IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v48y2021i1p54-65..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competing modes of responsibility in research organisations—Insights from an international comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Leonhard Hennen
  • Julia Hahn
  • Miltos Ladikas

Abstract

Based on findings from research in the incorporation of responsible research and innovation in research organisations in twelve European and non-European countries, the article discusses how old (i.e. internal) and new (i.e. external) modes of responsibility coexist and compete with each other in actual research practice. Although the analysis shows ubiquitous perceived need for re-arranging the relations between science and society in order to legitimise scientific research in organisations, it also finds that the incumbent structures and cultures of internal thinking are still dominant in most organisations, which leads to considerable resistance to change. In particular, for public engagement and reflexive anticipatory ethics, strategies of conceptual and procedural demarcation are evident. Organisations adapt public engagement or reflexive ethics as extraordinary or experimental activities thus allowing for the continuation of the status quo in the perspective of the ‘republic of science’, keeping ‘internal’ affairs unaffected by societal intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonhard Hennen & Julia Hahn & Miltos Ladikas, 2021. "Competing modes of responsibility in research organisations—Insights from an international comparison," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(1), pages 54-65.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:1:p:54-65.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scaa057
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:1:p:54-65.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.