The main character of governance settings is variability. As Part Two shows, institutional changes aimed at implementing RRI and OS in research organisations can be activated in many ways, i.e., adopting strategies of governance setting which can be extremely different from each other, in terms of actors primarily involved, contents, scope and scale.

It is therefore difficult to exactly say what it takes to start the process. Nonetheless, some recurrent critical issues can be highlighted, whatever the strategy adopted or the features of the research organisation concerned with the process.

The first recurrent factor is the presence of a guiding idea around which the governance setting process can be structured. Defining a guiding idea is necessary to provide motivations to act and to mobilise internal and external stakeholders on RRI and OS. In the resources examples of guiding ideas about RRI and OS are provided.

Another key factor is the team which will drive the governance setting process. The team serves multiple key functions, such as making an institutional learning process possible, motivating the actors to be mobilised, coping with resistances and constraints, keeping the direction of change or timely adapting it when necessary, and negotiating with all the actors involved.

Many obstacles are predictable but many others emerge unexpectedly. Hence the importance for the team to be prepared to timely identify and treat them, all along the governance setting process, but especially in its first phase, when it is still undefined and frail. Examples of barriers to RRI and OS have been already provided in Chapter Two. Some further examples drawn from the experiments carried out during the FIT4RRI project are given here.

The support from leaders and managers is another important factor to consider in terms of both benefits and barriers since almost always it plays a critical role in the activation of the institutional change process.

Defining a guiding idea, establishing an effective team and looking for support from relevant leaders and managers are three components to be taken into account whatever governance setting models have been adopted. However, there are aspects which are more relevant to one model or another. Some considerations about the activation of the different governance setting models are proposed in the resources.

Starting a process of change requires an important initial investment in human energy, in terms of, e.g., ideas, motivations, time, creation of new relations and social ties, personal and institutional learning processes, and resources. Moreover, the starting phase may entail, in the short run, a lack of visible outputs and, therefore, of clear feedback to the actions carried out. This contributes to create uncertainties and doubts about initial choices and, in certain cases, risks to create distrust and weaken commitment about the future developments of the process in both the team and the other stakeholders.

It is also clear that the success of this initial phase is largely dependent upon the quality of the previous phases described in Parts One and Two of these guidelines. Analysing one’s organisation, defining its  RRI/OS profile and choosing the relevant governance setting(s) are all activities which help the team and the leadership to get prepared to launch the process, while also creating an enabling environment within the organisation.

What is at stake is avoiding to take the wrong way to RRI and OS. The governance setting activation phase should provide the promoters with first-hand information about the correctness of the choices made about the RRI/OS profile and the approach to governance settings. Moreover, it is in this phase that the capacity of the team to drive the process is tested for the first time. Hence the need for being prudent and self-reflexive, so to avoid false starts or timely correct the errors made.

Those who start a governance setting process face a series of questions that need to be treated carefully. At least three of them deserve to be mentioned here.

To what extent the commitment of leaders and managers with the
development of the governance setting process is strong and visible

The political and institutional commitment of leaders and managers is structurally one of the key factors in the institutional change processes. Theoretically, the higher the support that leaders and managers give to the process, the higher the success rate of the latter. In practical terms, the situation can be much more complex to manage. There would be managers and leaders who express their commitment but who have no time to be actually committed, those whose commitment is real but limited to certain choices or actions (we could speak of a “selective commitment”), those who are committed formally but not in practical terms, and those who are explicitly not committed and proactively against the introduction of institutional changes towards RRI and OS. Some of them are explicitly committed. These dynamics are present, to a different extent, everywhere. Thus, a specific capacity to manage them is necessary, defining a specific strategy for each leader and manager to be involved, to make their commitment as strong and visible as possible.

To what extent the governance setting process could be based on volunteering

Addressing institutional change towards RRI and OS is often seen as a moral commitment which, for this reason, falls outside the normal academic portfolio, so that it is or should be taken up as volunteer service. Such a vision can be risky. Many actions aimed at RRI and OS indeed require some voluntary effort. However, all the activities necessary to activate, implement and make sustainable institutional changes have a cost, especially as concerns the costs of human resources (be they internal or external to the organisation). Therefore, volunteering can be surely welcomed as an indicator of a positive impact of the actions carried out, but only when it is not "imposed" because of a misleading view of institutional change or inappropriate allocation of resources. Moreover, volunteering on RRI and OS should be also recognised as an important aspect of the professional and scientific curriculum of researchers and duly taken into consideration in the recruitment and promotion processes.

