| Title |
Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-018-0029-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niels Mejlgaard, Malene Vinther Christensen, Roger Strand, Ivan Buljan, Mar Carrió, Marta Cayetano i Giralt, Erich Griessler, Alexander Lang, Ana Marušić, Gema Revuelta, Gemma Rodríguez, Núria Saladié, Milena Wuketich |
| Abstract |
Across the European research area and beyond, efforts are being mobilized to align research and innovation processes and products with societal values and needs, and to create mechanisms for inclusive priority setting and knowledge production. A central concern is how to foster a culture of "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) among scientists and engineers. This paper focuses on RRI teaching at higher education institutions. On the basis of interviews and reviews of academic and policy documents, it highlights the generic aspects of teaching aimed at invoking a sense of care and societal obligation, and provides a set of exemplary cases of RRI-related teaching. It argues that the Aristotelian concept of phronesis can capture core properties of the objectives of RRI-related teaching activities. Teaching should nurture the students' capacity in terms of practical wisdom, practical ethics, or administrative ability in order to enable them to act virtuously and responsibly in contexts which are often characterized by uncertainty, contention, and controversy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 | 14 | 30% |
| India | 4 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 9% |
| Austria | 3 | 6% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Greece | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 66% |
| Scientists | 11 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 24% |
| Unknown | 37 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 23 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 5% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 43 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 01 April 2020.
All research outputs
#979,410
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#55
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,638
of 443,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 443,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.