This article offers a Spanish national perspective that contributes to European Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) monitoring initiatives. National experts involved in gender and science and technology issues, such as policymakers, gender experts, research institutions, and equality associations, among others, have proposed indicators based on participatory decision-making techniques. The results include a complete set of 52 indicators and a reduced panel of 23 indicators—the highest-ranked ones—to monitor relevant aspects that should be measured in gender dimension from an RRI perspective: differential and asymmetric socialization and education, organizational culture, substantive representation, vertical segregation, work relations, visibility of women researchers, gender perspective in research contents, gender expertise enhancement, and resources. The results offer new indicators that differ from previous indicator panels at the European and Spanish levels in relation to those aspects that should be measured and the typology of indicators preferred. Differences suggest the need for a more nuanced debate on the purpose of indicators, and the need for national contributions to RRI and to the debate on gender perspective in EU policy. Finally, the article suggests some specific traits observed in Spain that might add to the debate on the content of an RRI gender perspective in an already developed gender policy.

This article investigates equality policies in relation to gender mainstreaming in local governments, prior to the dismantling of equality policies in the wake of the financial crisis that began in 2008. Data from 198 municipalities based on the use of mainstreaming instruments revealed limited implementation of mainstreaming as a policy strategy. Similarly, a qualitative study on mainstreaming as a vision showed that the local level tended to reproduce supra-municipal deficits without offering a differential contribution. Lack of consistency was also observed between the role assigned to local entities by supra-municipal authorities and the role they actually played. Important influencing factors included the gender of the mayor, political colour of the local government, existence of a separate equality council, and adoption of an equality plan. The study concludes with recommendations for redefining local gender mainstreaming in a post-crisis scenario.

This paper examines the role of gender in the formation of research collaboration networks, by investigating the composition of networks through connections to diverse professional communities. Drawing on an ego network approach, we examine gender differences among researchers’ networks in terms of partner diversity, openness and brokerage roles. We use data from 897 valid responses to a questionnaire administered to biomedical scientists in Spain, which enquired into multiple aspects of personal research networks. Our findings show that women form more diverse networks and brokerage triads than men. This result is reinforced if we consider the most heterogeneous brokerage triads in terms of professional differences among network partners (i.e., consultant and liaison). Our results suggest that women are more likely to access non-redundant knowledge and richer research perspectives via their knowledge-flow intermediary roles. This research suggests the need for analyses of gender and networks that go beyond a gender-to-gender approach.

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.

Businesses have traditionally been seen as reluctant participants in equality policy initiatives. However, emerging governance guidelines increasingly advocate for gender mainstreaming, encouraging active business engagement. Our research examines this potential transformation, focusing on the role of businesses adopting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices compared to traditional equality policy actors – governments, equality organizations, and academia – within the Colombian context. Using a collaborative governance framework and participatory decision-making techniques, we identify potential role shifts toward proactivity and specific contributions from each actor group. Our findings highlight discordant mutual expectations, or “role mismatch”, and divergent perceptions within the business sector, which may undermine traditional actors. These insights emphasize the risks inherent in business participation in equality policy. By delineating contributions and clarifying self-perceptions and mutual expectations, we offer a practical approach to designing participatory processes that foster mutual recognition, trust, and shared responsibility as foundations for advancing equality policies.

Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science with and for Society (SwafS) call have been meeting virtually as the SwafS14 Monitoring and Evaluation ecosystem. Topics of discussion were the trials and tribulations of their regional Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) projects as well as their strategies for monitoring and evaluation. In this paper we make a first attempt at presenting these issues as problems of translation between different kinds of stakeholders. After an exploration of the diversity of stakeholders and the process of translation in regional RRI, we suggest evaluative conversations as a way of improving regional RRI. We intend to develop this idea in the future and that these conversations will facilitate more responsible and engaged monitoring and evaluation and contribute to better R&I policies.