In the last decade, the term Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has rapidly attracted the attention of policy-makers and researchers of Europe, mainly due to its promotion by the European Commission (EC). The concretion of this framework of RRI has been articulated by the EC around six key areas: governance, public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, and open science and ethics. The indicators to measure these dimensions have been proposed recently. In our opinion the set of indicators available so far has two weaknesses: a lack of context-based indicators and a need for hierarchical ordering. Our aim is to provide tools for policy- and decision-makers that might need to identify the more important indicators in a specific context. In this work, we explored how the multicriteria analysis technique Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) can be used to prioritize indicators for RRI by involving experts in the specific context. The AHP method allowed weighting indicators according to experts in the different areas and producing four different options to select indicators. The method of AHP can be an appropriated instrument to select the most suitable indicators for RRI policies and initiatives.

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) promotes institutional change guided by values in the face of scientific and societal discontents. RRI is conceived largely as an incremental, progressive transformation in the ways scientific research and (mainly) technological innovation are done and in what these processes produce. RRI advocates engaging across scientific specialisations and among diverse scientific and societal stakeholders, including citizens, to improve the relevance and robustness of research and innovation outcomes. Increased public engagement and knowledge co-creation are considered key mechanisms for reconfiguring relationships among science, innovation, and society. In this chapter, we first outline the foundational conceptualisations of RRI, including their major differences. We then consider how RRI seeks to drive transformation in research and innovation through incremental institutional change and the emergence of RRI as both a community of practice and an object of quantification practices. Finally, we consider three translational challenges that may shape the future of RRI.

In this paper; for research and innovation projects without environmental goals; a procedure is proposed to operationalize the anticipation and reflexivity of environmental concerns in the initial phases. By using the expert knowledge of specialists; we have first conducted a study to identify the general environmental topics relevant in any kind of research and innovation project not addressing the environment. In a second phase; a strategy is proposed to rank order the topics in terms of environmental relevance by means of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. To illustrate it; the case of Information and Communication Technologies for Active and Healthy Ageing is used because of its increasing importance; and because normal environmental targets are not considered. Results show that; in this case; the most relevant topic to be considered is the primary energy consumption by sources; followed by hazardous solid waste and consumption of non-renewable and scarce materials. According to the experts; these should be the main issues to be considered regarding the environmental sustainability of the outputs of such research and innovation projects. In conclusion; this paper contributes to a better understanding of how to promote a wider integration of environmental sustainability in research and innovation when environmental goals are not initially included.

El modelo conceptual 3i4t explora la relación entre la integridad científica y la integración social en la ciencia con la confianza de la ciudadanía en la ciencia. Mediante el estudio de las cadenas de mediación (comunicación y divulgación) de la información científica, esta comunicación presenta los resultados de un taller deliberativo con un grupo de veinte ciudadanos con vínculos con el sistema de ciencia y estudios universitarios. El taller, realizado en paralelo en seis países europeos, aporta resultados exploratorios sobre la percepción de un grupo de ciudadanos con alta confianza en el método científico y limitada experiencia en actividades de ciencia ciudadana. Los resultados apuntan a que el conocimiento del funcionamiento de la ciencia por parte de los participantes incrementa su confianza en la misma y la percepción de que la falta de integridad en casos específicos tiene un impacto limitado en dicha confianza general. Las percepciones del grupo sobre la integración social de la ciencia se centran en cómo deberían ser diseñados los proyectos de investigación en este ámbito, el aprovechamiento de los resultados de los procesos de participación y el debate sobre del grado de participación de la ciudadanía.

This chapter summarises the history and significance of the concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) in Europe and the emergence of a linked community of practice in research and policy arenas.