Governing and driving the transformations affecting science and innovation as well their positive and negative implications require, to a variable extent, the implementation of institutional changes in research organisations.

In scientific literature, especially in the sectors of sociology and the organisational studies, various definitions and views have been elaborated of institutional change. In a very general perspective, it is now clear that institutional change is not dependent on a single factor, such as pure rationality and intentional intervention; consciously or unconsciously obeyed rules, habits, norms, and routines; passion, interests, feelings and attitudes of the concerned actors. However, all these factors play a role, together with other unpredictable events occurring in the external environment (for example, a government turn-over or an economic crisis).

For sake of simplicity, an operational concept of institutional change can be adopted defining it a specific kind of change characterised by four specific dimensions, i.e.:

• Irreversibility
• Comprehensiveness
• Inclusiveness
• Contextualisation.

These four dimensions are described in the table below.

Dimension	Description
Irreversibility	Institutional changes should be visibly rooted in the organisations so that they can evolve over time and cannot be reversed, e.g., by a simple leadership turn-over or budget cuts.
Comprehensiveness	Institutional changes, to be real and irreversible, cannot be understood as a mere modification of rules and procedures within the organisation. Even the most well-defined rules and procedures can be circumvented when they are not supported by those who should apply them. Therefore, institutional changes, to some extent, should affect different “layers” of the organisation life, including, e.g., cultural and cognitive attitudes of staff and leaders, daily behaviours, routines and practices, communication patterns and, obviously, procedures, rules, standards andorganisational structure
Inclusiveness	Institutional changes, to be comprehensive, usually involve, sooner or later and to a variable extent, all the concerned players and stakeholders within the organisation (for example, researchers, administrative staff, PhD students, etc.) and often some outside it. In other words, institutional changes cannot be but a collective effort involving some forms of participatory process.
Contextualisation	Finally, as already said, institutional changes cannot be the same everywhere. Each organization has its features, past experience, specific problems, cultural background, mission and objectives. Also, the national culture and policies have their weight in making research organisations different from each other. Therefore, even though problems and solutions can be highly recursive and assume recurrent patterns, their mix is quite unique. Hence the need to contextualise institutional changes, e.g., devising strategies and selecting tools which are specifically tailored on the concerned institution or unit.

SOURCE

• Colizzi, V., Mezzana, D., Ovseiko, P.V., Caiati, G., Colonnello, C., Declich, A., ... & Djilianov, D. (2019). Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2): Protocol for a Horizon 2020 Funded European Multicenter Project to Promote Responsible Research and Innovation. JMIR research protocols, 8(3), e11745

⇑ back to top

A group of experts, led by Bernd Carsten Stahl developed the Responsible Research and Innovation Maturity Model, aimed at identifying progressions towards RRI.

The model includes an operational definition of the components of RRI, structured around the three main elements of R&I, i.e., purpose (why R&I is undertaken), process (the activities that are undertaken in the pursuit of R&I) and product (the outcomes of R&I). This leads to the following scheme.

RRI Category	RRI Component
Purpose (motivation)	Motivation for doing the research Motivation for engaging with RRIEthics (justification of intended outcomes)
Process (activities undertaken)	Anticipation Engagement Reflection Governance (research ethics) Responsiveness
Product (outcomes)	Gender/equality and diversity Open Access Social justice/inclusion SustainabilityScience education

In defining the components, the authors mainly refer to Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten(2013) for those included in the category of process and to the RRI keys identified by the European Commission (2012), i.e., public engagement, open access, gender, science education, ethics and governance, for those included in the category of product.

The Maturity Model also includes an evolutionary scheme to assess the extent to which institutionally embedded in a given organisation. Five stages are identified.

Level 1 – Unaware. The organisation is not aware of RRI or its components and does not incorporate it in its processes.

Level 2 – Exploratory/reactive. The organisation reacts to external pressure concerning aspects of RRI and experiments concerning appropriate processes.

Level 3 – Defined. The organisation has a definition of RRI (or components of it) and has integrated these into its business processes.

Level 4 – Proactive. The organisation realizes the benefits of RRI and seeks to integrate these proactively and increasingly into its business process.

Level 5 – Strategic. The organisation has adopted RRI as a component of its strategic framework and aims to ensure all R&I activities cover all (or most) RRI components.

By combining these stages with RRI components and categories, a matrix can be developed to assess the maturity level reached by an organisation in embedding RRI into its procedures and objectives.

RRI Component	L1 unaware	L2 exploratory/reactive	L3 defined	L4 proactive	L5 strategic
Purpose
Motivation for doing the research Motivation for engaging with RRI Ethics (justification of intended outcomes
Process
Anticipation Engagement Reflection Governance (research ethics) Responsiveness
Product
Gender/equality and diversity Open Access Social justice/ inclusion Sustainability Science education

It is worth noting that an organisation should be placed at different maturity levels according to the RRI key but also according to the category considered (the definition of the purposes, the development of the process or the quality of the products). This could allow to single out situations like a “tokenistic” application of RRI and OS (high levels for purpose and low levels for process and products) or an “ineffective” application of them (high level for purpose and process and low level for products).

SOURCES

• European Commission (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation. Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges. Publication Offices of the European Union.
• Stahl, B.C., Obach, M., Yaghmaei, E., Ikonen, V., Chatfield, K., & Brem, A. (2017). The Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Maturity Model: Linking Theory and Practice. Sustainability, 9(6), 1036.
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580.

⇑ back to top

Benefits of RRI

Under the FIT4RRI project, an analysis of the benefits usually attached to RRI has been made, on the basis of the results of the many EC-funded projects focusing on RRI.

The analysis led to the identification of seven major recurrent interpretive frames through which the benefits of RRI are described.

