente, H. Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: The TA program in the Dutch Nano-R&D program NanoNed. NanoEthics 2013, 7, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorman, M.E.; Werhane, P.H.; Swami, N. Moral Imagination, Trading Zones, and the Role of the Ethicist in Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2009, 3, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, B. Smart Farming: Including Rights Holders for Responsible Agricultural Innovation. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2018, 8, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torgersen, H.; Schmidt, M. Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? Futures 2013, 48, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Delgado, A.; Lein Kjølberg, K.; Wickson, F. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst. Sci. 2010, 20, 826–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cagnin, C.; Amanatidou, E.; Keenan, M. Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quilici-Gonzalez, J.A.; Kobayashi, G.; Broens, M.C.; Gonzalez, M.E.Q. Ubiquitous Computing: Any Ethical Implications? Int. J. Technoethics 2010, 1, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sykes, K.; Macnaghten, P. Responsible Innovation—Opening Up Dialogue and Debate. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J.R., Heintz, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 85–107. [Google Scholar]
- Stilgoe, J.; Lock, S.J.; Wilsdon, J. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst. Sci. 2014, 23, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Felt, U.; Schumann, S.; Schwarz, C.G.; Strassnig, M. Technology of imagination: A card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qual. Res. 2013, 14, 233–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating Shared Value; Harvard Business Review: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Karakaya, E.; Hidalgo, A.; Nuur, C. Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonas, H. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Owen, R.; Baxter, D.; Maynard, T.; Depledge, M. Beyond Regulation: Risk Pricing and Responsible Innovation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6902–6906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- te Kulve, H.; Rip, A. Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2011, 17, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wilsdon, J.; Willis, R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream; Demos: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Krabbenborg, L.; Mulder, H.A. Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology: Constraints and opportunities. Sci. Commun. 2015, 37, 452–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wickson, F.; Carew, A.L.; Russell, A.W. Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 2006, 38, 1046–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, A. RRI: How to ‘mainstream’the ‘upstream’engagement. J. Sci. Commun. 2018, 17, C06. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gregorowius, D.; Deplazes-Zemp, A. Societal impact of synthetic biology: Responsible research and innovation (RRI). Essays Biochem. 2016, 60, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, K.; Woods, S. Reflections on the practice of Responsible (Research and) Innovation in synthetic biology. New Genet. Soc. 2020, 39, 127–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El Karoui, M.; Hoyos-Flight, M.; Fletcher, L. Future Trends in Synthetic Biology—A Report. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baumann, M.F.; Brändle, C.; Coenen, C.; Zimmer-Merkle, S. Taking responsibility: A responsible research and innovation (RRI) perspective on insurance issues of semi-autonomous driving. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2019, 124, 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rask, M.T.; Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, S.; Tauginienė, L.; Dikčius, V.; Matschoss, K.J.; Aarrevaara, T.; d’Andrea, L. Innovative Public Engagement: A Conceptual Model of Public Engagement in Dynamic and Responsible Governance of Research and Innovation; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tait, J. Upstream engagement and the governance of science: The shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe. EMBO Rep. 2009, 10, S18–S22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuzma, J.; Roberts, P. Cataloguing the barriers facing RRI in innovation pathways: A response to the dilemma of societal alignment. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, 338–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blok, V.; Hoffmans, L.; Wubben, E.F. Stakeholder engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector: Critical issues and management practices. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2015, 15, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kokotovich, A.E.; Delborne, J.A.; Elsensohn, J.; Burrack, H.; Morisette, J. Emerging Technologies for Invasive Insects: The Role of Engagement. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2020, 113, 266–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotter, A.; Bacu, A.; Barbier, M.; Bertoni, F.; Bones, A.M.; Cancela, M.L.; Carlsson, J.; Carvalho, M.F.; Cegłowska, M.; Dalay, M.C.; et al. A New Network for the Advancement of Marine Biotechnology in Europe and Beyond. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Meij, M.G.; Broerse, J.E.W.; Kupper, F. Conceptualizing playfulness for reflection processes in responsible research and innovation contexts: A narrative literature review. J. Responsible Innov. 2017, 4, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van de Poel, I.; Asveld, L.; Flipse, S.; Klaassen, P.; Kwee, Z.; Maia, M.; Mantovani, E.; Nathan, C.; Porcari, A.; Yaghmaei, E. Learning to do responsible innovation in industry: Six lessons. J. Responsible Innov. 2020, 7, 697–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Boer, B.; Hoek, J.; Kudina, O. Can the technological mediation approach improve technology assessment? A critical view from ‘within’. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Est, Q.; Brom, F. Technology assessment: Analytic and democratic practice. In Encyclopedia of Applied Ehtics, 2nd ed.; Academic Press Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 306–320. [Google Scholar]
