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.
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.