Cakes, Cards and Doing the Right Thing: Explaining Responsible Research and Innovation in the context of the FEVER project
Christopher R. Jones¹, Mona Chitnis², Gareth Giles³, Aiysha Qureshi³
¹University of Portsmouth, ²University of Surrey, ³University of Southampton
FEVEthicalResearch Project
FEVER will see the innovation and deployment of a state-of-the-art fully off-grid EV charging hub concept. This hub will be capable of charging EVs with electricity sourced from renewable energy technologies, like solar and wind, and stored (until required) in off-vehicle energy stores (OVES). In principle, this all sounds like a good idea and one that will have few drawbacks for end-users and the communities that end up hosting these hubs. EV drivers will jump (well drive!) at the chance of charging at these hubs and will travel further (perhaps bypassing other charging options) and will be happy to pay more for the privilege of charging from a fully renewable source. Similarly, communities will petition for one of the hubs to be constructed locally and will welcome any changes to the look and feel of their community that this implies and will not seek to question any potential risks that might be associated with its construction.
Does this sound too good to be true?
Our place is not to lessen the brilliance of technological research and innovation, nor to specifically undermine the efforts of FEVER project (which we are proud to be a part of) but rather to – with tongue in cheek – flag-up some of the key social and economic issues which might govern the eventual success of the FEVER charging hub. To showcase the importance of both considering and responding to the non-technical (or contextual) factors that accompany the launch of a new technology; a key one of which is assessing the social acceptance of the FEVER technology – which might be a more challenging task than it first appears.
Social acceptance is a complex thing
When people use the term ‘social acceptance’ in relation to technological innovation, this is often done is a broad-brush way that does not recognise the complexity and nuance that underlies the term. While it is tempting to think of ‘society’ as a singular compliant mass of similarly minded people, who can all be nudged and moulded towards the uptake and use of a given technology in a common way, this – quite obviously – is not the case. This conceptualisation underestimates the diversity of actors and levels at which discussions of technological R&D occur.
Much like a deck of cards, there are different groups (suits) in society, with different individuals comprising each group (number and picture cards). Depending on the situation/context (game) there exist different power relations between both the groups (spades trump hearts) and individuals within them (aces high vs. low). There can also, of course, be more than four groups in play (multiple decks). Much like a game of cards, the chances of winning are improved by knowing your hand and the hands of the others in play - as well as the cards that remain in the deck, but could be called into play.
This gambling metaphor is not designed to flippantly distil matters of social acceptance to that of a card game, but to highlight that social acceptance is more than just a simple case of handling a boxed-up, unused and regimented set of cards – it is a whole lot more complicated. Indeed, it is for this reason we also take issue with the term ‘general public’ in that – while it is focused on a key subset of actors (‘the public’) – it awkwardly and incorrectly connotes that the public are all very ‘samey’ and liable to think and act in the same ways as each-other. This is, of course, rarely (if ever) the case: some people love poker, others like bridge, others don’t do card games. It is for this reason, we prefer the use of term ‘publics’ as this, at least, goes some way to recognising the diversity that exists out there.
So, what should we mean by social acceptance? This question has been usefully addressed by many social scientists in recent years, and while no definition is perfect, we favour the following one by Paul Upham and colleagues (2015):
“a favourable or positive response (including attitude, intention, behavior and – where appropriate - use) relating to a proposed or in situ technology or 18 socio-technical system, by members of a given social unit (country or region, community or town and household, organization”.
The reason for this is not only that the definition is grounded in a cross-disciplinary appraisal of work in the area, but its convoluted and ‘clunky’ nature nicely flags up the complexity of the ‘card game’; showcasing the different actor groups and levels at which we should be considering the topic. We also favour, though, differentiating between the term ‘acceptability’ and ‘acceptance’ in line with Nicole Huijts and colleagues (2012) as one can envisage situations where a technology is deemed to be ‘unfavourable’ (not acceptable) but is in some way still – begrudgingly ‘tolerated’ (accepted), or vice versa. In fact, Huijts and colleagues (2012) nicely differentiate between different forms of ‘acceptance’ from positions of active support or opposition, to those of passive tolerance or convivence.
