IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v42y2013i9p1568-1580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a framework for responsible innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Stilgoe, Jack
  • Owen, Richard
  • Macnaghten, Phil

Abstract

The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.

Suggested Citation

  • Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:9:p:1568-1580
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733313000930
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Adrian & Stirling, Andy & Berkhout, Frans, 2005. "The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1491-1510, December.
    2. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    3. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    4. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    5. Holger Hoffmann-Riem & Brian Wynne, 2002. "In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance," Nature, Nature, vol. 416(6877), pages 123-123, March.
    6. Phil Macnaghten & Richard Owen, 2011. "Good governance for geoengineering," Nature, Nature, vol. 479(7373), pages 293-293, November.
    7. Nick Pidgeon & Karen Parkhill & Adam Corner & Naomi Vaughan, 2013. "Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 451-457, May.
    8. Andy Stirling, 2007. "A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society," SPRU Working Paper Series 156, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. David Kaiser & Jonathan Moreno, 2012. "Self-censorship is not enough," Nature, Nature, vol. 492(7429), pages 345-347, December.
    10. Cooper, Robert G., 1990. "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 44-54.
    11. Laurens K Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2009. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 387-401, June.
    12. Morlacchi, Piera & Martin, Ben R., 2009. "Emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: A reflexive overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 571-582, May.
    13. Pierre Garrouste & Stavros Ioannides (ed.), 2001. "Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1790.
    14. Steve Rayner & Clare Heyward & Tim Kruger & Nick Pidgeon & Catherine Redgwell & Julian Savulescu, 2013. "The Oxford Principles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 499-512, December.
    15. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    16. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    17. Fabian Muniesa & Marc Lenglet, 2013. "Responsible innovation in finance: directions and implications," Post-Print halshs-00817383, HAL.
    18. Clark A Miller & Ira Bennett, 2008. "Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(8), pages 597-606, October.
    19. Daniel Cressey, 2012. "Cancelled project spurs debate over geoengineering patents," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7399), pages 429-429, May.
    20. Williams, Robin & Edge, David, 1996. "The social shaping of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 865-899, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wiarda, Martijn & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & Janssen, Matthijs J. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2023. "Public participation in mission-oriented innovation projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Andy Stirling, 2007. "Deliberate futures: precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 286-295.
    3. Mazzucato, Mariana & Semieniuk, Gregor, 2018. "Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 8-22.
    4. Stirling, Andy, 2010. "Multicriteria diversity analysis: A novel heuristic framework for appraising energy portfolios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1622-1634, April.
    5. Turnheim, Bruno & Nykvist, Björn, 2019. "Opening up the feasibility of sustainability transitions pathways (STPs): Representations, potentials, and conditions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 775-788.
    6. Geels, Frank W., 2014. "Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 261-277.
    7. Pielow, Cornelia & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2016. "Strategic CSR in food industry SMEs: identifying individual hot spots," 26th International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) World Forum, 2016, Aarhus, Denmark 275887, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA).
    8. Stephan, Annegret & Bening, Catharina R. & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Schwarz, Marius & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2019. "The role of inter-sectoral knowledge spillovers in technological innovations: The case of lithium-ion batteries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    10. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    11. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    12. Geels, Frank W., 2006. "The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840-1930): The dynamics of regime transformation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1069-1082, September.
    13. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    14. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424, January.
    15. Albert Faber & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.
    16. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    17. Porfírio, José & Jacquinet, Marc & Carrilho, Tiago, 2009. "The Concept of Agricultural District and the Question of Rural Development," Spatial and Organizational Dynamics Discussion Papers 2009-3, CIEO-Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, University of Algarve.
    18. Abdelillah Hamdouch & Esther Samuelides, 2000. "Innovation's Dynamics in Mobile Phone Services in France," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques r00026, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    19. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    20. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:9:p:1568-1580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.