• Self-protection frame. This frame highlights the need for research organisations to protect themselves from the risks they are exposed to because of the changing relations between science and society. Implementing RRI is thus beneficial for them in order to prevent controversies, increase their reputation, avoid litigation costs and conflicts, gain public appreciation for science in general, increase the legitimacy of science and their legitimacy, prevent potential business loss, get early information about public concerns and resistances towards a new discovery, research path or technology, and properly manage the greater public and political scrutiny of research activities and outputs.
• Quality frame. This frame establishes a relationship between RRI and the quality of research and innovation, not only in substantive terms but also in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and impacts. Thus, RRI appears to be necessary to improve the quality of innovation, to make R&I processes more effective, to limit costs, to improve cost-effective outcomes and procedures, and to favour the diversity of researchers, teams and research organisations, which, in turn, is a factor that has a positive impact on R&I quality.
• Opportunity frame. Under this frame, RRI is viewed as a source of opportunities for researchers, research organisations and industries, which otherwise would be precluded to them, including, e.g., accessing new funds, accessing new networks, improving one’s scientific career, acquiring new skills, and gaining competitiveness in an increasingly complex research and innovation market.
• Democratic frame. The core of this frame is the idea that citizens and stakeholders have the right to contribute both to the decision-making process and to the research and innovation process. In this sense, RRI is understood as beneficial in that it supports participation, makes citizens more informed and engaged, defines more advanced standards for involving the public, favours the empowerment of civil society, strengthens the democratic system, introduces new transparent institutional practices, modifies the research system making it more democratic, accountable and inclusive.
• The “management-of-our-future” frame. This frame describes RRI as an approach to anticipating the future outputs of research and innovation and their intended and unintended consequences. RRI in itself can, therefore, be defined as an “anticipatory process” or an approach enabling an “anticipatory governance” of science and innovation. This frame implies having control over the potentially risky impacts R&I may have on society and citizens and the maximisation of the future benefits of science and technology. This does not simply mean “scanningthe future”, but learning to manage the future by modifying the present, especially leveraging upon the engagement of citizens and stakeholders and improving the capacity of policymakers to assess risks and benefits of research and innovation.
• Alignment frame. This frame focuses attention on science-society relations and especially on the lack of connections between them. RRI is, therefore, interpreted as an approach bringing science closer to society, enhancing the capacity of research to target societal needs, values and interests so as to increase its social robustness and enhancing the relevance of research for the specific values and concerns of citizens, also allowing these values and concerns to actually emerge. The alignment frame incorporates theidea of RRI as a tool for introducing socio-ethical thinking in science and technology or for developing a new ethical basis for science as a whole. This implies a reflective attitude for assessing whether and to what extent a research process or output is socially desirable, ethically acceptable and environmentally sustainable. Alignment requires more intense negotiations between science institutions and societal actors, leading also to the redefinition of roles and responsibilities in research and innovation
• Science communication frame. At the core of this frame there is the view that RRI, and especially Public Engagement, is a more advanced form of communicating science, going beyond the Public Understanding of Science approach, based on the largely questionable assumption that transferring scientific knowledge to the public increases the public’s appreciation of science (the so-called “Deficit Model”). In fact, RRI tends to establish new forms of scientific citizenship, improves science education, raises people’s awareness about science-related issues, contributes to the expansion of a highly competent labour force, promotes communication among all stakeholders, improves the communication processes among researchers and research teams and reinforces the capacity of the media to communicate science.

  SOURCES

  • Bauer, A., Bogner, A., & Fuchs, D. (2016). Report on the expert workshop “Contemporary experiences with societal engagement under the terms of RRI. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Technology Assessment, PROSO Project.
  • Hennen, L., & Nierling, L. (2016). Policy options for engagement in science and innovation within the frame of Horizon2020, Engage2020(D4.1).
  • Hin, G. (2014). Introduction to Responsible Innovation Criteria, guide to entrepreneurs and innovation support organizations. KARIM Project.
  • Karner, S., Bajmocy, S., Deblonde, M., Balázs, B., Laes, E., Pataki, G., Racovita, M., Thaler, A., Snick, A. & Wicher, M. (2016). RRI concepts, practices, barriers and potential levers. FoTRRIS Project.
  • Kuhlmann, S., Edler, J., Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Randles, S., Walhout, B., Gough, C., & Lindner, R. (2016). Responsibility Navigator. Res-AGoRA Project.
  • Okada, A., & Bayram-Jacobs, D. (2016). Opportunities and challenges for equipping the nextgeneration for responsible citizenship through the ENGAGE HUB. International Conference on Responsible Research in Education and Management and its Impact, 13-15 January, London.
  • Smallman, M., Lomme, K., & Faullimmel, N., (2015). Report on the analysis ofopportunities, obstacles and needs of the stakeholder groups in RRI practices in Europe. RRI Tools Project (D2.2).

  Benefits of Open Science

  In the “Open Science and Research Handbook”, produced by the Open Science and Research Initiative (ATT), an analysis of benefits deriving from Open Science is done. The major benefits mentioned are presented below.

  • Increased efficacy. OS allows the use of existing materials and methods to update research processes, resulting in faster development thanks to shared resources.
  • Increased awareness of the scientific model. OS help promote awareness of scientific methods and ways of working among researchers and stakeholders.
  • Improved focus and better quality research results. OS allows to confirm and validate data more quickly, improving quality and repeatability of results through greater transparency in research practices.
  • Faster generation of new research ideas. OS allows to more easily apply research results in real time.
  • Increased commitment to science and improved scientific literacy. The general public can more easily access scientific results and methods.
  • Increased economic and social impact. Business and decision-makers can more easily access and harness research results and methods.
  • Increased opportunities for stakeholders to participate. OS helps a variety of stakeholders to participate in brainstorming research topics, conducting research, evaluating results, and developing software.
  • Unbiased validation. Using OS, research results and new information can be confirmed and validated independently and without bias.
  • Increased economic effectiveness. OS allows making collected data and information to become globally, efficiently and equally accessible to all.
  • Visibility. OS increases the visibility of researchers, research results, and research institutions.
  • Improved impact. OS allows improving the impact of scientific knowledge.

  SOURCE

  • ATT (2014). Open Science and Research Handbook,
    https://avointiede.fi/sites/avointiede.fi/files/openscience%20handbook.pdf.
  ⇑ back to top

Drivers of RRI

The wide literature review carried out under the FIT4RRI project allowed to identify a set of drivers of RRI. In particular, a chapter of the document, edited by Nina Kahma and Susanna Vase, of the University of Helsinki, was focused on drivers of RRI as they emerge in the academic journals. A summary of the main drivers identified is given below.

Political drivers. Innovation policies are a major driver behind RRI. RRI is seen as a part of strong innovation policies, which is relevant in overcoming the economic crisis and ensuring smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. EU is the major actor promoting RRI. In addition, several other major international organisations have issued declarations, statements or guidelines on open access to research publications and data, including UNESCO and OECD. RRI programmes have also been introduced with the impulse of local authorities.

Economic drivers. There is a general agreement on that RRI helps economic growthand employment. The existence of this kind of economicimpactsis used to justify the implementation of RRI approaches. The driver for the adoption of RRI in the companies could be the value seen in the ability to better understand customer needs and satisfaction.

Social drivers. RRI is seen as a relevant concept, on which to build social development projects (and infrastructural projects in general) where the projects involve a variety of goals or values, have a broad set of objectives, and awake public debates and protests. Universities and scientific networks are often seen as the leading institutions in conducting RRI procedures.

Technological drivers. A cornerstone of the shift towards RRI is the increased utilisation of the benefits inherent in digital production and dissemination of research. Digitalisation allows for rapid collection and digestion of existing research, improved collaboration between researchers without the need for physical proximity and increased possibilities for disseminating and sharing research once it has been processed in the form of scientific publications and related research data. Moreover, technological platforms facilitate the creation of RRI communities, make RRI and its key dimensions more effective research and innovation policy support tools, allow multi-actor co-creation initiatives, and accelerate mutual learning processes.

Environmental drivers. From the viewpoint of sustainability, RRI is expected to be beneficial as it leads to ethically, environmentally and socially acceptable, sustainable and desirable innovations addressing societal needs. Hence, the relevance attached to environmental issues can play a pivotal role in expanding RRI-related practices.

Values-related drivers. The increasing relevance of a set of social values can be considered as drivers of RRI. Wecan be referred to the strong focus on ethics and responsibility (for example, in the context of corporate social responsibility or bioethics), the importance attached to risk prevention and mitigation and that attached to deliberative democracy and citizen involvement in decision-making processes.

