Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Publication
    D 4.1: Observatory descriptive report
    (Fraunhofer IPK, 2014)
    Menevidis, Zaharya
    ;
    Hahne, Michael
    ;
    Ajami, Mohamad
    ;
    Fairweather, Ben
    ;
    Smagas, Kostas
    ;
    Giambene, Giovanni
    ;
    Hahne, Michael
    ;
    Menevidis, Zaharya
    Deliverable 4.1 provides the specification for the ""Observatory for International Responsible Research and Innovation Coordination"". Its purpose is to enable the implementation of the Observatory in task 4.2. Therefore the technical as well as procedural requirements and prerequisites for the Observatory have been defined in detail. As the Observatory is intended to harness the involvement of the broader network of researchers and innovators, their participation in the design of it should maximise the chances of it being a tool they take ownership of. Therefore the gathering of requirements was not only limited to the description of work but included the expertise of the participants of the Responsibility project and was extended by the integration of feedback from the other current EU RRI project members. Chapter 2 of this deliverable provides an overview of the requirements incorporated in the specification process. As it is good practice in software design use cases have been developed based on these requirements. These have been described in chapter 3. The purpose of use cases is to specify interaction processes, identify variation and failure scenarios as well as technical functionalities and procedural modalities that need an in depth specification. These in depth specifications have been described in chapter 4. They must comprise the input data needed as well as a definition of their output and to where that data will be passed on. Apart from that it contains the specification of the processing of that data, of the interface design and of the information necessary to explain the functionality to the user.
  • Publication
    D2.3 RRI pool of cases & their application
    (Fraunhofer IPK, 2014)
    Patel, Menisha
    ;
    Jirtoka, Marina
    ;
    Eden, Grace
    ;
    Menevidis, Zaharya
    ;
    Ajami, Mohamad
    This deliverable discusses and reflects on the case study approach that was used in RESPONSIBILITY. The case study approach (that is our strategy for the production and collection of case studies) we use through REPSONSIBILITY is carefully tailored to meet the demands of the project, draw on the expertise of the consortium and also takes into account time constraints of the 3 year funded span of the project within this. The well-established practice of collecting and assessing case studies for insight into practice, is used to investigate the empirical reality of RRI. We begin by introducing the case study approach (Section 1). Here we provide an account of and justification for the case study approach that we have adopted through RESPONSIBILITY. We emphasise distinct aspects of the project, including the envisaged collection of case studies by contributors beyond the funded time span of the project, and the international nature of the consortium and the project. We also deliberate upon why the case study approach, in its ability to shed light on the practice of RRI is so important for RESPONSIBILITY, for closing the ""gap"" between empirical reality and theory, and developing an understanding of how we can implement RRI in practice. Importantly, we emphasise how case studies can develop an understanding of the theory in what should be done in association to the exploration of what is done in practice. This can provide a practical tool for furthering the RRI program. Following this, we reflect more upon how the body of 21 case studies were collected from within the consortium, and associated networks (Section 2). We show how the expertise of the consortium provides for a breadth of case studies that are diverse in domain, and also location around the world. Drawing on this we place emphasis on the requirement of a case study template (drawn from our theoretical understanding) to shape entries, in regards to ensuring consistency and comparability between case studies. We reflect on the challenges of developing a template, and also on why we as a consortium also created what is termed a 'case reflection template', in a bid to ensure that as many stakeholders as possible are able to contribute their own cases if they wish to do so. This section gives a detailed insight into our method, as designed for the distinct requirements of case study collection for RESPONSIBILITY. Having discussed how case studies were collected, we then show three examples that were contributed (Section 3). These are presented as they were provided by contributors, and are intended to give a flavour of the nature of issues that were raised, and an initial insight into the pluralism and unique contextual circumstances of each. This provides a foundation for us to give a more detailed insight of the review process (section 4) that was applied to the assessment of the case studies. We show how the case studies were used to develop existing theoretical understanding, through a contribution to the analytic grid (the theoretical underpinning regarding normative RRI), and also shed light on some of the challenges of developing a normative approach. We also discuss how the analytic grid can provide as a tool for considering case studies themselves, and how theory can give us the ability to scrutinize where aspects of 'responsibility' should potentially be present in practice. Finally we show how an important part of the review was assessing the case study template, as it is intended that the collection of case studies be sustainable beyond the funded timespan of RESPONSBILITY. The importance of a template that can be completed without any need for further instruction aside from that which is provided, was stated in order to facilitate the ongoing contribution of cases to develop our understanding, awareness and implementation of RRI. In the final section, before we conclude, we briefly discuss envisaged uses of the case studies for RESPONSIBILITY (section 5). Here we outline how they may be used in relation to the tools of RRI (the Observatory and Forum) that are being developed through RESPONSIBILITY. We also retain acknowledgement on the importance of the ongoing collection of case studies in the development of theory surrounding RRI. We conclude (section 6) by outlining the key features of the case study approach and justification for these, as has been discussed in some depth through the deliverable. At this stage we also dedicate a section to considering some of the issues this collection of case studies may face in the future, and how such challenges are not due to some shortcoming in our approach, but very much a part of such a broad, and ongoing endeavour such as RESPONSIBILTY.
