Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility

P. Klaassen, M.C.J.A. Rijnen, S. Vermeulen, Frank Kupper, J.E.W. Broerse

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This chapter aims to narrow the gap between how Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is conceived of in European Commission policy circles and how it is conceived of in scholarly circles. The policy view of RRI and the scholarly view of RRI each have their strengths and weaknesses and both would be better off if coupled to the other. Large and pertinent differences between Scott's High Modernist projects and pRRI, however, perhaps weigh heavier than do the aforementioned similarities. In the policy literature, people see that a straightforwardly optimistic approach to RRI can be found, which simultaneously is very explicit and universalist about what it means to be responsible—see the definition of RRI. Arguably, most of the discrepancies between aRRI and pRRI above can be explained in terms of two more parameters, along which the two can be differentiated—one somewhat philosophical, and one very down-to-earth.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationResponsible Research and Innovation
Subtitle of host publicationFrom Concepts to Practices
EditorsRobert Gianni, John Pearson, Bernard Reber
Place of PublicationLondon
PublisherRoutledge
Chapter4
Pages77-98
Number of pages22
ISBN (Electronic)9781315457291
ISBN (Print)9781138209343
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Publication series

NameRoutledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology

Fingerprint

Technocracy
Innovation
European Commission
Modernist
Universalist

Keywords

  • RRI
  • Responsible Innovation
  • Societal Desirability
  • Responsible Research
  • Innovation Process
  • Learning
  • Research and Innovation governance

VU Research Profile

  • Science for Sustainability

Cite this

Klaassen, P., Rijnen, M. C. J. A., Vermeulen, S., Kupper, F., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2018). Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility. In R. Gianni, J. Pearson, & B. Reber (Eds.), Responsible Research and Innovation: From Concepts to Practices (pp. 77-98). (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology). London: Routledge.
Klaassen, P. ; Rijnen, M.C.J.A. ; Vermeulen, S. ; Kupper, Frank ; Broerse, J.E.W. / Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI : On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Concepts to Practices. editor / Robert Gianni ; John Pearson ; Bernard Reber. London : Routledge, 2018. pp. 77-98 (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology).
@inbook{2da38f10c33548b081678de538693540,
title = "Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility",
abstract = "This chapter aims to narrow the gap between how Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is conceived of in European Commission policy circles and how it is conceived of in scholarly circles. The policy view of RRI and the scholarly view of RRI each have their strengths and weaknesses and both would be better off if coupled to the other. Large and pertinent differences between Scott's High Modernist projects and pRRI, however, perhaps weigh heavier than do the aforementioned similarities. In the policy literature, people see that a straightforwardly optimistic approach to RRI can be found, which simultaneously is very explicit and universalist about what it means to be responsible—see the definition of RRI. Arguably, most of the discrepancies between aRRI and pRRI above can be explained in terms of two more parameters, along which the two can be differentiated—one somewhat philosophical, and one very down-to-earth.",
keywords = "RRI, Responsible Innovation, Societal Desirability, Responsible Research, Innovation Process, Learning, Research and Innovation governance",
author = "P. Klaassen and M.C.J.A. Rijnen and S. Vermeulen and Frank Kupper and J.E.W. Broerse",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781138209343",
series = "Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology",
publisher = "Routledge",
pages = "77--98",
editor = "Robert Gianni and John Pearson and Bernard Reber",
booktitle = "Responsible Research and Innovation",

}

Klaassen, P, Rijnen, MCJA, Vermeulen, S, Kupper, F & Broerse, JEW 2018, Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility. in R Gianni, J Pearson & B Reber (eds), Responsible Research and Innovation: From Concepts to Practices. Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology, Routledge, London, pp. 77-98.

Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI : On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility. / Klaassen, P.; Rijnen, M.C.J.A.; Vermeulen, S.; Kupper, Frank; Broerse, J.E.W.

Responsible Research and Innovation: From Concepts to Practices. ed. / Robert Gianni; John Pearson; Bernard Reber. London : Routledge, 2018. p. 77-98 (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology).

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI

T2 - On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility

AU - Klaassen, P.

AU - Rijnen, M.C.J.A.

AU - Vermeulen, S.

AU - Kupper, Frank

AU - Broerse, J.E.W.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - This chapter aims to narrow the gap between how Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is conceived of in European Commission policy circles and how it is conceived of in scholarly circles. The policy view of RRI and the scholarly view of RRI each have their strengths and weaknesses and both would be better off if coupled to the other. Large and pertinent differences between Scott's High Modernist projects and pRRI, however, perhaps weigh heavier than do the aforementioned similarities. In the policy literature, people see that a straightforwardly optimistic approach to RRI can be found, which simultaneously is very explicit and universalist about what it means to be responsible—see the definition of RRI. Arguably, most of the discrepancies between aRRI and pRRI above can be explained in terms of two more parameters, along which the two can be differentiated—one somewhat philosophical, and one very down-to-earth.

AB - This chapter aims to narrow the gap between how Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is conceived of in European Commission policy circles and how it is conceived of in scholarly circles. The policy view of RRI and the scholarly view of RRI each have their strengths and weaknesses and both would be better off if coupled to the other. Large and pertinent differences between Scott's High Modernist projects and pRRI, however, perhaps weigh heavier than do the aforementioned similarities. In the policy literature, people see that a straightforwardly optimistic approach to RRI can be found, which simultaneously is very explicit and universalist about what it means to be responsible—see the definition of RRI. Arguably, most of the discrepancies between aRRI and pRRI above can be explained in terms of two more parameters, along which the two can be differentiated—one somewhat philosophical, and one very down-to-earth.

KW - RRI

KW - Responsible Innovation

KW - Societal Desirability

KW - Responsible Research

KW - Innovation Process

KW - Learning

KW - Research and Innovation governance

UR - https://www.routledge.com/Responsible-Research-and-Innovation-From-Concepts-to-Practices/Gianni-Pearson-Reber/p/book/9781138209343

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781138209343

T3 - Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology

SP - 77

EP - 98

BT - Responsible Research and Innovation

A2 - Gianni, Robert

A2 - Pearson, John

A2 - Reber, Bernard

PB - Routledge

CY - London

ER -

Klaassen P, Rijnen MCJA, Vermeulen S, Kupper F, Broerse JEW. Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility. In Gianni R, Pearson J, Reber B, editors, Responsible Research and Innovation: From Concepts to Practices. London: Routledge. 2018. p. 77-98. (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology).