Frequently asked questions

This page provides some advice on how researchers can prepare themselves for when they are asked to demonstrate how they incorporate and respond to societal aspects of their research when applying for research funding.

How to make time and space for RRI?
RRI may be experienced as just one more extra task that takes away time from research. But this should not be the case. Employed rightly, it is an integrated part of research that ensures good science. Whether your investment in RRI will produce tangible benefits for your research depends on the question: what do I want to get out of RRI? It challenges you to specify in advance what you intend to learn from an RRI activity. It might be a good idea to plan for (midway) point where decisions can be taken about emerging questions that affect the research process. Lessons from RRI activities can feed into this process and make your research more responsive to its societal context. 
Do I need an “RRI-person”?
As demands to demonstrate the uptake of RRI in funding applications have increased, natural scientists have been reaching out to social sciences and humanities (SSH) researchers with an invitation to join a funding application. Without any doubt, SSH researchers possess relevant expertise to design research projects that are responsive to their societal context. Note that RRI is as new to the SSH as to the natural sciences. Moreover, finding new research partners and building interdisciplinary teams take time. Importantly, RRI is not the sole responsibility of your SSH partner, it concerns the entire project consortium.
How can I clearly communicate my RRI ambitions? 
In a grant application you might be asked to describe how your proposed research integrates RRI at the very end of the document, yet you should show the implications of RRI also in sections relating to the technical aspects of your research. 
  • Is the objective of an RRI action clear and meaningful in the context of the research? 
  • Are these actions part of the project plan (deliverable and milestones), have an assigned budget and allocated human resources?
  • Be concrete about stakeholder partnerships, e.g. by submitting letters of support.
  • Is the measure feasible and how do you propose to mitigate implementation risks?
  • Demonstrate responsiveness: how will you implement lessons learned from doing RRI within the project consortium?
At which stage of proposal writing is RRI to be planned and implemented?

RRI cuts across the entire research practice and drafting an RRI strategy as part of a research proposal ought to proceed in tandem with the scientific and technical aspects. It is advisable to start early and plan enough time to get help if needed.


Why RRI and not (more) research ethics? 

We live in a technological culture which entails that science and technology cannot be applied without understanding their social context, nor that society can be understood without understanding the roles that science and technology play therein. Technologies carry values outside the reach of those who designed them and the effects of technological designs are dependent on context. Therefore, it might be difficult to assign moral or legal responsibility to specific people for downstream consequences that are beyond their control. Instead, it might be better to assess who takes responsibility for what responsibility at different nodes in the research and innovation system. Scientists are part of this system and consequently have a responsibility for actions under their control, even if we recognize that they do not fully control the research system's outputs and their consequences.

How is RRI related to addressing societal challenges? 
Current research policy incentivizes researchers to address societal challenges (see the Lund declaration; the UN sustainable development goalsthe Digital Life strategy). This is reflected in RRI’s mandate to be responsive to societal needs, challenges and values. Developing research that is responsive to a societal challenge requires solid understanding of the technical, political and economic aspects. 
What does engagement or inclusion in the RRI-framework mean?
It is difficult to imagine what non-scientists might contribute to a research project. However, when specific technologies and scientific practices affect the livelihoods, autonomy, and values of concrete groups of people, the latter tend to develop nuanced and informed views, not only about the risks and benefits of a technology, but also about its innovation process and distributional consequences. It is worth to involve people in order to foster socially robust scientific results. It is a myth that people resist technology because they fail to understand the underpinning science. 
  • Creating arenas for inclusion (e.g. an advisory board involving affected and interested individuals of different backgrounds and functions, or a stakeholder event) and fostering the transparency of the research process are important to build trust in the research enterprise, but it would be a misconception to expect that public engagement should foster acceptance of a particular technology (i.e. make others adopt your values), for the issue isn’t whether somebody is for or against innovation, rather what innovation, brought about in which way and for whose benefit. 
  • Interacting with (present or future) stakeholders of one’s research output can help researchers in developing an imagination for application contexts, learn from plausible future users about their design requirements, and build a more sophisticated understanding of the concrete ways work in the lab can connect to a societal issue.
  • Be aware that attracting the attention and cooperation of civil society organizations, other professionals, and companies is difficult and time consuming because they, too, are busy people with limited resources. If you want their participation, make a concrete proposition about what they stand to gain from such an interaction and what you hope to learn from them. If your value proposition is not credible or concrete, they will politely decline or not respond in the first place.
What does the RRI-framework mean with anticipation? 
RRI stresses the importance of developing an imagination of plausible trajectories (i.e. anticipation) for societal impact as results leave the laboratory to be potentially taken up in innovation processes or come to underpin policy advice. Anticipation is not the same as a prediction (field X will have delivered breakthrough Y in 5 years) nor as a promise (my research will revolutionize clinical practice). Instead, it focuses on possible and plausible scenarios how results might be used, what might go wrong, and reflections on which unexpected events can occur. 
  • Anticipation is an ongoing process that does not end with the submission of the grant application.
  • Anticipation could cover an entire research field (e.g. synthetic biology) in which case the group of participants in the anticipation process will be large and diverse; 
  • More realistically in the context of a research project, anticipation could be implemented in a project consortium meeting (or during a grant writing meeting) in form of a brainstorming on which use contexts and actors the project’s output might plausibly interest or concern within the next few years.
The European Commission has its own RRI framework. How does it differ from the one proposed by the Research Council Norway?
“Responsible Research and Innovation means that societal actors work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes, with the values, needs and expectations of European society.” 

This is how the European Commission defines RRI. The Commission has been implementing RRI within its Horizon2020 programme as a cross-cutting aspect. In addition, the division “Science with and for Society” supports targeted measures around six ‘keys’. 

  1. Public Engagement is about creating opportunities for all societal actors to participate in the definition of research agendas (e.g. to define what a societal challenge); to foster mutual learning; and to ensure that innovation agendas do not run counter to public values. 
  2. Gender equality aims to remedy the underrepresentation of women in research and innovation organisations. It also calls for attending to gender dimensions in research. 
  3. Science education calls for initiatives to create interest among young people to pursue a career in science; to implement RRI into higher education curricula; and to foster general science literacy for informed citizens.
  4. Open Access aims at offering free online access to the results and data of publicly funded research. 
  5. Ethics pertains to traditional research ethics, to the respect of fundamental rights, and to the respect of social values akin to the notion of responsiveness. 
  6. Governance reminds policymakers of their responsibility to foster research policies that take up the preceding RRI keys.

Actions supported under these keys do not differ significantly from the RRI framework endorsed by the Research Council Norway. The substantive overlaps between the two frameworks are most apparent regarding the keys of public engagement and ethics. Gender equality may not be mentioned in the Norwegian RRI framework but is part of the research council’s requirements in funding applications. As a digital initiative, open access is a key topic at the Centre for Digital Life, notably through the support of the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable).

  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  • University of  Bergen
  • University of Oslo
  • SINTEF
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences
  • Oslo University Hospital
  • Universitety of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway