Developing a framework for responsible innovation*

By Jack Stilgoe, R. Owen, P. Macnaghten. 2013

The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.

Subfields: AI Ethics, Fairness & Society, Social Sciences & Humanities

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In AI Ethics, Fairness & Society

In Social Sciences & Humanities

Citations in the corpus

Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models (2021, background): “Beyond publishing research, we believe responsible innovation also requires inclusive dialogue between stakeholders in AI development which includes affected communities and the wider public (Gabriel, 2020b; Mohamed et al., 2020; Murgia, 2021; Stilgoe et al., 2013).”
Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing (2020, methodology): “To design our audit procedure, we suggest complementing formal risk assessment methodologies with ideas from responsible innovation, which stresses four key dimensions: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness [73], as well as system-theoretic concepts that help grapple with increasin”
Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models (2022, background): “multiple perspectives and communities and then acting on these insights [175].”
Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why they Matter and How to Address them (2021, background): “The responsible innovation approach invites stakeholders to be responsive to one another and to the relevant values in the process of technological development (Stilgoe et al., 2013).”
Exploring the normative turn in regional innovation policy: responsibility and the quest for public value (2019, unknown): “…of shaping innovation pathways in order to contribute to specific societal goals, through its concern with promoting institutional responsiveness (Stilgoe et al., 2013); ‘modulating’ innovation at the ‘mid-stream’ by shaping decision-making at the level of scientific and technological…”
Micro- and Macro-Dynamics of Open Innovation with a Quadruple-Helix Model (2019, background): “, responsiveness to new knowledge and changes) are identified as a conceptual framework of responsible innovation [34].”
New directions for RIS studies and policies in the face of grand societal challenges (2021, background): “The literature on responsible research and innovation (RRI) incorporates norms and values in the innovation process and moves societally desirable innovation outcomes centre stage (Owen et al., 2012; Stilgoe et al., 2013; Von Schomberg, 2013).”
Aligning artificial intelligence with climate change mitigation (2022, unknown): “Such climate-cognizant technology assessment should build on and complement frameworks for responsible innovation 103,104 and responsible AI 17–19 .”
Perceptions of the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: What’s In, What’s Out, and What Consequences are Anticipated? (2020, background): “The roots of such concerns originate in Science and Technology Studies scholarship which is interested in the pace, direction, and uneven impacts of social and technical change, as well as who have the power to decide (Jasanoff 2005; Stilgoe et al. 2013).”
Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? (2020, unknown): “There are four key components (Stilgoe et al., 2013) and we outline them with regards to their role in creating responsible transitions: inclusion, anticipation, reflexivity and responsiveness.”
Climate change and COP26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action (2022, background): “…obligation to actively implement sustainability transitions and responsible systems design (Monson, 2021),IS research (Pan & Zhang, 2020) and innovation (Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013) in the interest of sustainable futures (Hadorn, Bradley, Pohl, Rist, & Wiesmann, 2006; Hess & Ostrom, 2007).”
Digital transformation of agriculture and rural areas: A socio-cyber-physical system framework to support responsibilisation (2021, methodology): “Stilgoe et al. (2013) capture the RRI approach in four main principles: anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness and reflexivity.”
Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems (2018, background): “Figure 2 references underpinning frameworks for responsible innovation including the 2014 Rome Declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation [22], the EPSRC Anticipate, Reflect, Engage and Act (AREA) framework [19,23] and the recently established Foundation for Responsible Robotics [24].”
Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research (2018, background): “This requires acknowledging the normative role of the researcher, critically questioning and reflecting on the values underlying choices early on in research [98], being transparent about these, and taking responsibility to consider how their research will contribute to addressing the unprecedented ”