Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 254-273

  Wickson, Fern ^a,b   Carew, Anna L ^c  

^a Center for Biosafety   (Norway)

^b OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

evaluation; nanoremediation; quality; responsible innovation; transdisciplinary research

Indexed keywords

EID: 85000460555     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2014.963004     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
2. Bardach, E. 2000. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
3. Bensuade Vincent, B., 2014. “The Politics of Buzzwords at the Interface of Technoscience, Market and Society: The Case of ‘Pubic Engagement in Science’.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (3): 238–253. doi:10.1177/0963662513515371
4. Bergmann, M., B., Brohmann, E., Hoffmann, M. C., Loibl, R., Rehaag, E., Schramm, and J.-P., Voss. 2005. Quality Criteria for Transdisciplinary Research: A Guide for Formative Evaluation of Research Projects. Frankfurt: Institute for Social-Ecological Research. Accessed February 25, 2014. http://www.isoe.de/ftp/evalunet_guide.pdf
5. Bohr, N. 1949. “Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics.” In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by P. A., Schilpp, 199–241. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
6. Boix Mansilla, V., and H., Gardner. 2003. “Assessing Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier: An Empirical Exploration of Symptoms of Quality.” Interdisciplines. Accessed February 25, 2014. http://www.mtu.edu/research/administration/sponsored-programs/enhancement/pdf/assessing-interdisciplinary-work.pdf
7. Bozeman, B., and D., Sarewitz. 2005. “Public Values and Public Failure in US Science Policy.” Science and Public Policy 32 (2): 119–136.
8. Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2011. “Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation.” Minerva 49: 1–23. doi:10.1007/s11024-011-9161-7
9. Brown, J. 2005. The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. San Fransico: Berrett Koehler.
10. Burgess, J., and J., Chilvers. 2006. “Upping the Ante: A Conceptual Framework for Designing and Evaluating Participatory Technology Assessments.” Science and Public Policy 33 (10): 713–728.
11. Burgess, J., A. Stirling, J. Clark, G. Davies, M. Eames, K. Staley, and S. Williamson. 2007. “Deliberative Mapping: A Novel Analytic-Deliberative Methodology to Support Contested Science-Policy Decisions.” Public Understanding of Science 16: 299–322. doi:10.1177/0963662507077510
12. Carew, A. L., and F., Wickson. 2010. “The TD Wheel: A Heuristic to Shape, Support and Evaluate Transdisciplinary Research.” Futures 42: 1146–1155. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.025
13. Elghali, L., R. Clift, K. G. Begg, and S. McLaren. 2008. “Decision Support Methodology for Complex Contexts.” Engineering Sustainability 161 (1): 7–22.
14. EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council). 2013. “Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/framework/Pages/framework.aspx
15. Gibbons, M., C., Limoges, H., Nowotny, S., Schwartzman, P., Scott, and M., Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
16. Glerup, C., and M., Horst. 2014. “Mapping ‘Social Responsibility’ in Science.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 31–50. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077
17. Groves, C., L. Frater, R. Lee, and E. Stokes. 2011. “Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK.” Journal of Business Ethics 101: 525–552. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7
18. Grunwald, A. 2011. “Responsible Innovation: Bringing Together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics and STS Research.” Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/7944/1/Grunwald9-31.pdf
19. Guston, D. 2000. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Jacob, K., J., Van Den Hoven, L., Nielsen, F., Roure, L., Rudze, J., Stilgoe, K., Blind, A.-L., Guske, and C., Martinez Riera. 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation: Report of the Expert Group on the State of the Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
21. Jahn, T., M. Bergmann, and F. Keil. 2012. “Transdisciplinarity: Between Mainstreaming and Marginalization.” Ecological Economics 79: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
22. Komiyama, H., K., Takeuchi, H., Shiroyama, and T., Mino, eds. 2011. Sustainability Science: A Mulitdisciplinary Approach. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
23. Kuzma, J., and Kuzhabekova, A. 2011. “Corporate Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Oversight.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (4): 407–419.