- Arentshorst, M.E.; Buning, T.D.; Boon, W.P.C.; Broerse, J.E.W. Prospecting responsible technology paths: Management options for an appropriate societal embedding of medical neuroimaging. Sci. Public Policy 2015, 42, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Visscher, K.; Stegmaier, P.; Damm, A.; Hamaker-Taylor, R.; Harjanne, A.; Giordano, R. Matching supply and demand: A typology of climate services. Clim. Serv. 2020, 17, 100136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Versteeg, T.; Baumann, M.J.; Weil, M.; Moniz, A.B. Exploring emerging battery technology for grid-connected energy storage with Constructive Technology Assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 115, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genus, A.; Stirling, A. Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation. Res. Pol. 2018, 47, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felt, U.; Fochler, M.; Sigl, L. IMAGINE RRI. A card-based method for reflecting on responsibility in life science research. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, 201–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griggs, S.; Norval, A.J.; Wagenaar, H. Practices of Freedom: Decentred Governance, Conflict and Democratic Participation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Barton, J.R.; Román, Á.; Rehner, J. Responsible research and innovation (RRI) in Chile: From a neostructural productivist imperative to sustainable regional development? Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 2510–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartley, S.; Pearce, W.; Taylor, A. Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance. Policy Polit. 2017, 45, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisher, E. Public Science and Technology Scholars: Engaging Whom? Sci. Eng. Ethics 2011, 17, 607–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Responsible Research and Innovation in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. Available online: https://newhorrizon.eu/responsible-research-and-innovation-in-horizon-2020-and-horizon-europe/ (accessed on 6 June 2021).
- Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Programme Guide. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/programme-guide_horizon_en.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2022).
- Reijers, W.; Wright, D.; Brey, P.; Weber, K.; Rodrigues, R.; O’Sullivan, D.; Gordijn, B. Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2018, 24, 1437–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Hove, S.; McGlade, J.; Mottet, P.; Depledge, M.H. The Innovation Union: A perfect means to confused ends? Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 16, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aicardi, C.; Fothergill, B.T.; Rainey, S.; Stahl, B.C.; Harris, E. Accompanying technology development in the Human Brain Project: From foresight to ethics management. Futures 2018, 102, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aicardi, C.; Reinsborough, M.; Rose, N. The integrated ethics and society programme of the Human Brain Project: Reflecting on an ongoing experience. J. Responsible Innov. 2017, 5, 13–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahl, B.C.; Chatfield, K.; Ten Holter, C.; Brem, A. Ethics in corporate research and development: Can responsible research and innovation approaches aid sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, L.; Liao, M.; Zhao, Y. Exploring complexity, variety and the necessity of RRI in a developing country: The case of China. J. Responsible Innov. 2019, 6, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macnaghten, P.; Owen, R.; Stilgoe, J.; Wynne, B.; Azevedo, A.; de Campos, A.; Chilvers, J.; Dagnino, R.; di Giulio, G.; Frow, E.; et al. Responsible innovation across borders: Tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. J. Responsible Innov. 2014, 1, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; An, H.; Wang, Y.; Huang, J.; Gao, X. Evolutionary features of academic articles co-keyword network and keywords co-occurrence network: Based on two-mode affiliation network. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 2016, 450, 657–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laird, S.A.; Wynberg, R.P. Locating Responsible Research and Innovation Within Access and Benefit Sharing Spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity: The Challenge of Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics 2016, 10, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ligardo-Herrera, I.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; Inigo, E.; Blok, V. Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stilgoe, J. Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2016, 22, 851–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Low, S. The futures of climate engineering. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahl, B.C.; Timmermans, J.; Mittelstadt, B.D. The Ethics of Computing: A Survey of the Computing-Oriented Literature. ACM Comput. Surv. 2016, 48, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paredes-Frigolett, H. Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 110, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jellema, J.; Mulder, H. Public Engagement in Energy Research. Energies 2016, 9, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chatfield, K.; Iatridis, K.; Stahl, B.C.; Paspallis, N. Innovating Responsibly in ICT for Ageing: Drivers, Obstacles and Implementation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dzobo, K.; Adotey, S.; Thomford, N.E.; Dzobo, W. Integrating Artificial and Human Intelligence: A Partnership for Responsible Innovation in Biomedical Engineering and Medicine. OMICS 2020, 24, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagy, K.; Hajrizi, E. Beyond the Age of Oil and Gas–How artificial intelligence is transforming the energy portfolio of the societies. