This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
In this paper, we provide an overview of how Safe-by-Design is conceived and applied in practice in a large number of engineering disciplines. We discuss the differences, commonalities, and possibilities for mutual learning found in those practices and identify several ways of putting those disciplinary outlooks in perspective. The considered engineering disciplines in the order of historically grown technologies are construction engineering, chemical engineering, aerospace engineering, urban engineering, software engineering, bio-engineering, nano-engineering, and finally cyber space engineering. Each discipline is briefly introduced, the technology at issue is described, the relevant or dominant hazards are examined, the social challenge(s) are observed, and the relevant developments in the field are described. Within each discipline the risk management strategies, the design principles promoting safety or safety awareness, and associated methods or tools are discussed. Possible dilemmas that the designers in the discipline face are highlighted. Each discipline is concluded by discussing the opportunities and bottlenecks in addressing safety. Commonalities and differences between the engineering disciplines are investigated, specifically on the design strategies for which empirical data have been collected. We argue that Safe-by-Design is best considered as a specific elaboration of Responsible Research and Innovation, with an explicit focus on safety in relation to other important values in engineering such as well-being, sustainability, equity, and affordability. Safe-by-Design provides for an intellectual venue where social science and the humanities (SSH) collaborate on technological developments and innovation by helping to proactively incorporate safety considerations into engineering practices, while navigating between the extremes of technological optimism and disproportionate precaution. As such, Safe-by-Design is also a practical tool for policymakers and risk assessors that helps shape governance arrangements for accommodating and incentivizing safety, while fully acknowledging uncertainty.
Pieter van Gelder; Pim Klaassen; Behnam Taebi; Bart Walhout; Ruud van Ommen; Ibo van de Poel; Zoe Robaey; Lotte Asveld; Ruud Balkenende; Frank Hollmann; Erik van Kampen; Nima Khakzad; Robbert Krebbers; Jos de Lange; Wolter Pieters; Karel Terwel; Eelco Visser; Tiny van der Werff; Dick Jung. Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021, 18, 6329 .
AMA StylePieter van Gelder, Pim Klaassen, Behnam Taebi, Bart Walhout, Ruud van Ommen, Ibo van de Poel, Zoe Robaey, Lotte Asveld, Ruud Balkenende, Frank Hollmann, Erik van Kampen, Nima Khakzad, Robbert Krebbers, Jos de Lange, Wolter Pieters, Karel Terwel, Eelco Visser, Tiny van der Werff, Dick Jung. Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18 (12):6329.
Chicago/Turabian StylePieter van Gelder; Pim Klaassen; Behnam Taebi; Bart Walhout; Ruud van Ommen; Ibo van de Poel; Zoe Robaey; Lotte Asveld; Ruud Balkenende; Frank Hollmann; Erik van Kampen; Nima Khakzad; Robbert Krebbers; Jos de Lange; Wolter Pieters; Karel Terwel; Eelco Visser; Tiny van der Werff; Dick Jung. 2021. "Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 12: 6329.
While hybrid evaluation practices are increasingly common, many Western countries continue to favor modernist evaluation logics focused on performance management—hampering the normalization of reflexive logics revolving around system change. We use Normalization Process Theory to analyze the work evaluators from a policy assessment agency undertook to accomplish the alignment between the prevailing and proposed logics guiding evaluation practice, while implementing a reflexive evaluation approach. Ad hoc alignment strategies and insufficient investment in mutual sense-making regarding reflexive evaluation hindered normalization. We conclude that alignment requires developing reflexive evaluation legitimacy in the context of application and guarding reflexive evaluation integrity, while contextual structures and cultures and reflexive evaluation components are being negotiated. Elasticity (of contextual structures and cultures) and plasticity (of reflexive evaluation components) are introduced as helpful concepts to further understand how reflexive evaluation practices can become normalized. We reflect on the use of Normalization Process Theory for studying the normalization of reflexive evaluation.
Lisa Verwoerd; Pim Klaassen; Barbara J. Regeer. How to normalize reflexive evaluation? Navigating between legitimacy and integrity. Evaluation 2020, 27, 229 -250.
AMA StyleLisa Verwoerd, Pim Klaassen, Barbara J. Regeer. How to normalize reflexive evaluation? Navigating between legitimacy and integrity. Evaluation. 2020; 27 (2):229-250.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLisa Verwoerd; Pim Klaassen; Barbara J. Regeer. 2020. "How to normalize reflexive evaluation? Navigating between legitimacy and integrity." Evaluation 27, no. 2: 229-250.
