The Framework for Responsible Research With Australian Native Plant Foods: A Food Chemist's Perspective

Australia is a rich source of biodiverse native plants that are mostly unstudied by western food science despite many of them being ethnofoods of Australian Indigenous people. Finding and understanding the relevant policy and legal requirements to scientifically assess these plants in a responsible way is a major challenge for food scientists. This work aims to give an overview of what the legal and policy framework is in relation to food chemistry on Australian native plant foods, to clarify the relationships between the guidelines, laws, policies and ethics and to discuss some of the challenges they present in food chemistry. This work provides the framework of Indigenous rights, international treaties, federal and state laws and ethical guidelines including key legislation and guidelines. It discusses the specific areas that are applicable to food chemistry: the collection of plant foods, the analysis of the samples and working with Indigenous communities. This brief perspective presents a framework that can be utilized by food chemists when developing responsible research involving plant foods native to northern Australia and can help them understand some of the complexity of working in this research area.

Defining ‘Responsible’ in Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of Quadruple Helix Innovation in the Energy Sector in the Tampere Region

This paper aims to investigate the social innovation process in the innovation ecosystem of the Tampere region, taking the energy sector as an example. It focuses on analysing how responsible research and innovation (RRI) activities are understood by regional stakeholders, particularly regarding how the roles of different actors (universities, public agencies, industry, and citizens) are constituted, and how different actors facilitate social innovation. The research questions are approached by the conceptual framework of Quadruple Helix which is useful for understanding the roles of citizens and interwoven fabric in innovation ecosystems, including social innovation. Empirically, the paper is based on analysing qualitative interviews with 12 stakeholders in the energy sector in Tampere. It is supplemented by analysing national and regional documents related to energy policies and the role of research and universities as well as citizens in sustainable (economic) development. Based on our findings the responsibility in research and innovation activities is not defined by utilising existing conceptual approaches or EU policies, such as RRI.

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Scientometric Analysis

Innovation and research in various fields should be done responsibly. In the last years, there is this responsibility towards different stakeholders. One of the most important stakeholders are the community and the society. In this context, the concept of social responsibility and social innovation has become very widespread. The purpose of this study was scientometric analysis of concepts in the field of responsible innovation and responsible research. R software has been used to achieve this purpose. In this study, by analyzing the information extracted from related articles (572 articles from Web of Science), the new concept of RRI and the network of researchers in this regard have been identified and analyzed. In this study, based on a systematic literature review (SLR) and scientometric methods, the evolution of the concept of “Responsible Research” and “Responsible Innovation” in the literature is investigated. Also, the selected articles identified by the SLR method from different textual dimensions regarding journals, collaboration network, co-citation network, collaboration worldmap, historical direct citation network, and emergence of new concepts are analyzed. The results of this study indicate the development of related concepts in the literature in recent years and indicate the need for further studies in this regard.

Diversifying the Deliberative Turn: Toward an Agonistic RRI

In its “deliberative turn,” the field of science and technology studies (STS) has strongly advocated opening up decision-making processes around science and technology to more perspectives and knowledges. While the theory of democracy underpinning this is rarely explicitly addressed, the language and ideas used are often drawn from deliberative democracy. Using the case of synthetic biology and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), this paper looks at challenges of public engagement and finds parallels in long-standing critiques of deliberative democracy. The paper suggests that STS scholars explore other theories of decision-making and explores what an RRI grounded in agonistic pluralism might entail. An agonistic RRI could develop empirical research around questions of power relations in contemporary science and technology, seek to facilitate the formation of political publics around relevant issues, and frame different actors’ stances as adversarial positions on a political field rather than “equally valid” perspectives.

How the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process Supports a More Responsible and Committed Research and Innovation

This essay is a brief presentation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). It is an interesting framework that the European Union has been building around science that is more aware of global challenges. It also highlights the usefulness of AHP/ANP as valuable tools to handle the complexities derived from the implementation of a multidimensional concept such as RRI.

Evaluating researcher and stakeholder perspectives on socially responsible research and innovation practices in research performing organisations

The European Commission-funded GRRIP (Grounding RRI Practices) project aims to embed sustainable Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) practices in five research performing organisations (RPOs), focusing on the marine and maritime sector. The project’s goal is to achieve institutional and cultural change through a cycle of evaluation, evidence-based interventions and further evaluation. For this purpose, a set of three surveys were designed and implemented in the first part of the project (2020) to establish a baseline measurement of RRI-related practices within the project partner institutions and their stakeholders. Each survey was specifically designed to target a relevant category of people for each of the five RPOs implementing RRI actions. These five institutions are research departments and centres linked to the marine and maritime sector in Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France and the UK. This paper presents the design of these survey-based evaluation instruments and the linked datasets generated by their implementation.

Self-criticisms toward a socially responsible science in the field of management

Management scholarship should be placed in a unique position to develop relevant scientific knowledge because business and management organizations are deeply involved in most global challenges. However, different critical voices have recently been raised in essays and editorials, and reports have questioned research in the management field, identifying multiple deficiencies that can limit the growth of a relatively young field. Based on an analysis of published criticisms of management research, we would like to shed light on the current state of management research and identify some limitations that should be considered and should guide the growth of this field of knowledge. This work offers guidance on the main problems of the discipline that should be addressed to encourage the transformation of management research to meet both scientific rigor and social relevance. The article ends with a discussion and a call to action for directing research toward the possibility and necessity of reinforcing “responsible research” in the management field. JEL CLASSIFICATION: M00, M10