IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v12y2022i3p104-d888227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Engagement Practices in EC-Funded RRI Projects: Fostering Socio-Scientific Collaborations

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Michali

    (South-East European Research Centre (SEERC), 54622 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • George Eleftherakis

    (South-East European Research Centre (SEERC), 54622 Thessaloniki, Greece
    Computer Science, Penn State University-Brandywine, Media, PA 19063, USA)

Abstract

The ‘ambiguity’ of Research and Innovation (R&I) within the present contemporary society triggers increasing manifestations of public concerns concerning science. Apart from some implications it has, this mistrust also functions as a stimuli towards integrating the public view and public (social) needs into the development and implementation of R&I policies. With reference to European communities, the European Commission (EC) has provided funding to various projects aiming to capitalise on the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and the RRI ‘key’ of Public Engagement (PE) in order to engage the public in R&I, enhance a human-centric and inclusive R&I approach, and ultimately foster a mutually responsible relation between science and society. This study aims to examine how PE practices are implemented within the context of EC-funded projects addressing RRI-driven public engagement. Seventeen PE practices that have been implemented during the lifespan of five EC projects were qualitatively and thematically analysed. The identified themes indicate the implementation patterns of PE and contribute to reaching a set of conclusions towards realising a participatory, human-centric and inclusive R&I, fostering in its own turn future socio-scientific collaborations. Policy-makers, researchers, practitioners and stakeholders interested in public engagement in R&I can capitalise on the study’s conclusions and contribute to manifestations of responsible innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Michali & George Eleftherakis, 2022. "Public Engagement Practices in EC-Funded RRI Projects: Fostering Socio-Scientific Collaborations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:104-:d:888227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/3/104/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/3/104/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    2. Massey, Oliver T., 2011. "A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 21-28, February.
    3. Sophie Pellé & Bernard Reber, 2015. "Responsible Innovation in the Light of Moral Responsibility," Post-Print hal-01418017, HAL.
    4. Sophie Pellé & Bernard Reber, 2015. "Responsible Innovation in the Light of Moral Responsibility," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01418017, HAL.
    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. Jolita Ceicyte & Monika Petraite, 2018. "Networked Responsibility Approach for Responsible Innovation: Perspective of the Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Matti Sonck & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer, 2019. "Meta-Responsibility in Corporate Research and Innovation: A Bioeconomic Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Kate Chatfield & Konstantinos Iatridis & Bernd C. Stahl & Nearchos Paspallis, 2017. "Innovating Responsibly in ICT for Ageing: Drivers, Obstacles and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Tetiana Ivanova & Iryna Manaienko & Marina Shkrobot & Yuriy Tadeyev, 2021. "Theoretical Frameworks of Responsible Innovations," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 5, pages 143-157.
    5. Assunta Di Vaio & Anum Zaffar & Daniel Balsalobre-Lorente & Antonio Garofalo, 2023. "Decarbonization technology responsibility to gender equality in the shipping industry: a systematic literature review and new avenues ahead," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Jiminez-Guerrero, Jose F. & Perez-Mesa, Juan C. & Burgos-Jimenez, Jeronimo de & Piedra-Munoz, Laura, 2018. "Considering the consumer in the design of a supply chain of perishables," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    7. Dalziel, Paul & Saunders, Caroline & Tait, Peter & Saunders, John & Miller, Sini & Guenther, Meike & Rutherford, Paul & Driver, Tim, 2018. "Rewarding responsible innovation when consumers are distant from producers: evidence from New Zealand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    8. Sara H. Wilford, 2018. "First Line Steps in Requirements Identification for Guidelines Development in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 539-556, October.
    9. 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).
    10. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    11. Eeva-Sofia Säynäjoki & Jukka Heinonen & Seppo Junnila, 2014. "The Power of Urban Planning on Environmental Sustainability: A Focus Group Study in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Mike Burbridge & Gregory M. Morrison, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Partnership Development at the University–Industry–Government Nexus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-24, December.
    13. Umbrello, Steven & Bernstein, Michael J. & Vermaas, Pieter E. & Resseguier, Anaïs & Gonzalez, Gustavo & Porcari, Andrea & Grinbaum, Alexei & Adomaitis, Laurynas, 2023. "From speculation to reality: Enhancing anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies (ATE) in practice," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    14. Aslam, Usman & Davis, Leon, 2024. "Analyzing consumer expectations and experiences of Augmented Reality (AR) apps in the fashion retail sector," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    15. Mónica García-Melón & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Carmen Corona-Sobrino, 2022. "Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1483-1512, December.
    16. Burke, John & Fitzhenry, Mark & Houghton, Sharon & Fortune, Donal G., 2021. "Breaking the cycle of intergenerational trauma: Evaluating the impact of parental adverse childhood experiences on parenting group outcomes using a mixed-methods approach," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    17. Rochelle Deloria & Gregor Wolbring, 2019. "Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, August.
    18. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    19. Eeva-Sofia Säynäjoki & Pia Korba & Elina Kalliala & Aino-Kaisa Nuotio, 2018. "GHG Emissions Reduction through Urban Planners’ Improved Control over Earthworks: A Case Study in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    20. Qihui Xie & Yanan Xue & Zhuojun Zhao, 2022. "Understanding the Scientific Topics in the Chinese Government’s Communication about COVID-19: An LDA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, August.

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:104-:d:888227. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.