There is now almost a decade of experience with RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), including a growing emphasis on RRI in industry. Based on our experiences in the EU-funded project PRISMA, we find that the companies we engaged could be motivated to do RRI, but often only after we first shifted initial assumptions and strategies. Accordingly, we formulate six lessons we learned in the expectation that they will be relevant both for RRI in industry as well as for the future of RRI more broadly. These lessons are: (1) Strategize for stakeholder engagement; (2) Broaden current assessments; (3) Place values center stage; (4) Experiment for responsiveness; (5) Monitor RRI progress; and (6) Aim for shared value.
Ibo van de Poel; Lotte Asveld; Steven Flipse; Pim Klaassen; Zenlin Kwee; Maria Maia; Elvio Mantovani; Christopher Nathan; Andrea Porcari; Emad Yaghmaei. Learning to do responsible innovation in industry: six lessons. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2020, 7, 697 -707.
AMA StyleIbo van de Poel, Lotte Asveld, Steven Flipse, Pim Klaassen, Zenlin Kwee, Maria Maia, Elvio Mantovani, Christopher Nathan, Andrea Porcari, Emad Yaghmaei. Learning to do responsible innovation in industry: six lessons. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2020; 7 (3):697-707.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIbo van de Poel; Lotte Asveld; Steven Flipse; Pim Klaassen; Zenlin Kwee; Maria Maia; Elvio Mantovani; Christopher Nathan; Andrea Porcari; Emad Yaghmaei. 2020. "Learning to do responsible innovation in industry: six lessons." Journal of Responsible Innovation 7, no. 3: 697-707.
In recent years there has been increasing attention to the transition toward a bioeconomy. From comparable transitions toward sustainability, we know that transitions require integral, inclusive approaches toward developing a long-term strategy, focusing not only on technological innovation, but also on involving the public. This is not easy. Public engagement encompasses diverse forms of public and civil society participation, and it is crucial to understand the specificities of these interactions and their effects on potential transition pathways. We present a conceptual-analytical paper where the focus lies on understanding sense-making practices in the construction of publics in the bioeconomy. Using a case-study approach, this article describes five partialities of the constructed public in the bioeconomy and analyzes the orchestration, productive dimensions and effects of these constructions. Our analysis offers a new perspective on, and appreciation of, the partiality of different forms of public participation, and varying degrees in which possibilities of system change in the bioeconomy transition are inclusive or exclusive toward differentially constructed publics. This offers an alternative, constructive way of exploring actor dynamics and politics in system change. We aim to contribute to a more nuanced and integral interpretation of public engagement in sustainability transitions, which is relevant to actors from academia, policy, industry and other spheres relevant to the bioeconomy transition.
Durwin H.J. Lynch; Pim Klaassen; Lan Van Wassenaer; Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3179 .
AMA StyleDurwin H.J. Lynch, Pim Klaassen, Lan Van Wassenaer, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (8):3179.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDurwin H.J. Lynch; Pim Klaassen; Lan Van Wassenaer; Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands." Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3179.
Although, in many respects, Research and Innovation (R&I) has ameliorated the human condition, they also give rise to social, ethical and environmental concerns. One just has to think of the environmental impact of combustion engines or of controversies surrounding genetically modified crops, fracking, UMTS-signals or pre-implantation genetic diagnostics to realize that not all R&I is ethically or socially acceptable or responsive to societal needs. To promote socially desirable, ethically acceptable and environmentally and economically sustainable R&I, the European Commission (EC) has promoted the governance framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) since 2010. 1 RRI is a form of anticipatory governance aimed at modulating R&I trajectories towards the ‘right impacts’, while strengthening the inclusive nature and democratic legitimacy of the R&I enterprise and stimulating the economy via the deliverance of better innovations. 2
Pim Klaassen; Michelle Rijnen; Sara Vermeulen; Frank Kupper; Jacqueline Broerse. Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI. Responsible Research and Innovation 2018, 77 -98.
AMA StylePim Klaassen, Michelle Rijnen, Sara Vermeulen, Frank Kupper, Jacqueline Broerse. Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI. Responsible Research and Innovation. 2018; ():77-98.
Chicago/Turabian StylePim Klaassen; Michelle Rijnen; Sara Vermeulen; Frank Kupper; Jacqueline Broerse. 2018. "Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI." Responsible Research and Innovation , no. : 77-98.
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has become an important topic in the academic community and in policy circles, but it has not yet been systematically included in the innovation process of companies. We discuss how companies can integrate RRI into their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies and business strategy. To this end, we developed a conceptual model that links a company’s RRI strategy to its context, and that helps to translate the RRI strategy into activities that result in RRI outcomes. We also propose a process for developing company-specific RRI key performance indicators (KPIs) that can support companies to measure RRI outcomes.
