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

In Robert Gianni, John Pearson & Bernard Reber (eds.), Responsible Research and Innovation. Routledge. pp. 22 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Author Profiles

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-08-22

Downloads
175 (#88,670)

6 months
76 (#73,514)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?