Societal Readiness Thinking Process 2.0: Incorporating Epistemic Reflexivity for Responsible Innovation.

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Robert Braun, Michael J Bernstein, Arnab Chakraborty, Johannes Starkbaum, Florian Winkler
{"title":"Societal Readiness Thinking Process 2.0: Incorporating Epistemic Reflexivity for Responsible Innovation.","authors":"Robert Braun, Michael J Bernstein, Arnab Chakraborty, Johannes Starkbaum, Florian Winkler","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00568-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Frameworks for ascertaining the societal dimensions of research and innovation (R&I), such as the Societal Readiness Thinking Tool (SRTT), have supported reflection on ethics and responsibility but often risk reducing reflexivity to procedural checklists or impact assessments. This paper develops an enhanced version, the reflexive SRTT 2.0 process, by incorporating concepts of epistemic reflexivity and ethnomethodological sensitivity. We introduce the concept of reflexive societal readiness, which understands readiness as a situated, ongoing accomplishment shaped by both local practices and institutional \"relations of ruling.\" Drawing on ethnomethodological observations, reflexive questionnaires, and an initial workshop in the Horizon Europe project AGRO4AGRI, we examined how researchers engaged with reflexivity in practice. Our findings reveal three recurring patterns: reflexivity was often deflected through reliance on methodological safeguards, outsourced to societal impact experts or stakeholders, and substituted with compliance to regulatory frameworks or dominant imaginaries of sustainability and competitiveness. These practices uphold internal project orders and limit the potential for interdisciplinary learning and critical engagement. To address these obstacles, SRTT 2.0 proposes a reflexive process combining (a) observation of situated practices, (b) reflexive questioning that foregrounds individual positionalities, and (c) workshops that foster collaborative and institutional learning. This design enables researchers to critically interrogate their assumptions, engage more meaningfully with inclusion, and question the sociotechnical imaginaries shaping their work. We argue that embedding such reflexive processes into project lifecycles can extend and strengthen Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks by cultivating collaborative, empathetic, and institutional learning. While challenges remain, SRTT 2.0 offers a transferable pathway for fostering more reflexive and responsible innovation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"31 6","pages":"42"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00568-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Frameworks for ascertaining the societal dimensions of research and innovation (R&I), such as the Societal Readiness Thinking Tool (SRTT), have supported reflection on ethics and responsibility but often risk reducing reflexivity to procedural checklists or impact assessments. This paper develops an enhanced version, the reflexive SRTT 2.0 process, by incorporating concepts of epistemic reflexivity and ethnomethodological sensitivity. We introduce the concept of reflexive societal readiness, which understands readiness as a situated, ongoing accomplishment shaped by both local practices and institutional "relations of ruling." Drawing on ethnomethodological observations, reflexive questionnaires, and an initial workshop in the Horizon Europe project AGRO4AGRI, we examined how researchers engaged with reflexivity in practice. Our findings reveal three recurring patterns: reflexivity was often deflected through reliance on methodological safeguards, outsourced to societal impact experts or stakeholders, and substituted with compliance to regulatory frameworks or dominant imaginaries of sustainability and competitiveness. These practices uphold internal project orders and limit the potential for interdisciplinary learning and critical engagement. To address these obstacles, SRTT 2.0 proposes a reflexive process combining (a) observation of situated practices, (b) reflexive questioning that foregrounds individual positionalities, and (c) workshops that foster collaborative and institutional learning. This design enables researchers to critically interrogate their assumptions, engage more meaningfully with inclusion, and question the sociotechnical imaginaries shaping their work. We argue that embedding such reflexive processes into project lifecycles can extend and strengthen Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks by cultivating collaborative, empathetic, and institutional learning. While challenges remain, SRTT 2.0 offers a transferable pathway for fostering more reflexive and responsible innovation practices.

社会准备思维过程2.0:整合负责任创新的认知反身性
确定研究与创新(R&I)的社会维度的框架,如社会准备思考工具(SRTT),支持了对伦理和责任的反思,但往往有降低对程序清单或影响评估的反思的风险。本文通过整合认知反思性和民族方法学敏感性的概念,开发了一个增强版本,即反思性SRTT 2.0过程。我们引入了反身性社会准备的概念,它将准备理解为由当地实践和制度“统治关系”形成的一种定位的、持续的成就。根据民族方法学观察、反身性问卷调查和地平线欧洲项目AGRO4AGRI的初始研讨会,我们研究了研究人员在实践中如何参与反身性。我们的研究结果揭示了三种反复出现的模式:反身性往往通过依赖方法保障而发生偏转,外包给社会影响专家或利益相关者,并被遵守监管框架或可持续性和竞争力的主导想象所取代。这些实践维护了内部项目秩序,限制了跨学科学习和批判性参与的潜力。为了解决这些障碍,SRTT 2.0提出了一个反思过程,结合(a)对情境实践的观察,(b)强调个人立场的反思性提问,以及(c)促进合作和机构学习的研讨会。这种设计使研究人员能够批判性地质疑他们的假设,更有意义地参与包容性,并质疑塑造他们工作的社会技术想象。我们认为,将这种反思过程嵌入到项目生命周期中,可以通过培养协作性、移情性和制度性学习来扩展和加强负责任的研究与创新(RRI)框架。尽管挑战依然存在,但SRTT 2.0为促进更多反思性和负责任的创新实践提供了一条可转移的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书