SOURCE

• d'Andrea, L., Marta, F. (2017). Report on the Literature Review. FIT4RRI Project (D1.1).
  https://zenodo.org/record/1434349#.XJulGFVKjcs.

Drivers to Open Science

The IGLO working group, established for the monitoring of Horizon 2020 Framework programme, identified the following drivers of Open Science:

• Exponential growth of data
• Availabilityof digital technologies
• Increase of the global scientific population
• Public demand for better and more efficient science
• Demand for accountable, responsive and transparent science
• Need to address faster societal challenges
• Need to contribute to economic growth.

A partially overlapped list of drivers has been elaborated in the framework of a case study on knowledge and perceptions of Open Science among researchers carried out in Colombia. The list includes the following items:

• Availability of digital technologies and higher capacity
• Increase in global scientific population
• Public demand for very quick solutions to social challenges
• Public demand for better and more efficient science
• Search for new forms of collaboration
• Researchers seeking new forms of diffusion and results sharing
• Critics of current system of research evaluation
• Citizens that act as scientists
• Increasing public recognition by scientific integrity and accountability
• Higher availability of open data and information by public and private entities.

According to Henrik Karlstrøm and Ingrid Heggland, the development of the Open Science has been largely boosted by three intertwined processes.

The first is digitalization, i.e., the increased “utilization of the benefits inherent in digital production and dissemination of research” allowing for “for rapid collection and digestion of existing research, improved collaboration between researchers without the need for physicalproximity and increased possibilities for disseminating and sharing research once it has been processed in the form of scientific publications and related research data”.

The two others processes are a combination of researcher-led community initiativesfor research conduct more in line with scientific ideals (for example, large-scale research collaborative projects or local initiatives leading to develop open resources) and a top-down, policy-driven demand from funders(European Commission, national research funding agencies, etc.), to get more out of the extremely expensive research effort of countries and private funding organizations.

SOURCES

• Pardo Martínez, C., & Poveda, A. (2018). Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers – A CaseStudy for Colombia. Information, 9(11), 292.
• Spichtenger, D. (2015). Open Research Data in Horizon 2020,
  http://slord.sk/buxus/docs/PREZENTACIE/OA_data_IGLO.pdf.
• Karlstrøm, H., & Heggland, I. (2018). Building library-based support structures for Open Science.

⇑ back to top

The development of RRI and Open Science in the last decades is largely due to the need for national research systems and research organizations to cope with the profound changes they are exposed to.

A useful exercise to make in order to develop an RRI/OSprofile tailored on the research organisation is trying to see how RRI and OS could be helpful for managing the major trends of change affecting science.

Some suggestions, in this regards, are proposed in the table below, based on the list of change trends already presented in the previous chapter.

Trends	Description	Possible relations with RRI and OS
1. Increasing competition and acceleration of the research process	Science as a hypercompetitive environment where the traditional process cycle hascollapsed due to time constraints and equilibrium is impossible to sustain. This led to consider working faster seen as a requirement for high quality research; changes in the organisation of academic life and in the researchers’ lifestyle; researchers under condition of stress and pressure	Open Science to help accelerate the research process, promote research collaborations and reduce the risk of fraud and plagiarism in scientific data production Reflexivity spaces for addressing the problem at institution level Adapting ethical mechanisms to accel-eration trends Gender equality measures to manage the impact of competition on women Science education to train young re-searchers to a competitive environment Responsive governance measures to support researchers in stress conditions
2. Shrinking of research funds	Scientists and research organisation working in an increasingly competitive environment, especially in accessing to funds and publishing; decline in the success rate for grant applicants, with an increasing waste of time	Open Science approach to accelerate the application process for funds Public engagement to develop new forms of co-operation/ co-petition among research actors Public engagement to access new forms of funding (crowdfunding included) Gender equality measures to ensuring a fair access to fund Anticipatory governance to forecast critical junctures in research financing at organisation level
3. Task diversification	Market-oriented organisation of the re-search process, in which research is re-quired to engage with a wider range of different types of activities (participation in extended research networks, direct in-volvement in innovation and technology transfer, activities related to accountability, transparency and public scrutiny, administrative work, etc.). This is leading to a decrease in the time devoted to scientific work.	Responsive governance mechanisms to allow a management of task diversification processes through more specialized units and more advanced HR services in support of researchers Open Science to help promote research collaborations and reduce the risk of fraud and plagiarism in scientific data production Reflexivity spaces to address the problems related to task diversification at organisation level
4. Increased staffing	Increased numbers of contingent staff (PhD students and Postdocs), due to the need for cost containment; increased use of soft money to pay the contingent staff: fewer opportunities for young researchers to access permanent positions; increased pressure on young researchers to make more in less time, creating hardships especially for women scientists.	New ethical procedures to prevent the unfair impacts of the overexploitation of young researchers Equal opportunity measuresto manage the impact of increasing staffing on women Internal reflexivity mechanisms to man-age frictions the increased staffing generates
5. Increased segmentation	Segmentation of staff based on age and contractual status, producing impacts such as: Decrease in productivity among young researchers Overtraining (tendency to retain PhD students and Postdocs longer than neces-sary) Decrease in teaching quality (increas-ingly done by ever cheaper teaching staff) Changes in internal labour relationships (research organisations no longer as a “community of peers” but merely as em-ployers) Individualisation (researchers increasingly acting as individual professionals and not as part of a staff) Attitude of self-promotion among scien-tists Stratification and polarisation of aca-demic staff (academic staff split between those benefit from change and those who are damaged by it)	Co-creation mechanisms also involving external actors to contrast segmentation Research process more connected to societal challenges to sustain interdisciplinary research and exchange Inclusive governance mechanisms allowing internal negotiations aimed at managing the impacts of increased segmentation
6. Increasing mobility	Mobility as a factor promoting an increase in scientific performance but having possible critical impacts on the lives of researchers, such as: delays in accessing permanent positions; difficulties in returning to one’s home country; problems in managing family life, especially for women scientists; loss of social ties	Equal opportunity measures to manage the impact of increased mobility on women Responsive policies managing the impact of mobility on young researchers Public engagement policies to create networks to manage mobility and to prevent distortions
7. Increasing pressure on research assessment systems	Traditional research assessment procedures are no longer able to manage the hyperproduction of scientific knowledge; systematic problems and errors in peer review, lessening its reliability; problematic tendency to use quantitative indicators to assess researchers, research institutions and scientific journals, with distorting effects on science quality	Open science to develop a new generation of research assessment processes more reliable and rapid, in order to face the hyperproduction of scientific knowledge
8. Governance shift	Tendency to adopt entrepreneurial models for managing research organisations, requiring a balance of different steering mechanisms; high variability in types of research organisations; differentiation in terms of national contexts; strong resistance to change; need for highly participatory approaches.	Public engagement mechanisms to open key governance processes to stakeholders RRI/OS-related considerations (for example, of ethical and societal nature) included in the development of governance models and procedures Participatory and reflexive mechanisms to allow staff to participate in shaping governance models and procedures
9. Increasing openness to external actors	Rising complexity in managing research organisations due to growing need to inter-act with external actors (political au-thorities, civil society, industry, etc.) for different reasons (innovation, providing expertise, public engagement, policy issues, societal engagement, science commu-nication, etc.); need to find the right openness level; institutional undervaluation of openness-related initiatives; conceptual ambiguities and interpretive mismatches about openness; resistance and barriers to openness; decreasing trust in science	Public engagement policies to manage the openness process Open science policies to manage relations with the innovation actors Science education measures to train researchers to a responsible and open science Ethical mechanisms to manage and prevent the ethically and socially undesirable impacts of the openness process
10. Critical dynamics affecting the quality of research products	Impact of changes on the quality of research, such as: Tendency of researchers to adopt safe and low-risk research strategies (favouring conservative and short-term thinking and penalising more creative and unorthodox approaches) Tendency to produce irrelevant science (producing publications for career advancement rather than producing advances in science) Tendency to produce redundant papers (publishing the same data or papers more than once) Tendency to work on research project that ensure short-term achievements and profitable results Increasing malpractice Decreasing reproducibility of scientific data–Undesirable impacts of commercial interests on research quality	Reflexive mechanisms to identify critical dynamics at the organization level Ethical mechanisms to manage the relevant critical dynamics leading to frauds, plagiarisms, and malpractice Open Science procedures to limit researchers’ opportunistic strategies (redundant papers, irrelevant science) and to increase the level of data reproducibility Funding schemes based on RRI/OS principles to counter the tendency or researchers to adopt low-risk and short-term process to develop