24. Labuschagne, C., A. C. Brent, and R. P. G. Erck. 2005. “Assessing the Sustainability Performances of Industries.” Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 373–385. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007
25. Linkov, I., F. K. Satterstrom, J. Steevens, E. Ferguson, and R. C. Pleus. 2007. “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Environmental Risk Assessment for Nanomaterials.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9: 543–554. doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9211-0
26. Linkov, I., and T. P. Seager. 2011. “Coupling Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Life-Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment for Emerging Threats.” Environmental Science and Technology 45: 5068–5074. doi:10.1021/es100959q
27. Marton, F. 1986. “Phenomenography–A Research Approach Investigating Different Understandings of Reality.” Journal of Thought 21 (3): 28–49.
28. Mitrany, M., and D. Stokols. 2005. “Gauging the Transdisciplinary Qualities and Outcomes of Doctoral Training Programs.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 24: 437–449. doi:10.1177/0739456X04270368
29. Oftedal. G., 2014. “The Role of Philosophy of Science in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): The Case of Nanomedicine.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (5): 1–12.
30. Owen, R., J., Stilgoe, P., Macnaghten, M., Gorman, E., Fisher, and D., Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Innovation of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R., Owen, J., Bessant, and M., Heintz, 27–50. London: John Wiley.
31. Pennington, D. D., G. L., Simpson, M. S., McConnell, J. M., Fair, and R. J., Baker. 2013. “Transdisciplinary Research, Transformative Learning, and Transformative Science.” BioScience 63 (7): 564–573.
32. Petrie, J., L., Basson, P., Notten, and M., Stewart. 2004. “Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: The Case of Power Generation in South Africa.” In Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists, edited by A., Azapagic, S., Perdan, and R., Clift, 367–396. London: John Wiley & Sons.
33. Pohl, C., P., Perrig-Chiello, B., Butz, G., Hirsch Hadorn, D., Joye, R., Lawrence, M., Nentwich, et al. 2011. Questions to Evaluate Inter- and Transdisciplinary Research Proposals. Berne: td-net for Transdisciplinary Research.
34. Slade, C. 2011. “Public Value Mapping of Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine.” Minerva 49: 71–86. doi:10.1007/s11024-011-9163-5
35. Spaapen, J. F., F., Wamelink, and H., Dijstelbloem. 2003. “Towards the Evaluation of Transdisciplinary Research”. In Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Landscape Studies: Potential and Limitations, edited by B., Tress, G., Tress, A., Van Der Valk, and G., Fry, 148–159. Wageningen: Delta Series 2.
36. Stilgoe, J., R., Owen, and P., Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.
37. Stirling, A. 2014. “Emancipating Transformations: From Controlling ‘The Transition’ to Culturing Plural Radical Progress.” Climate Engineering Governance Working Paper Series 012. Accessed July 25, 2014. http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper12stirlingemancipatingtransformations.pdf
38. Székely, F., and M., Knirsch. 2005. “Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: Metrics for Sustainable Performance.” European Management Journal 23 (6): 628–647.
39. The Norwegian Ministries. 2012. Strategi. Regjeringens FoU-strategi for nanoteknologi 2012–2021 [The Government's R&D Strategy for Nanotechnology 2012–2021]. Oslo: Nærings- og handelsdepartementet.
40. The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. 2011. Strategi 2011–2020. Nasjonal strategi for bioteknologi. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet.
41. Ulrich, W. 2000. “Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: The Contribution of Critically Systemic Thinking.” Reflective Practice 1 (2): 247–268.
42. Von Schomberg, R., 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Innovation of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R., Owen, J., Bessant, and M., Heintz, 51–74. London: John Wiley.
43. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Accessed September 19, 2014. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
44. Wickson, F. 2014. “Watching the Regulatory Tail Wag the Scientific Dog.” Research Europe 390: 7. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1345017%20
45. Wickson, F., A. L., Carew, and A. W., Russell. 2006. “Transdisciplinary Research: Characteristics, Quandaries and Quality.” Futures 38 (9): 1046–1059.
46. Ziman, J. 1996. “Is Science Losing Its Objectivity?” Nature 382: 751–754. doi:10.1038/382751a0
47. Zwart, H., L., Landeweerd, and A., Van Rooij. 2014. “Adapt or Perish? Assessing the Recent Shift in the European Research Funding Arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (11): 1–19.