How to create effective communication and cooperation among the involved actors

Institutional change is by definition a collective enterprise, especially when the governance setting model which has been adopted structurally implies the cooperation with external entities or networks. Bad communication and low cooperation levels reduce effectiveness and lead to wasting time, while also creating psychological distress. This concerns both the relations within the team and those involving other actors.

Implementing a governance setting process means turning ideas and plans elaborated in the previous phases into new practices, approaches, and views.

Each organisation must find its own way to do it.

However, different models have been elaborated about how the implementation process of RRI and OS is expected to occur, which can be helpful for understanding how it could be successfully driven.

Moreover, some analytical categories can be proposed for better grasping the governance setting implementation phase. They concern nature, contents, and management of the process of change as well as the actors to be mobilised.

As for nature, activating an institutional change process primarily means activating a set of negotiations among the many actors involved about to what extent, why and how the research organisation should be changed in order to become more responsible and open.

Negotiation is a sort of iterative process progressively moving the process of change ahead and weakening consolidated procedures, practices and rules. Different dimensions of negotiation are involved in the institutional change, including symbolic, interpretive, institutional, and operational negotiations. It is important to recognise and use them properly, being aware of their potential, limits, and interconnections. Some examples of negotiations are provided in this regard.

As for the contents of the process of change, all the components of the organisation, including both its intangible and tangible elements, should be touched, to different extents, such as, for example, the organisational culture, the motivational background of researchers and leaders, the procedures adopted, or the internal relations and structures. Understanding how to handle these components is a key issue for the governance setting process.

As for the management of the process of change, in the implementation phase, a key role is played by the establishment and use of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms pertaining to Responsible Research and Innovation and Open Science, which should be appropriate to the nature and contents of the governance setting process.

Finally, as for the actors to be involved, they should be selected on the basis of technical considerations, i.e., through an analysis of the real interest of the different actors towards the specific RRI and OS-related action. They therefore largely vary according to a wide range of variables. Some examples of the variability of the actors to be involved can be found in the experiments carried out under the FIT4RRI project.

Implementing the governance setting primarily means being pro-active in promoting the governance setting process and reactive or even anticipatory in preventing obstacles and seizing emerging opportunities. This may also entail quickly modifying plans and strategies when the original plans and strategies reveal to be ineffective. In this perspective, adopting an iterative approach to the implementation of the governance setting, also based on trial-and-error procedures, could be extremely helpful to prevent long-term failure.

In this sense, the most challenging issue concerns the capacity of the team to move the process further, to be resilient when critical situations emerge, and to keep the key actors of the organisation mobilised on RRI and OS over time. This allows the team constantly having a comprehensive view of the implementation process, including progress and backlashes as well as constantly learning from the experience.

What is at stake is being able to successfully face the many expected and unexpected obstacles which any institutional change process inevitably meet such as, e.g., lack of interest by the staff, lack of real engagement by the leaders, conflicts within the team, solutions inappropriate to the organisational and cultural context, or even unexpected events occurred in the organisation (a structural reform, a leadership turnover, a modification of the national policies, etc.).

Some key issues concerning the implementation of the governance settings can be highlighted.

How to create spaces for engagement and mobilisation

Governance settings – whatever be the model applied – require the participation of researchers, staff, and leaders. To avoid the risk of people’s and stakeholders’ withdrawal from commitment over time, engagement spaces are to be created from the beginning such as networks, associations, research groups, or virtual platforms, allowing to turn passion, interest and willingness to participate into actual participation. It is equally important to take participation seriously, implementing what results of participation, even when it is not what was originally planned.

How to prevent a “saturation effect” of RRI and OS in the organisation

Just because RRI and OS are based on participation and engagement, implementing them requires an effort in term of communication and visibility and an investment of time and attention by the concerned actors. However, the great majority of researchers and managers feel they don’t have enough time to get engaged, especially with activities which are not viewed as concerned with their “core business” (research, teaching, publications, etc.). Thus, there is the risk that a “saturation effect” may occur, i.e., the sensation of stakeholders and researchers that RRI and OS are “saturating” their time, thus generating negative reactions or even the refusal of getting involved with RRI and OS. This risk can be managed (but not fully prevented) through some expedients such as avoiding an over-exposition of RRI and OS in internal communication channels, extending the duration of the activities whenever possible, starting from a limited number of actions so as to allow a progressive involvement of the actors, or enlarging the target of the people to involve so as to reduce the level of engagement for each one.

How to ensure continuity in the governance setting process

In the implementation phase, another – almost symmetrical – risk to prevent is the lack of continuity in the governance setting process. Implementation requires continuity of inputs, according to the most appropriate pace for the organisation. The risk is that people feel that nothing is occurring or "forget" RRI and OS. Hence the need for keeping the attention on RRI and OS alive, diffusing information to keep people informed about "where we are" and "where we wish to go".