SOURCE

• d'Andrea, L., Marta, F. (2017).ReportontheLiteratureReview. FIT4RRI Project (D1.1)
  https://zenodo.org/record/1434349#.XJulGFVKjcs.

⇑ back to top

The experiments implemented under the FIT4RRI project provide some useful examples about how to approach RRI and OS starting from a practical problem.

In the case of the experiment conducted at Sapienza University of Rome, the problem was that of defining a governance approach to a new research centre –Saperi&CO.– which was though from beginning as an open centre to both different university departments and external actors (for example, civil society organisations), however matching the standards of efficacy, efficiency and cost-effectiveness required to all university units. Hence the need to combine a socially responsible approach to governance with a more traditional economic/managerial one, to obtain a valuable and integrated governance model, according to a relationship of mutual dependence. To attain this objective, a co-creation approach has been used so as to shape the governance of Saperi&Co. with the participation of all the stakeholders and potential users of the centre.

In the case of the experiment carried out at the University of Liverpool, the problem was that of creating the social conditions for applying a monitoring system to detect unusual patterns of behaviour in a given space. The system can be used, for example, to quickly identify risk situations (for example, falls of elderly persons in nursing homes) so as to provide timely help. However, a monitoring system of this kind has different implications concerning privacy and requires specific competences. Starting from this problem, the experiment tried to identify the implications, in terms of ethical issues and new competencies to be acquired, linked to the application of this technology in different social contexts.

Also, the experiment conducted at the Open University originated from a real problem, i.e., the possibility to apply a central platform –eduTDM– to lawfully access research articles from multiple content providers at once and allowing text and data miners to machine access research literature their university subscribes to effectively and at scale. The application of eduTDM implies forms of collaboration, agreements and technical convergence among different stakeholders (e.g., publishing houses, libraries and libraries’ solution providers) which, in turn, cannot be but based on a shared view of risks and benefits of the new platform.

Finally, the problem met in the experiment carried out at ISQ was that of establishing forms of RRI governance in R&D units which already are working on societal challenges adopting a socially sensitive approach. Moreover, there was also the need for creating an open-access approach for ISQ also taking into consideration that the institute works also with private companies, for which the adoption of an open access repository could be problematic. The experiments were aimed at finding shared solutions to these kinds of issues with the direct involvement of all the concerned players.

⇑ back to top

At the Central Queensland University (Australia), the Public Engagement Programme is managed by the Office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Community & Engagement). The Programme addresses a wide range of stakeholders, including the university staff, the students, the local community (especially the low-income groups), the schools, the alumni, the indigenous community, the international stakeholders, the donors and the government. An intense website information activity is done in support of all the PE activities carried out. The main action lines carried out by the Office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor includes the following items.

• The creation of an engagement database (E-DNA) in order “to map and understand the current level and types of engagement activities ongoing between the University and its diverse and geographically spread communities”.
• The regular organisation of community consultations about the role, mission and activities of the University.
• The promotion of PE and the communication of the engagement activities carried out by the University, with external stakeholders, internal staff and through the media.
• The organisation of surveys to capture public, staff and student perception so as to measure the university’s engagement strategies.
• The collection of best practices and the application of benchmarking practices in PE.
• The establishment of rewards and recognition of outstanding achievements in engagement activities.
• The establishment and management of the Stakeholder Partnerships in Research Innovation, Teaching Service Institute, a platform for collaboration and partnerships, capacity building, learning and knowledge transfer; the platform includes an engagement capacity building programme and a 4-day annual engagement symposium.
• The engaged learning and teaching programme to support students’ engagement and active learning; this includes work-related learning, the organisation of a Program Reference Committee, involving external stakeholders, for each programme carried out at the university, the embedment of PE in university curricula, the development of a Guest Lecturing Program to provide work-related teaching, and the involvement of the Queensland Centre for Professional Development for improving students’ learning experience.
• The promotion of an Engaged Research and Innovation, through training and traineeships, and the development of partnerships with industry, business, government and the community.
• The development of Engaged Services, aimed at making the university’s physical and human infrastructure available at the local level.

SOURCE

• Central Queensland University Website - Engagement,
  https://www.cqu.edu.au/industry-and-partnerships/engagement.

⇑ back to top

The Aarhus University, in the framework of the STAGES Project, developed a Gender Equality Action Plan organized in three strategic areas, respectively devoted to the building of a women-friendly environment, the promotion of gender dimension in the research contents, with special reference to the impact of gender bias on the research process, and the promotion of women in leadership positions. The Action Plan is summarized below.

Strategic area	Objective	Actions
Women-friendly environment	Actions promoting change in organisational culture and formal/ informal behaviours	Documenting developments in gender equality Communicating strategies to promote the visibility of female role-models Organising 4 University-wide workshops Periodical training modules on gender diversity management
	Actions promoting work-life balance	Establishing and managing home offices for staff Introducing flexible working hours Rules for time reimbursement for PhD coordinators/assistant professors/post-doc supervisors Organising and managing dinner services to bring home
	Actions supporting early-stage career-development	Mentoring programme for young female researchers Career advise and training for early-career women researchers Setting up mechanisms to support temporary staff
Gender-aware science	Actions challenging gender stereotypes and consequent horizontal segregation	Organising 4 Faculty-level initiatives on stereotypes Collection of data on horizontal segregation at Faculty level
Women's leadership in science	Actions promoting women’s leadership in the practice of research	Establishing praxis for women’s presence in evaluation committees Establishing new rules for the evaluation of productivity Disseminating information about available opportunities
	Actions promoting women’s leadership in the management of research	Supervision of young female researchers on research management skills Direct support to access decision-making boards
	Actions promoting women’s leadership in scientific communication	Communication of women’s scientific excellence

SOURCE

• Central Queensland University Website - Engagement,
  https://www.cqu.edu.au/industry-and-partnerships/engagement

⇑ back to top

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) developed a series of recommendations for helping universities define their own Open Science policies. Recommendations are organised in some general recommendations and recommendations pertaining to 8 areas.

