RRI是一种新的R&I逻辑吗?综合RRI项目的反思

Ellen-Marie Forsberg , Erik Thorstensen , Flávia Dias Casagrande , Torhild Holthe , Liv Halvorsrud , Anne Lund , Evi Zouganeli
{"title":"RRI是一种新的R&I逻辑吗?综合RRI项目的反思","authors":"Ellen-Marie Forsberg ,&nbsp;Erik Thorstensen ,&nbsp;Flávia Dias Casagrande ,&nbsp;Torhild Holthe ,&nbsp;Liv Halvorsrud ,&nbsp;Anne Lund ,&nbsp;Evi Zouganeli","doi":"10.1016/j.jrt.2020.100007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article presents an analysis of a project in the field of assisted living technologies (ALT) for older adults where Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is used as an overall approach to the research and technology development work. Taking the project's three literature reviews - conducted in the fields of health science oriented towards occupational therapy, ICT research and development, and RRI - as starting points it applies perspectives from institutional logics to analyse the tension between RRI as an overall research and innovation (R&amp;I) logic versus a disciplinary logic. This tension complicates the implementation of RRI, and we argue for giving this question more visibility. The article concludes that this project, from the funder's side and the project leader's side, was intended to be an example of research and technology development carried out within a new RRI R&amp;I logic, but that it in large parts was conducted as a multidisciplinary project with RRI as a quasi-disciplinary logic in part in parallel with and in part in conflict with other logics in the project.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73937,"journal":{"name":"Journal of responsible technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jrt.2020.100007","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is RRI a new R&I logic? A reflection from an integrated RRI project\",\"authors\":\"Ellen-Marie Forsberg ,&nbsp;Erik Thorstensen ,&nbsp;Flávia Dias Casagrande ,&nbsp;Torhild Holthe ,&nbsp;Liv Halvorsrud ,&nbsp;Anne Lund ,&nbsp;Evi Zouganeli\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jrt.2020.100007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article presents an analysis of a project in the field of assisted living technologies (ALT) for older adults where Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is used as an overall approach to the research and technology development work. Taking the project's three literature reviews - conducted in the fields of health science oriented towards occupational therapy, ICT research and development, and RRI - as starting points it applies perspectives from institutional logics to analyse the tension between RRI as an overall research and innovation (R&amp;I) logic versus a disciplinary logic. This tension complicates the implementation of RRI, and we argue for giving this question more visibility. The article concludes that this project, from the funder's side and the project leader's side, was intended to be an example of research and technology development carried out within a new RRI R&amp;I logic, but that it in large parts was conducted as a multidisciplinary project with RRI as a quasi-disciplinary logic in part in parallel with and in part in conflict with other logics in the project.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of responsible technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jrt.2020.100007\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of responsible technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266665962030007X\",\"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/S266665962030007X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文对老年人辅助生活技术(ALT)领域的一个项目进行了分析,该项目将负责任的研究与创新(RRI)作为研究和技术开发工作的整体方法。该项目以健康科学领域的三篇文献综述(面向职业治疗、ICT研发和RRI)为出发点,运用制度逻辑的视角分析了RRI作为一种整体研究与创新(R&;I)逻辑与学科逻辑之间的紧张关系。这种紧张关系使RRI的实施变得复杂,我们主张让这个问题更加引人注目。文章的结论是,从资助者和项目负责人的角度来看,该项目旨在成为在新的RRI R&;I逻辑,但它在很大程度上是作为一个多学科项目进行的,RRI是一个准学科逻辑,与项目中的其他逻辑部分平行,部分冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is RRI a new R&I logic? A reflection from an integrated RRI project

This article presents an analysis of a project in the field of assisted living technologies (ALT) for older adults where Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is used as an overall approach to the research and technology development work. Taking the project's three literature reviews - conducted in the fields of health science oriented towards occupational therapy, ICT research and development, and RRI - as starting points it applies perspectives from institutional logics to analyse the tension between RRI as an overall research and innovation (R&I) logic versus a disciplinary logic. This tension complicates the implementation of RRI, and we argue for giving this question more visibility. The article concludes that this project, from the funder's side and the project leader's side, was intended to be an example of research and technology development carried out within a new RRI R&I logic, but that it in large parts was conducted as a multidisciplinary project with RRI as a quasi-disciplinary logic in part in parallel with and in part in conflict with other logics in the project.

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