Search

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. Science-policy organisations are expected to be reflexive of their political influence on research and society. In this long-standing discourse on institutional reflexivity, formal organisations have largely been considered as a whole, and from a structural, or systemic perspective, whereas much less is known about everyday organisational practices; how individual organisational members reflect on and act upon their own as well as their organisation’s limits of knowledge and pre-commitments, if at all. We address this gap through an analysis of qualitative interviews with one national funding institution’s staff overseeing funding for research into information and communication technologies (ICT). We develop a bridging concept between individual and institutional reflexivity, which we call ‘collaborative reflexivity’. Through collaborative reflexive processes, individual employees contribute to the entire organisation’s institutional reflexivity. Our findings help to better understand ‘responsible’ behaviour in funding processes, as part of the growing international movement of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).

Purpose The purpose of the study detailed here was to engage with Directors of Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) during the first year of their new Centres to form a snapshot view of the nature and type of training that was being incorporated and how this might affect the wider institution – in this case the university. Using an organisational learning lens, this paper empirically examines the work-in-progress of the responsible innovation (RI) training in CDTs to assess how new RI understandings are being created, retained and transferred within the CDTs, questioning whether this process represents a programme of “institutionalisation”. Design/methodology/approach During the past decade, RI has become increasingly embedded within the EU and UK research context, appearing with greater frequency in funding calls and policy spaces. As part of this embedding, in its 2018 funding call for CDTs, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) required RI training to be included in the programme for all doctoral students. Findings The paper concludes that, at present, institutionalisation is highly variegated, with the greater organisational change required to truly embed RI mindsets. Originality/value The paper provides original, empirical research evidence of RI institutionalisation in UK CDTs, and, using a “learning organisation” lens, examines areas of value to both RI and learning organisation theory.

Classical computing, which has transformed the world in unprecedented ways, has not always been deployed in ways that prioritise ethical values such as fairness, justice, and equity. The Western-focused, Silicon-Valley-centric 21st-century-computing model creates digital ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. Quantum computers promise to be exponentially more powerful than classical computers for some classically hard problems, potentially transforming application areas such as chemistry, drug discovery, and machine learning. However, if access and control over quantum computing is not shared equitably, then this may serve to amplify existing inequalities and create even deeper divides. Here we consider some of the possible implications for responsible quantum computing, looking ahead to ways in which the rollout of quantum computing could centre ethical principles such as fairness and equity, in order to prevent the mistakes of the ‘classical-only’ past. The issues raised in this paper will be of interest to those engaged in quantum computing research and to those concerned with the societal implications of this major new technology.

In this chapter we extend the breadth of the assessment of whether or why Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is carried out to include the concepts of how and how much RRI should be undertaken. We propound the concept of RRI intensity level (RIL) as a method of selecting what type and how much RRI activity is feasible, appropriate and effective. We propose an approach to defining the RIL based upon assessments of both the anticipated technology readiness level and the innovation potential of the research to determine the choice and scale of RRI activities undertaken.

Data-driven digital technologies are often presented in policy agendas as contributing to the goal of sustainable development by providing information to reduce energy consumption and offering a green alternative to industries and behaviour with a higher environmental footprint. However, it is widely acknowledged in the context of environmental research that Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in general, and data centres and cloud computing in particular, have a heavy footprint featuring a high consumption of non-renewable energy, waste production and carbon dioxide emissions. In spite of this, environmental issues have so far figured only sparsely in both policy initiatives supporting data-driven digital initiatives, as well as in recent ethics and governance scholarly literature discussing the data-driven revolution. We convened an interdisciplinary workshop to map out the current conceptual landscape on the environmental impacts of data-driven technologies, and to explore how ethical thinking can contribute to it. In this commentary, we discuss the main themes that emerged and our call for action.

Although institutional repositories (IRs) have become widespread, they have been consistently under-populated and under-utilised. Unless their content approaches a significant percentage of a university's output, IRs can neither form a useful branch of open access to scholarly communications, nor provide a representative view of an institution's research output. The UK's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF) requires all work submitted to it to have been deposited in a repository, which for most authors would mean an IR. This research sought to understand the impact of the REF mandate upon researchers and repository staff, and upon their relationship with the university, through a series of semi-structured interviews with researchers and repository managers. The research discovered that despite steep rises in repository submissions, little resource has been made available to accommodate hugely-increased workloads, nor have interfaces improved. Researchers and repository-managers alike struggle with a tedious and difficult administrative task that may require many iterations to complete. The research concludes that the mandate, and the pressure it places on the relationship between the researcher and the institution, is highlighting unspoken tensions in this relationship. Although the mandate is increasing the amount of open access material in the UK, as well as providing universities with evidence for the REF, it is placing significant strain on the tacit contract between a researcher and their employer. Opportunities to align the participants, to create alternative metrics from newly available data, and to develop new solutions, are being missed. This has implications for the way other mandates focusing on deposit in IRs are managed, both within and beyond the UK.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link. An increase in the number of companies that publish corporate social responsibility (CSR) statements, and a rise in their ‘sustainability’ research, reflects a growing acceptance that broad ethical considerations are key for any type of company. However, little is known about how companies consider moral objectives for their research and development activities, or the basis upon which these activities are chosen. This research involves qualitative investigation into Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry, comprising 30 in-depth, pan-European interviews with key personnel in the industry, and focus groups with employees at 14 different companies. Through investigation of the ‘responsible’ activities these companies currently undertake, we shed light on the types of moral goals they set and their underlying ethical standpoints. By reviewing both the responsible innovation and sustainability discourses, and presenting phenomenological evidence, we demonstrate that companies have adopted some aspects of RRI, even though it might not be recognised as such. Our findings indicate that these innovators recognise some of the ethical and societal concerns associated with their activities but their approach is often piecemeal; primary focus is upon the most immediate issues and on legal compliance, to the detriment of broader societal issues and wider challenges. We recommend explicit mechanisms that draw upon established ethical thought and practical academic work to improve companies’ abilities to carry out their sustainability activities, and incorporate them into a responsible business strategy. We conclude with recommendations for innovators, corporate research and development, and policy.

The file attached to this record is the author's version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.