General Recommendations

• Appoint a senior manager to lead Open Science approaches across all eight pillars of the Open Science debate identified by the European Commission.
• Develop a programme of cultural change, which is necessary to support the changes in principle and practice which Open Science brings.
• Establish advocacy programmes, which should identify the benefits of Open Science approaches, whilst being realistic about the challenges.
• Draw up a communication strategy, which enables the whole university body to become familiar with Open Science practices.

1. Scholarly publishing

• Have institutional mandates to support the move to full Open Access, whose implementation can be monitored regularly.
• Deliver a roadmap for how they, or specific groupings, can develop agreed plans for the future of scholarly publishing in their institution.
• Advocate the use of author identifier systems such as ORCID across their institution.
• Consider supporting new forms of scholarly publishing from third parties dedicated to Open Access approaches.
• Where appropriate, establish new mechanisms for scholarly publishing based on the good practice identified in this paper.

2. FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) Data

• Adopt or update an institutional policy on research data management (...) embracing the FAIR principles and based on an ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’ philosophy, and that they establish a dedicated committee on research data management to monitor the implementation and uptake of such a policy.
• Design and establish services for data stewardship, provide researchers with suitable infrastructures, and identify funding and resources to archive and to publish data.
• Create a catalogue of where researchers have published data (or stored if not available for any reason) as is currently done with publications, and consider how to use this information in any research assessment or evaluation (cf. recommendations on rewards).
• Provide free access to metadata in order to facilitate the discovery of data for which access must be restricted because of privacy, security, or confidentiality issues, making sure such metadata fulfill the FAIR principles and establish a grade of accessibility to those restricted research data.
• Establish training sessions on research data management at all levels, starting from students (cf. recommendations on education and skills).
• Work together with any local, national or international activities, using, for instance, Research Data Alliance national groups or the Digital Curation Centre ́s Data Management Tool.

3. European Open Science Cloud (EOSC)

• Ensure institutional access to the requisite infrastructure, such as a locally-managed data repository where research data is available for sharing and reuse, or that they ensure researchers understand where third-party storage solutions are available, which can themselves be part of the EOSC.
• Provide a search and discovery service, enabling users to find what research data is available and where it is located, as it is key to the wider use of such resources and, therefore, of the vision embodied in the EOSC.
• Move to sign the EOSC Declaration over time, as a statement of commitment at a local level, as LERU has done as an international network.
• Develop their research data management offering so that it is aligned with the principles of engagement with the EOSC, once the latter are agreed and available, and in the expectation that the EOSC develops a more customer-centric approach to stakeholder outreach, which would facilitate engagement with researchers, academic support staff and service providers at universities in the development of its services.

4. Education and skills

• Integrate Open Science concepts, thinking, and its practical applications in educational and skills development programmes, analysing and mapping their needs for Open Science skills training, taking into account the different Open Science dimensions and the varying needs of different audiences, different disciplines, etc.
• Encourage, incentivise, support and recognise staff and students with regard to Open Science skills development.
• Determine how to resource Open Science skills training in a sustainable manner.
• Monitor the take-up and impact of Open Science skills training to determine progress towards its cultural integration in the institution.
• Explore innovative mechanisms and tools to provide Open Science skills training, and engage with others outside the university to exchange good practice.

5. Reward and incentives

• Endeavour to integrate Open Science dimensions in their HR and career frameworks as an explicitelement in recruitment, performance evaluation and career advancement policies, so that research and teaching staff are appropriately recognised and rewarded for practising Open Science.
• Develop institutional policies for recognising and rewarding Open Science practice anchored in broad-based support; communicate them clearly and transparently, make them easy to find and access, and provide proper guidance or training to those who are involved in staff recruitment, appraisal and promotion in the university.
• Develop individual HR criteria for recognising and rewarding Open Science in job descriptions, performance appraisals and promotion criteria, for all or most research and teaching staff, which take into account their multiple responsibilities, in terms of research output, process, impact, teaching and supervision, leadership, service to the university, public engagement, professional experience, as well as considering collaborative and team accomplishments in addition to individual accomplishments when appropriate.
• Embed Open Science principles in the institutional research assessment system, shifting away from an excessive reliance on publication-based journal impact factors and citation cultures and recognising Open Science approaches such as OA publishing, data/code/ reagent sharing, recognising pre-prints, etc.
• Offer appropriate support, professional development and training opportunities for Open Science, aligned with employees' different needs depending on discipline, career progression, seniority and goals, including moving outside the university (cf. recommendations on education and skills). 6. Periodically monitor, reflect on and update their Open Science rewards system so it remains fresh and fit-for-purpose.

6. Next-generation metrics

• develop a bibliometrics policy grounded in the principles of the leiden manifesto, with the aim of changing the culture in the academic community about research assessment.
• Embed the new forms of research evaluation in its internal processes for promotion/reward and research evaluation.

7. Research integrity

• promote and develop awareness amongst the research community of how open science can ensure the highest standards of research.
• Have a research integrity code which embraces the principles of Open Science or that they abide by the European Code for Research Integrity (ALLEA Code), in which, next to general principles of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability, good research practice includes inter alia: a.Research institutions rewarding open and reproducible practices in hiring and promotion of researchers (cf. recommendations on recognition and rewards)b.Authors ensuring that their work is made available to colleagues in a timely, open, transparent, and accurate manner unless otherwise agreedc.Making research data as open as possible, as closed as necessary, in line with the FAIR principles for research data managementd.Partners in research collaborations agreeing at the outset on the goals of the research and on the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possiblee.Researchers adhering to the same criteria whether they publish in a subscription journal, an open access journal or in any other alternative publication form.

8. Citizen Science

• recognise citizen science as an evolving set of research methods, as well as its societal and educational benefits.
• Consider creating, where viable, a single point of contact for citizen science within the institution.
• Raise awareness amongst researchers of criteria for successful citizen science and ensure compliance with ethical, legal and privacy regulations.
• Develop ways of assessing citizen science contributions and adapt research evaluation and reputation systems accordingly.
• Ensure that proposals to granting bodies for citizen science projects include a long-term commitment for infrastructures and data repositories.

SOURCE

• LERU (2018), Open Science and Its Role in Universities: A Roadmap for Cultural Change
  https://www.leru.org/files/LERU-AP24-Open-Science-full-paper.pdf.

⇑ to top

The process leading to the development of an RRI/OS profile tailored on the research organisation necessarily includes forms of participation and involvement of staff and managers at different levels. There are many possible tools which can be used to favour participation. Most of them can be included in the categories listed below.