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 308–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eastwood, C.; Klerkx, L.; Ayre, M.; Dela Rue, B. Managing Socio-Ethical Challenges in the Development of Smart Farming: From a Fragmented to a Comprehensive Approach for Responsible Research and Innovation. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2019, 32, 741–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van der Burg, S.; Bogaardt, M.-J.; Wolfert, S. Ethics of smart farming: Current questions and directions for responsible innovation towards the future. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, T.; de Sio, F.S.; Vermaas, P.E. Driving in the Dark: Designing Autonomous Vehicles for Reducing Light Pollution. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 387–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stilgoe, J. Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2018, 48, 25–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fothergill, B.T.; Knight, W.; Stahl, B.C.; Ulnicane, I. Responsible Data Governance of Neuroscience Big Data. Front. Neuroinform. 2019, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rivard, L.; Lehoux, P. When desirability and feasibility go hand in hand: Innovators’ perspectives on what is and is not responsible innovation in health. J. Responsible Innov. 2020, 7, 76–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peine, A. The Co-Constitution of Health Systems and Innovation: Comment on “What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address? Insights From an International Scoping Review”. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2019, 8, 665–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leitschuh, C.M.; Kanavy, D.; Backus, G.A.; Valdez, R.X.; Serr, M.; Pitts, E.A.; Threadgill, D.; Godwin, J. Developing gene drive technologies to eradicate invasive rodents from islands. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, S121–S138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kuzma, J.; Gould, F.; Brown, Z.; Collins, J.; Delborne, J.; Frow, E.; Esvelt, K.; Guston, D.; Leitschuh, C.; Oye, K.; et al. A roadmap for gene drives: Using institutional analysis and development to frame research needs and governance in a systems context. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, S13–S39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Min, J.; Smidler, A.L.; Najjar, D.; Esvelt, K.M. Harnessing gene drive. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, S40–S65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Umbrello, S. The moral psychology of value sensitive design: The methodological issues of moral intuitions for responsible innovation. J. Responsible Innov. 2018, 5, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brier, D.; Eastwood, C.R.; Dela Rue, B.T.; Viehland, D.W. Foresighting for Responsible Innovation Using a Delphi Approach: A Case Study of Virtual Fencing Innovation in Cattle Farming. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2020, 33, 549–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, E.; Kim, Y. Why Do Firms Implement Responsible Innovation? The Case of Emerging Technologies in South Korea. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 2663–2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, P.P.; Han, B. Responsible research and innovation and its implications for China. China World Econ. 2017, 25, 120–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setiawan, A.D. The influence of national culture on responsible innovation: A case of CO2 utilisation in Indonesia. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, M.; Laas, K. “Broader Impacts” or “Responsible Research and Innovation”? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2014, 20, 963–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, A.; Bogner, A.; Fuchs, D. Rethinking societal engagement under the heading of Responsible Research and Innovation: (novel) requirements and challenges. J. Responsible Innov. 2021, 8, 342–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garfield, E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics 1979, 1, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Key Nodes | Content Category | Core View | Perspective |
---|---|---|---|
Jack Stilgoe et al. (2013) [2] | Definition | RI means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present | Foresight Process |
Dimension | Anticipation/Reflexivity/Inclusion/Responsiveness | ||
R. Owen et al. (2012) [47] | Feature |
| Motivation Process Governance subject |
von Schomberg (2013) [1] | Definition | RRI 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 (so as to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society) | Process Product Results evaluation |
Mechanism |
|
Phase I: Theory Development Phase 2010–2013 | Phase II: Initial Application Phase 2014–2017 | Phase III: Application Expansion Phase 2018–2021 | |
---|---|---|---|
Topics and Related Keywords | Innovation and Society
| Initial Application to Specific Areas
| Wide Range of Applications in Specific Areas
|
RRI Core Methodology
| Development of Tools and Methods
| Enrichment of Tools and Methods
| |
Extension to the Private Sector
| Reaching out to Developing Countries
| ||
Initial Focus if the EU’s RRI Values
| Comprehensive Focus of the EU’s RRI Values
| ||
Main Research directions |
|
|
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, J.; Zhang, G.; Lv, X.; Li, J. Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148944
Liu J, Zhang G, Lv X, Li J. Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14(14):8944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148944
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Jiqing, Gui Zhang, Xiaojing Lv, and Jiayu Li. 2022. "Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148944
APA StyleLiu, J., Zhang, G., Lv, X., & Li, J. (2022). Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 14(14), 8944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148944