  • Publication
    D2.4 Theoretical landscape - White paper
    (Fraunhofer IPK, 2014)
    Patel, Menisha
    ;
    Pearson, John
    ;
    Giambene, Giovanni
    ;
    Grabner, Louisa
    ;
    Menevidis, Zaharya
    ;
    Ajami, Mohamad
    The aim of this deliverable is to carry out a contextual and critical analysis of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in order to provide a framework for understanding and applying the RRI concept throughout the rest of the RESPONSIBILITY project. Given this aim of a White Paper describing developments and relevance of RRI activity fields, there is a twofold exploration. The first part (chapter 1, 2, 3) is an exploration of the theoretical foundations of RRI as it has emerged through the literature. The second part (chapter 4, 5) of the deliverable considers the practical application of this through deliberating upon developments and issues in ICT. Furthermore an Annex takes briefly national and international organisations with RRI Interests and Competencies in to consideration. Initially there is a contextualised theoretical analysis of the RRI concept deliberated in the first two sections. After the introduction, the second chapter covers the emergence of RRI as the dominant policy framework for the governance of research and innovation in the European Commission and beyond. The third chapter explores the characteristics that various commentators in the literature of RRI have attributed to the concept of RRI. We draw upon a framework developed by Owen and colleagues [1] to investigate what are commonly considered fundamental 'ingredients' of RRI and the justifications that are usually attributed to these characteristics. In doing this, we are able to unpack these key terms and elaborate on the framework, as well as present a concern regarding where the implementation of such a framework and the operationalization of RRI may be problematic- for instance given the pluralistic nature of society of different perspectives of what is 'good' and 'bad' that stem from these. We identify that there seems to be a certain ""gap"" in the theories of RRI and how it may be that we can begin to remedy this. Having considered theoretical aspects of RRI, and having raised some of the issues that may surround the implementation of it in practice, the fourth chapter of the deliverable moves onto a discussion of practical issues regarding RRI. This is done through an exploration of the application of RRI to the ICT field. The ICT issues discussed in this section are some of the most important issues that can profoundly affect different aspects of society such as: security, privacy, sustainability, Internet of Things, e-health, intellectual property rights, Social Media, etc. This Section does not pretend to be exhaustive for the RRI issues on ICT, but provides important examples on current RRI issues in the ICT field and how they can be addressed. We conclude by reiterating the importance of the RRI program to the EU, in helping us to prevent undesirable consequence s of R&I, and also steer R&I in a trajectory that enables us to address the grand challenges we as a society in the EU and globally face today. We emphasise that RRI is distinct and novel, not in the creation of new governance tools, but in the sense that it hopes to configure existing governance approaches in particular ways to form a broad governance framework (within which existing forms of governance such as `TA' can be embedded). The Annex of the deliverable takes into consideration a selection of national and international organisations as well as networks and programs with RRI interests and competencies. This annex and the considerations which it presents are very much recognition not only of the international nature of the RESPONSIBILITY project, but importantly the global dimension of RRI. Finally, given the diversity of the world and contextually embedded perspectives within this regarding 'good practice' and 'bad practice', this deliverable presents wide-ranging complexities to the practical realization of RRI in regards to relating and developing the theory and 'aims' of the program, to empirical reality.
  • Publication
    Deliverable 2.1: Network of networks
    (Fraunhofer IPK, 2014)
    Pearson, John
    ;
    Menevidis, Zaharya
    This deliverable describes the methodological approach for the network and stakeholder selection for setting up an online network of networks for the Forum and Observatory. The names of the stakeholders are on a protected online registry and can only be accessed by project partners with permission. The report examines five main features of RRI networks: the main actors, the theoretical structures, the funding sources, the dissemination structures, and the possibility of expanding RRI beyond the European context. Six main actor groups in RRI networks are distinguished: national governments; regional governments; international governmental organisations; civil society actors; businesses, scientific research projects, and policy researchers. Although RRI has emerged recently as a theoretical approach, the number of definitions of the concept has proliferated quite rapidly - as is shown in the discussion of RRI theories later in this deliverable. In terms of constructing a network, this raises something of a dilemma. At present, the main sources of funding for RRI networks and projects have been regional (i.e. EU) and national government funding bodies with some extra support from independent research bodies and foundations. Some RRI projects have succeeded in obtaining funding from businesses and private sources - obtaining such funding seems vital for the long term sustainability of the Forum and Observatory. Existing dissemination structures for RRI are the funding streams for RRI, in addition to online sources such as blogs and forums, and conferences. It is argued that such structures are potentially effective but need more co-ordination and a focus in an overarching structure to avoid fragmentation. Increasing attention is being paid to the possibility of expanding RRI beyond the European context - for example, through governance structures at the global level in the Progress project. Given that RRI is still an emergent concept and is not clearly defined [1] there is currently room to address a range of different conceptions from both within and beyond the European context - this is something that may need to be taken into account in the design of the forum.