• Online participatory technologies. Online participatory technologies (OPTs) are increasingly used to support participatory processes inside the organisations, thanks to their limited costs and the capacity to potentially reach all the interested individuals and external stakeholders for getting their opinion. The tools can be different, like blogs, chat rooms, online opinion pools, or web forums Like any other forms of participatory tools, also those based on online technologies can be used as a part of a process made up of different steps or consultation waves.
• Social events. Launching the consultation process can be favoured by the organisation of social events, such as conferences, galas, dinnersand receptions. In some contexts, this is likely the best way of presenting the designing process of the RRI/OS profile and attracting key leaders and stakeholders.
• Media campaigns. A media campaign could be an important tool to inform internal and external stakeholders about the designing process and to convene them in it. Both media internal and external to the organisation can be used. Media campaign may be also important in making RRI and OS visible and reaching people difficult to contact.
• Data and information gathering. Another possible set of tools to use are those aimed at collecting data, of different kind: data about the organisation (for example, on gender equality, on the use of Open Science tools, on research activities focusing societal challenges, etc.), data about some aspects of RRI/OS-related issues, or information about best practices aiming to embedding RRI and OS in research organisation. Data and information can be widely used for fostering the internal debate on these issues.
• Restricted meetings. Restricted one-to-one meetings with top and middle managers, heads of unit, heads of department or external stakeholders may play a crucial role for supporting the consultation process, at different steps (from general design schemes to a detailed RRI/OS profile).
• Public engagement events. The designing process can be facilitated by adopting PE tools appropriate for consultation and co-design. They may include, e.g., consensus conferences, consultative panels, town hall meetings, or deliberative processes.

SOURCE

• PRAGES Project (2013). Guidelines for Gender Equality Programmes in Science, Rome,
  https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/prages-guidelines_en.pdf.

⇑ to top

There are no well-established definitions of “governance setting”. Most of the time, the concept is generically adopted to refer to the way in which a given territory, a company, a public service or an organisation is ruled or managed.

Van Hoof and Kraus, however, offer a more specific and dynamic view of a governance setting, defining it as a process, mainly based on negotiations, aimed at the “creation of new solutions stemming from a higher level of coordination among stakeholders”.

In this sense, governance setting is to be intended as a process aimed at modifying the existing “governance structure”, i.e., the relatively stable system of arrangements ensuring a specific level of coordination among stakeholders, in order to develop it into a partially or totally new governance structure.

In this case, the focus is on RRI/OS-oriented governance settings, which can be therefore understood here as a process through which a given governance structure is modified in a way that puts the organisation to start a process of embedment of RRI and OS.

The scheme below attempts to clarify these dynamics, showing how RRI and OS can be incorporated in the governance structure of a research organisation through an RRI-oriented governance setting.

In identifying and selecting RRI-oriented governance settings, a broad notion of RRI and OS has been adopted, including:

• Five RRI keys (public engagement, gender equality, open access, ethical consideration and formal or informal education)
• The different RRI dimensions (anticipation, responsiveness, inclusion, reflexivity, etc.)
• The many meanings attached to Open Science, also including those pertaining multi-agent innovation experiences
• A general or specific consideration of societal challenges at any stage of research and innovation or the decision-making process, even one the concepts of RRI and OS are even not used.

Therefore, we can operationally consider as an RRI/OS-oriented governance setting any attempt aimed at activating in a research organisation a process aimed at institutionally embedding new arrangements related to one or more RRI keys, one or more RRI dimensions, OS in its broadest meaning or consideration of societal challenges in research and innovation.

BASIC SOURCES

• d'Andrea, L., Marta, F. (2017). Report on the Literature Review. FIT4RRI Project (D1.1).
  https://zenodo.org/record/1434349#.XJulGFVKjcs.
• Van Hoof, L., & Kraus, G. (2017). Is there a need for a new governance model for regionalised fisheries management? Implications for science and advice. Marine Policy, 84, 152-155.

⇑ back to top

What the distinction between social patterns and norms refers to?

To give an answer, another distinction is to be evoked, that between organisation and institution. In the context of organisational studies as well as in the sociological theory, there have been and still, there is a debate about this distinction, which is quite controversial.

In general terms, the term “organisation” mainly refers to people’s behaviour within a group while the term “institution” mainly refers to the framework of rules the group produces or is immersed in.

Thus, focusing on organisation means chiefly focusing on, for example, the management of knowledge and information, the mechanisms of learning, the use of skills and capacities, the cognitive and physical coordination among people but also, in a broader perspective, the many cultural, psychological, and social aspects emerging when people work together, such as informal networks, use of language, personal or collective bias, beliefs and representations, or the arousal and regulation of passions and feelings.

Focusing on institution means chiefly focusing on the more or less formal rules, procedures, or consolidated practices used for organising the group of people working together. In a broader view, we could consider institutions as the “rules of the game” on which the life of the group is supposed to be based.

There are many overlaps between the two concepts and the boundaries between the two sets of phenomena these concepts refer to are often blurred. However, it is quite evident that a group of people ever includes a mix of social behaviours and norms, whereas social behaviours may lead to interpreting the norms in variable ways and norms may lead people to elicit variable social behaviours.

In the context of the typology of governance settings presented here, reference is made just to this simple assumption, i.e., the co-presence of these two dimensions, i.e.:

• The social patterns (cognitive, emotional, relational, behavioural, etc.) which are taken for granted and shared by the majority of people inside the research organization
• The existing norms (procedures, guidelines, protocols, rules, structure or organisational charts, etc.) organizing the life of the research organisation.

The empirical analysis made on real cases of application of RRI and OS principles and practices shows that the organization's leaders tend to privilege one of these two dimensions for promoting changes, even both are anyhow involved.

Therefore, in one case, the assumption is that it is better to change the norms for then encouraging desirable changes in the social behaviours of the staff and, in the other case, that it is better to change social behaviours of the staff for then modifying the norms the research organization is based on.

SOURCES

• Berger, P.L., Luckmann T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY, Anchor Books.
• North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Coriat B., Weinstein O. (2002). Organizations, firms and institutions in the generation of innovation, Research Policy, 31, 273–290.

⇑ back to top

The analysis conducted under FIT4RRI on around 300 cases of application of RRI and OS allowed to collect a wealth of information about the different strategies adopted to foster the spread and institutional embedment of RRI/OS-related practices in research organisations.

This leads to define a typology identifying nine models of governance settings, each adopting a specific approach to the question: “how to get individuals or a group to start implementing RRI and OS”. These models can be identified on the basis of two main variables.

The first variable concerns who is the agent triggering the change, i.e., the actors are asked to start and manage the process of change in the research organisation. Three cases can be identified.

• Internally-initiated governance settings. Governance settings which tend to induce institutional changes on the basis of a model which is shaped by and relies upon actors acting from inside the organisation.
• Externally-initiated governance settings. Governance settings which tend to induce institutional changes on the basis of a model which is shaped by and relies upon actors acting from outside the organisation.
• Network-initiated governance settings. Governance settings which tend to induce institutional changes through cooperation relationships linking the organisation with other organisations.

The second variable can be referred to as “focus”, i.e., the factors in the life of an organisation which the governance setting primarily addresses and leverages upon to trigger the change process. Three main cases can be identified.