The governance setting is a “device” for triggering the implementation of RRI and OS. It can be viewed as a “special programme” destined to be ended in a reasonable lapse of time to pave the way to long-term RRI/OS-oriented mechanisms. In this sense, we could define the completion of the governance setting process as a transition phase, in which RRI and Open Science stop being the subject of such a special programme and start being managed through the ordinary structures and procedures of the research organisations.

Thus, the key question is: how to understand when a governance setting process ends and a broader transition process towards RRI and OS starts?

The answer largely depends on, e.g., the kind of governance setting strategy adopted, the RRI keys or the aspects of Open Science on which the governance setting is focused, or the history of RRI and OS in the research organisation.

However, whatever the context is, some basic results should be attained before closing the governance setting process.

First of all, a sustainability plan for RRI and OS (also including monitoring mechanisms) should be defined, consolidating the changes already produced during the governance setting process and establishing how RRI and OS are expected to evolve in the future in the research organisation. The plan should also describe the institutional arrangements ensuring the long-term sustainability of the actions initiated during the governance setting process and those to be developed in the future.

These arrangements necessarily include an RRI/OS governance structure, although in a nutshell, to keep on fostering RRI and Open Science over time. Different governance models are usually adopted to progressively modifying the general governance approach dominant in the research institution.

Finally, it is also important to ensure that RRI and OS remain relevant subjects in the communication system inside and, in case, also outside the organisation.

As highlighted above (see the previous chapter), the core of the institutional change process are negotiations. Four main kinds of negotiation have been proposed, i.e., interpretive, symbolic, institutional and operational negotiations, also relevant in the framework of sustainability arrangement.

The four results of the governance setting process mentioned above represent the minimal requirement for the negotiation process activated through the governance setting to proceed.

Interpretive negotiations are mainly fostered by the RRI/OS sustainability plan, which provides the basis for an internal discussion on what RRI and OS are and how can be developed over time; symbolic negotiations are directly connected with the weight recognised to a responsible and open science in the internal and institutional communication of the research organisation; institutional negotiations are connected to both the plan and, above all, the governance structure; finally, operational negotiations play a pivotal role in the implementation of the institutional arrangements necessary to ensure long-term sustainability of the actions carried out.

What is at stake is the possibility, so to say, to transfer the responsibility on RRI and Open Science from a temporary programme to the ordinary structures of the research organisation, embedding them in all its relevant components, including culture, norms, structures, and procedures.

Some key issues related to the completion of the governance setting process can be single out.

How to permanently integrate RRI/OS components

In the transition phase from governance settings to more stable forms of institutional embedment of RRI and Open Science in the research organisation, one of the key issues to consider is that of the mutual integration of the RRI keys (e.g., gender equality, public engagement, etc.), the RRI dimensions (e.g., anticipation, reflexivity, etc.), and the different aspects of Open Science (e.g., open access, open data, open science evaluation, etc.). A balance should be attained to prevent both over-integration and under-integration. Over-integration is risky since it can be expensive, it can produce conflicts, and it can be too complex to implement, unless the organisation is really small. Under-integration is risky as it leaves RRI and OS in a marginal position in the organisation. Probably an acceptable balance can only be found over time through a step-by-step process.

How to foster mobilisation on RRI and OS

RRI and OS, by their very nature, cannot be simply imposed. There is an unavoidable component of mobilisation and volunteering in RRI and OS which needs to be kept vital to prevent bureaucratisation. This aspect should be carefully considered in the RRI/OS development plan, even though it cannot be fully planned. Different arrangements can be identified, including, e.g., favouring the creation of and supporting specialised networks or groups (for example, on gender equality, on science communication, on ethical issues, etc.) functioning as “watchdogs” of RRI/OS policies in the organisation or introducing incentives, awards and recognition for those who are engaged with RRI and Open Science.

Which risks should be considered before closing the governance setting process

The transition phase of the governance setting process is a critical passage. For example, moving the responsibility from the governance setting team to other people (an officer, a unit, etc.) can be particularly difficult, since the former usually acquire know-how and practical experience which is difficult to transfer to the latter. Distributing tasks previously performed by the team to different units is risky also because this solution requires high coordination levels. Other risks are the bureaucratisation of the activities, the slowing down of the process, the diminishing visibility of the issue, or the lack of motivation of those who take on the institutional responsibility of RRI/OS-related programmes. To prevent these risks, it is advisable to plan a long transition phase allowing team members and the concerned units to work together as long as necessary.