Ibo Van De Poel; Lotte Asveld; Steven Flipse; Pim Klaassen; Victor Scholten; Emad Yaghmaei. Company Strategies for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Model. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2045 .
AMA StyleIbo Van De Poel, Lotte Asveld, Steven Flipse, Pim Klaassen, Victor Scholten, Emad Yaghmaei. Company Strategies for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Model. Sustainability. 2017; 9 (11):2045.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIbo Van De Poel; Lotte Asveld; Steven Flipse; Pim Klaassen; Victor Scholten; Emad Yaghmaei. 2017. "Company Strategies for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Model." Sustainability 9, no. 11: 2045.
Durwin H.J. Lynch; Pim Klaassen; Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. Unraveling Dutch citizens’ perceptions on the bio-based economy: The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Industrial Crops and Products 2017, 106, 130 -137.
AMA StyleDurwin H.J. Lynch, Pim Klaassen, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. Unraveling Dutch citizens’ perceptions on the bio-based economy: The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Industrial Crops and Products. 2017; 106 ():130-137.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDurwin H.J. Lynch; Pim Klaassen; Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. 2017. "Unraveling Dutch citizens’ perceptions on the bio-based economy: The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries." Industrial Crops and Products 106, no. : 130-137.
To stimulate research and innovation (R&I), to contribute to the solution of societal challenges and to align R&I with societal values, the European Commission has launched the governance framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). RRI figures in many high-level EU policies as a means to promote smart growth, and a growing community of R&I practitioners from both the public and private sectors appears committed to it. Although debates on what RRI precisely entails have not reached closure yet, RRI provides an interesting avenue to explore ways of making R&I more societally germane. While recognizing the usefulness of keeping critical reflection on RRI’s meaning alive, we suggest that to make the step from theorizing to implementation, RRI could benefit from a clearer conceptualization. This chapter presents the iterative trajectory in conceptualizing RRI followed as part of RRI Tools, one of a number of EC-funded research projects and support acts aimed at fleshing out what RRI can and should be, and the conceptualization of RRI that this led to. It suggests that RRI is best captured if in R&I governance attention is paid to the five p’s of Purpose, Products, Processes, Preconditions and People, and that further elaborations on the meaning of RRI should happen in dialogue with attempts at practicing RRI.
Pim Klaassen; Frank Kupper; Sara Vermeulen; Michelle Rijnen; Eugen Popa; Jacqueline Broerse. The Conceptualization of RRI: An Iterative Approach. Responsible Innovation 3 2017, 69 -92.
AMA StylePim Klaassen, Frank Kupper, Sara Vermeulen, Michelle Rijnen, Eugen Popa, Jacqueline Broerse. The Conceptualization of RRI: An Iterative Approach. Responsible Innovation 3. 2017; ():69-92.
Chicago/Turabian StylePim Klaassen; Frank Kupper; Sara Vermeulen; Michelle Rijnen; Eugen Popa; Jacqueline Broerse. 2017. "The Conceptualization of RRI: An Iterative Approach." Responsible Innovation 3 , no. : 69-92.
In everyday life, situations in which we act adequately yet entirely without deliberation are ubiquitous. We use the term “situated normativity” for the normative aspect of embodied cognition in skillful action. Wittgenstein’s notion of “directed discontent” refers to a context-sensitive reaction of appreciation in skillful action. Extending this notion from the domain of expertise to that of adequate everyday action, we examine phenomenologically the question of what happens when skilled individuals act correctly with instinctive ease. This question invites exploratory contributions from a variety of perspectives complementary to the philosophical/ phenomenological one, including cognitive neuroscience, neurodynamics and psychology. Along such lines we try to make the normative aspect of adequate immediate action better accessible to empirical research. After introducing the idea that “valence” is a forerunner of directed discontent, we propose to make progress on this by first pursuing a more restricted exploratory question, namely, ‘what happens in the first few hundred milliseconds of the development of directed discontent?’
Pim Klaassen; Erik Rietveld; Julien Topal. Inviting complementary perspectives on situated normativity in everyday life. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2009, 9, 53 -73.
AMA StylePim Klaassen, Erik Rietveld, Julien Topal. Inviting complementary perspectives on situated normativity in everyday life. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 2009; 9 (1):53-73.
Chicago/Turabian StylePim Klaassen; Erik Rietveld; Julien Topal. 2009. "Inviting complementary perspectives on situated normativity in everyday life." Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9, no. 1: 53-73.