评估负责任的创新培训

Bernd Carsten Stahl , Christine Aicardi , Laurence Brooks , Peter J. Craigon , Mayen Cunden , Saheli Datta Burton , Martin De Heaver , Stevienna De Saille , Serena Dolby , Liz Dowthwaite , Damian Eke , Stephen Hughes , Paul Keene , Vivienne Kuh , Virginia Portillo , Danielle Shanley , Melanie Smallman , Michael Smith , Jack Stilgoe , Inga Ulnicane , Helena Webb
{"title":"评估负责任的创新培训","authors":"Bernd Carsten Stahl ,&nbsp;Christine Aicardi ,&nbsp;Laurence Brooks ,&nbsp;Peter J. Craigon ,&nbsp;Mayen Cunden ,&nbsp;Saheli Datta Burton ,&nbsp;Martin De Heaver ,&nbsp;Stevienna De Saille ,&nbsp;Serena Dolby ,&nbsp;Liz Dowthwaite ,&nbsp;Damian Eke ,&nbsp;Stephen Hughes ,&nbsp;Paul Keene ,&nbsp;Vivienne Kuh ,&nbsp;Virginia Portillo ,&nbsp;Danielle Shanley ,&nbsp;Melanie Smallman ,&nbsp;Michael Smith ,&nbsp;Jack Stilgoe ,&nbsp;Inga Ulnicane ,&nbsp;Helena Webb","doi":"10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73937,"journal":{"name":"Journal of responsible technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659623000069/pdfft?md5=fd6c1cfc052fe77e7f89baac7118eb56&pid=1-s2.0-S2666659623000069-main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing responsible innovation training\",\"authors\":\"Bernd Carsten Stahl ,&nbsp;Christine Aicardi ,&nbsp;Laurence Brooks ,&nbsp;Peter J. Craigon ,&nbsp;Mayen Cunden ,&nbsp;Saheli Datta Burton ,&nbsp;Martin De Heaver ,&nbsp;Stevienna De Saille ,&nbsp;Serena Dolby ,&nbsp;Liz Dowthwaite ,&nbsp;Damian Eke ,&nbsp;Stephen Hughes ,&nbsp;Paul Keene ,&nbsp;Vivienne Kuh ,&nbsp;Virginia Portillo ,&nbsp;Danielle Shanley ,&nbsp;Melanie Smallman ,&nbsp;Michael Smith ,&nbsp;Jack Stilgoe ,&nbsp;Inga Ulnicane ,&nbsp;Helena Webb\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of responsible technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659623000069/pdfft?md5=fd6c1cfc052fe77e7f89baac7118eb56&pid=1-s2.0-S2666659623000069-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of responsible technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659623000069\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of responsible technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659623000069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

人们普遍认为,负责任创新(RI)的一个重要方面是为当前和未来的研究人员和创新者,特别是博士生提供有关其原则和实践的培训。关于这种培训应包括哪些内容、如何进行以及如何进行评估等问题,可以观察到的一致意见要少得多。越来越多的机构嵌入国际扶轮导致要求将国际扶轮训练与其他科目的训练结合起来。因此,人们可以观察到对国际扶轮培训进行官方评估的推动,例如最近呼吁建立英国研究与创新中心的博士培训中心。这篇社论的观点脱离了认识到国际扶轮社将需要对评估国际扶轮训练的呼吁作出反应。它提供了关于国际扶轮训练和评估的背景和开放性问题的概述,作为国际扶轮博士水平训练评估的背景例子。不太可能有一种正确的方法来评估跨机构和学科的国际扶轮训练,但我们期望本文提供的例子可以帮助国际扶轮学者和实践者以学术上可行的方式定位他们的训练和评估,并支持国际扶轮的总体目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing responsible innovation training

There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of responsible technology
Journal of responsible technology Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Human-Computer Interaction
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
168 days
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信