• Social governance settings. Governance settings which tend to induce institutional changes directly by modifying the social patternssocial patterns(cognitive, emotional, relational, behavioural, etc.) which are taken for granted and shared by the majority of people inside the organisation (thus adopting a sociological view of institution).
• Normative governance settings. Governance settings which tend to induce institutional changes directly by modifying the existing norms (procedures, guidelines, protocols, rules or organisational charts, etc.), i.e. the “rules of the game” on which the life of the organisation is based (thus adopting an organisational view of institution).
• Knowledge-oriented governance settings. Governance settings which tend to induce institutional changes indirectly by primarily engaging the organisation in producing knowledge adopting RRI and OS principles, contents and tools.

This typology can be represented in the form of a matrix, combining these two variables to generate nine theoretical cases.

Focus ⇒ ⇓Triggering Agent	Social patterns first	Rules first	Knowledge first
Changes from inside	A Internally-initiated social model	B Internally-initiated normative model	C Internally-initiated knowledge-oriented model
Changes from outside	D Externally-initiated social model	E Externally-initiated normative model	F Internally-initiated knowledge-oriented model
Changes through networks	G Network-initiated social model	H Network-initiated normative model	I Network-initiated knowledge-oriented model

Some additional observations may help clarify this typology.

• As for the triggering agent of governance settings, this concept refers, as mentioned above, exclusively to those who start and guide the process, thus shaping the governance setting, and not to those who pay for it or decide to start it. For example, a governance setting may be either started by creating an internal unit to take charge of it (internally-initiated process) or by hiring external experts in charge of implementing it within the institution (externally-initiated process). In both cases, the decision to start the process is taken by the leadership of the institution concerned.
• As for the focus of governance settings, while social and normative models reflect a direct approach to institutional change (i.e., changing the institution by modifying the social patterns or the norms), the knowledge-oriented models reflect an indirect approach to institutional change, based on the (conscious or unconscious) assumption that the inclusion of RRI in research content also has an impact on the life of the organisation, producing or fostering change.

To get a better grasp of the different models, some examples are given below of types of actions falling within each model.

Governance setting models	Examples of actions
Internally-initiated social model	Development of RRI/OS-oriented internal action plans based on mobilisation of internal and external stakeholders; internal awareness-raising and training programme on RRI/OS
Internally-initiated normative model	Adoption of new internal regulations, procedures, guidelines developed by the organisations’ leadership; establishment of internal RRI-oriented research funding criteria
Internally-initiated knowledge-oriented model	Establishment of a new research unit focused on RRI/OS-related issues; activation of RRI/OS-focused research programmes by the research organisation
Externally-initiated social model	Use of external RRI/OS experts; participation in national/international RRI/OS-oriented programmes
Externally-initiated normative model	RRI/OS-oriented certification processes
Externally-initiated knowledge-oriented model	RRI/OS-oriented national research funding schemes
Network-initiated social model	Participation of the organisation in RRI/OS-specialised networks; participation of the organisation in cross-institutional RRI-oriented programmes
Network-initiated normative model	the organisation signing up to a network-based charter (such as the UK Athena-SWAN Charted, aimed at supporting research organisations in developing a gender equality action plan)
Network-initiated knowledge-oriented model	Establishment within the organisation of RRI/OS-focused research units or research programmes supported by a pool, network, or association of research institutions

SOURCE

• Berger, P.L., Luckmann T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY, Anchor Books.
• Coriat B., Weinstein O. (2002). Organizations, firms and institutions in the generation of innovation, Research Policy, 31, 273–290.
• d'Andrea, L., Berliri, M., & Marta, F. (2018). Benchmarking Report, FIT4RRI Project (D1.2.).
  https://zenodo.org/record/1434351#.XJ-2yJhKjIV.
• North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

⇑ back to top

A typology of Governance Setting was proposed under FIT4RRI Project. This typology is resulting from the crossing of two variables:

• The triggering agent, allowing to distinguish among internally-initiated, externally-initiated, and network-initiated governance settings
• The focus of change, allowing to distinguish among social, normative, and knowledge-oriented governance settings.

Some real cases are briefly presented here for exemplifying the nine types of governance settings included in the typology developed under FIT4RRI and to also show the variability of the context in which the governance setting can be applied.

Internally-initiated social governance setting

“Internally-initiated governance setting” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon the actors acting inside the organisation; “social governance setting” means that the model is intended to induce RRI-oriented institutional changes primarily by modifying the social patterns (cognitive, emotional, relational, behavioural, etc.) which are dominant within the organisation. Two examples are provided here.

Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research. Under an EC-funded project, at the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) an action plan has been developed aimed at embedding RRI keys (Ethics, Societal Engagement, Gender Equality and Gender in Research and Innovation Content, Science Education, and Open Access) in the organization. This process has been carried out through a process involving different steps, including an institutional analysis of TNO from the RRI standpoint and a participatory goal setting process, also involving external actors. This process allowed TNO to establish a “transition Roadmap to RRI”, detailing pathways from today’s pilots to the envisaged long-term goals to guide the process beyond the project’s lifetime.

Internally-initiated knowledge-oriented governance setting

“Internally-initiated” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon the actors acting inside the organisation; “knowledge-oriented model” means that the model is designed to induce RRI/OS-oriented institutional changes by first modifying the way in which knowledge is produced in the organisation. One example is provided here.

Synbiochem. The University of Manchester Synthetic Biology Research Centre for Synthetic Biology of Fine and Speciality Chemicals (Synbiochem) is a research institute aimed at developing cutting-edge research in the field of synthetic biology, leading to new products and methods for drug development. Synbiochem adopts an interdisciplinary approach and works in partnership with all four faculties of the University of Manchester. In order to fully incorporate RRI into the research process, an RRI platform has been established which works together with the three technology platforms, i.e., Design, Build, and Test platforms, involved in the research and innovation cycle-shaped process usually adopted by Synbiochem. The RRI platform includes the following processes: i) real-time assessment and anticipation to assess research targets, commercial applications and innovation pathways; ii) ethics and deliberation processes to anticipate potential risks, as well as ethical, legal, and regulatory issues; iii) providing the necessary expertise for analysing life-cycle and sustainability implications; iv) fostering collaborative development by promoting engagement and deliberation processes with scientists, companies, external stakeholders and public, as well as by providing researchers with training services. The RRI Platform (managed by the RRI unit) is fully integrated into the production process in all its steps.

Externally-initiated social governance setting

“Externally-initiated governance setting” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon actors acting outside the organisation; “social model” means that the model is designed to induce RRI-oriented institutional change by first modifying the social patterns (cognitive, emotional, relational, behavioural, etc.) which are dominant within the organisation. An example is provided here, referring to the entity which supporting research organizations to develop their RRI/OS actions.

Fraunhofer Center for Responsible Research and Innovation. The Fraunhofer Center for Responsible Research and Innovation (CeRRI) is a research unit based at the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (IAO), which provides services to other institutions and private companies to help them activate measures and research programmes related to Responsible Research and Innovation. In particular, CeRRI developed new approaches and methods that allow research agendas and technology development processes to be need-oriented from the very start, thus increasing the efficient use of research funds and the societal acceptance of future solutions. The staff included members with knowledge and skills from different fields, such as the natural sciences, economics, design, communication, social sciences and computer science.

