| Title |
Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9978-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clare Shelley-Egan, Diana M. Bowman, Douglas K. R. Robinson |
| Abstract |
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has come to represent a change in the relationship between science, technology and society. With origins in the democratisation of science, and the inclusion of ethical and societal aspects in research and development activities, RRI offers a means of integrating society and the research and innovation communities. In this article, we frame RRI activities through the lens of layers of science and technology governance as a means of characterising the context in which the RRI activity is positioned and the goal of those actors promoting the RRI activities in shaping overall governance patterns. RRI began to emerge during a time of considerable deliberation about the societal and governance challenges around nanotechnology, in which stakeholders were looking for new ways of integrating notions of responsibility in nanotechnology research and development. For this reason, this article focuses on nanotechnology as the site for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 25% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,148,683
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#467
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,831
of 327,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#20
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.