Externally-initiated normative governance setting

“Externally-initiated governance setting” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon the actors acting outside the organisation; “normative governance setting” means that the governance setting is designed to induce RRI/OS-oriented institutional changes by first modifying the existing norms (procedures, guidelines, protocols, rules or organisational charts, etc.) within the organisation. One example is provided here.

NWO Responsible Innovation Programme. In 2009, the Dutch Research Council (NWO), which is the major research funding agency in the Netherlands, launched the Responsible Innovation Programme (MVI), characterised by RRI-oriented features and selection criteria, and especially the consideration of the ethical and societal aspects of the proposed innovation projects at an early stage. Moreover, applicants are requested to actively involve stakeholders in project implementation and in the management of its results. An interdisciplinary approach, mixing humanities, natural sciences and social sciences, is also included in the criteria to be adopted. In addition to these normative aspects, in 2016 a platform for responsible innovation was created to provide information, inspiration and contacts for researchers, companies, government bodies and societal organisations. The platform is also intended as a tool for supporting the so-called “NWO-MVI” community, involving both researchers and private partners, financially contributing to the implementation of the projects.

Externally-initiated knowledge-oriented governance setting

“Externally initiated governance setting” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon the actors acting outside the organisation; “knowledge-oriented governance setting” means that the governance setting is designed to induce RRI-oriented institutional changes by first modifying the way in which knowledge is produced in the organisation. One example is provided here.

SoScience. SoScience is a small private enterprise based in Paris and established in 2013 providing advice and consultancy services to companies and organisations in the development of new research and innovation programmes shaped around RRI. The main element characterising SoScience is their view of RRI, not as a limitation for companies (limiting energy consumption, waste, pollution, resources, etc.), but as a cognitive framework for them to identify new market opportunities linking research and innovation projects to societal and environmental challenges, thus developing new marketable solutions. The consultancy process involves four main steps: i) the organisation of interviews or workshops with the company management and staff, in order to define the issues to be addressed, needs and expectations; ii) the development of a matrix (the Opportunity Matrix) visualising the interactions between drivers, societal challenges and the company’s expertise; iii) the production of a report on the opportunities identified in order to orient the decision making process; iv) the creation of a Responsible Innovation Taskforce inside the company in order to develop the research and innovation pathways emerging from the previous steps.

Network-initiated social governance setting

“Network-initiated governance setting” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon the actors in cooperation relationships involving the RFPO concerned and other organisations; “social governance setting” means that the governance setting is designed to induce RRI/OS-oriented institutional changes by first modifying the social patterns (cognitive, emotional, relational, behavioural, etc.) within the organisation.

University Network Education by Responsibility. The University Network Education by Responsibility (Hochschulnetzwerk Bildung durch Verantwortung) is an association of universities (37 at present) that aims to strengthen the civic engagement of students, teachers and other university members. Formally established as an association in 2015, the University Network provides associate members with expertise, resources, learning and knowledge exchange opportunities, advocacy and lobbying, and joint research programmes. This is mainly done through “Service Learning”, a teaching approach which combines lecture hall or classroom and civic involvement, engaging students and teachers in working with communities while learning and teaching. To support colleges on the way to becoming a committed university, the University Network has established the Academy for Education through Responsibility. The Academy offers courses, coaching, and counselling and organises workshops on issues related to university civic engagement and third mission. Academy activities were set in motion thanks to a temporary fund from the Robert Bosch Foundation.

Network-initiated normative governance setting

“Network-initiated governance setting” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon actors in cooperation relationships involving the research organisation concerned and other organisations; “normative governance setting” means that the governance setting is designed to induce RR/OS-oriented institutional changes by first modifying the existing norms (procedures, guidelines, protocols, rules or organisational charts, etc.) within the organisation. One example is provided here pertaining to a very well-known award and certification system on gender equality in science.

Athena SWAN Charter. Athena SWAN Charter was established in 2005 to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women in STEM employment in higher education and research. It was established by the Athena Project, promoted by a group of women academics, with the support of the Scientific Women’s Academic Network (SWAN). Athena SWAN promotes a network connecting research institutions who applied for an Athena SWAN Award (bronze, silver and gold). The Charter is managed by the Equality Challenge Unit, a registered charity funded by the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and Universities UK, and through direct subscription from higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland. Around 590 university departments and 140 research institutions have received awards so far.

Network-initiated normative governance setting

“Network-initiated governance setting” means that the governance setting is shaped by and relies upon the actors in a cooperation relationship involving the research organisation concerned and other organisations; “knowledge-oriented governance setting” means that the governance setting is designed to induce RRI/OS-oriented institutional changes by first modifying the way in which knowledge is produced in the organisation, i.e., producing knowledge on RRI and/or adopting RRI principles and tools in producing knowledge. One example is provided here.

Mistra Urban Futures. Mistra Urban Futures is an international centre for sustainable urban development based in Sweden and established in 2010. It is financed by the foundations Mistra and Sida, together with a consortium comprising: Chalmers University of Technology, the University of Gothenburg, the City of Gothenburg, the Gothenburg Region Association of Local Authorities (GR), IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland, and the Region of Västra Götaland. Mistra Urban Futures offers an arena for the development and transmission of knowledge, based on cooperation with business, interest groups and the general public. This arena takes the form of a Local Interaction Platform (LIP), i.e., a physical and exchange infrastructure for the co-creation, design and development of projects, and promotion of events and networking activities. Each LIP is endowed with staff to facilitate interaction among the actors involved and drive the knowledge production process. So far, five LIPs have been established. The approach used at Mistra Urban Future is strongly characterised by a knowledge co-creation process, illustrated in a manual used by the different Local Interaction Platforms.

SOURCE

• d'Andrea, L., Berliri, M., & Marta, F. (2018). Benchmarking Report, FIT4RRI Project (D1.2).
  https://zenodo.org/record/1434351#.XJ-2yJhKjIV.

⇑ back to top

A huge amount of scientific and practical knowledge is now available online on RRI and Open Science which can be useful for initiate a process of institutional change toward a more responsible and open science in one’s organisation.

The following basic websites can be mentioned.

Title	Web address	Focus
Ethicsweb	http://www.ethicsweb.eu/node/1	Ethical issues
EurecNet	http://www.eurecnet.org/index.html	Ethical issues
GEAR Toolkit	https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear	Gender equality
GenPORT	https://www.genderportal.eu/	Gender equality
Gendered innovations	http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/gendered-innovations/index_en.cfm?pg=home	Gender equality
FOSTER	https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/	Open Science
OpenAIRE	http://actioncatalogue.eu/	Open Science
Tools for participatory science	http://s4s.wikidot.com/	Public engagement
Compass	https://innovation-compass.eu/compass-crash-course/	Public engagement
Engage2020 Action Catalogue	http://actioncatalogue.eu/	Public engagement
RRI-Tools	https://www.rri-tools.eu/about-rri	RRI
Heirri Training Programmes	https://www.rri-tools.eu/heirri-training-programmes	Science education
TA-Portal	https://technology-assessment.info/index.php/resources	Technology assessment
PE2020 Toolkit	https://toolkit.pe2020.eu/	Public engagement

⇑ back to top