Underlying Upham and colleagues’ (2015) definition of social acceptance sits a useful 3 x 3 matrix. Granted, society is still more complicated than a cake with 9 slices, but at least this conceptualisation does carve up the key actors and levels of relevance to ‘social acceptance’ into a relatively manageable and coherent number of sub-groups (slices).
Put simply, they identify three main actor groups: policy actors (e.g., politicians, policy makers); technology/project stakeholders (e.g., NGOs, business/industry); and publics (e.g., home owners, voting citizens). These are then set across three levels: socio-political (macro); community (meso); and market (micro). This matrix helps makes clear that there can be differences in how different groups of actors might think about the same technology/policy option at different levels, and pushes for the recognition and consideration of this fact in relation to acceptance issues. This matrix can account for the fact that a given public considering a technology (e.g., an innovative EV charging concept!) in a general, hypothetical sense (macro level) can differ when the same technology is earmarked in a realistic sense for their own community (meso level) or home (micro level).
Also, it can account for differences in the opinions held about a technology or policy among those who have a specific financial, intellectual or other stake in it (stakeholders) and those who do not, but might be affected by the decisions of those who do (e.g., publics).
A turning tide in R&D decision-making approaches
By cutting through the cake of social acceptance and revealing its many layers, we are also reminded of the power relations that pervade discussions around technological R&I. Traditionally in the UK (as in some other countries) there as been a very top down “we know what is good for you” decision making culture, which has tended to overlook and/or override the opinions of those who will be directly affected by those decisions: “We think that facility X should be placed in location Y and community Z should be grateful for the jobs that this will create”.
However, the tide is beginning to turn on such top-down, exclusive decision-making, as decision-makers recognise, particularly with regards to the opinions and actions of affected publics, that there is value in involving, listening to and even incorporating their perspectives. Granted, at this juncture we could get into fairly long-winded discussions of the intent behind such involvement. For example, is there a genuine recognition of the value that the incorporation of lay-perspectives can have, particularly for those technologies whose commercial success is predicated on their uptake and use, or is there more perfunctory dialogue on the grounds that such dialogue is required rather than desired?
Instead, though, we will assume – on the grounds that there is plenty of evidence for it – that a more participatory and inclusive engagement of publics in the innovation cycle of new technologies - particularly those that are ‘public facing’ (or displacing) is a good thing. Indeed, this concept of engaging publics (and other key social actors) in decision-making pertaining to technological R&D is something that underpins a growing movement towards responsible research and innovation (RRI); an ethical approach to research and innovation predicated on ‘doing the right thing’, and one that will provide a firm footing to the activities of the FEVER project.
How do you go about ‘doing the right thing’?
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is defined as “A way of thinking and doing that guides research and development in ethically appropriate ways” (Wilford et al., 2016, p.1). RRI frameworks foster the anticipation and assessment of the potential implications and societal expectations of new innovations, so as to ensure they are developed with an appreciation of their impacts on society, both in the short and longer-term (H2020, 2019). Put simply, RRI is about doing “science with and for society” (Wilford et al., 2016, p.1); advancing (potentially) profitable science and technology (i.e., cutting edge innovation), but with a firm regard for the direct and knock-on implications that its development and deployment might have for society (i.e., a responsible research approach).
The concept of RRI is rapidly gaining momentum. This is particularly evident in Europe, where it has been spearheaded by the European Commission via the Horizon 2020 (and related) framework initiative; however, the importance of RRI is also growing among the UK funding agencies, including the EPSRC who fund the FEVER project. RRI is of relevance to all stakeholders within the innovation cycle of new science and technologies, including the researchers and research organisations who invest in, develop, demonstration and deploy the innovation; the governmental, professional and regulatory bodies who provide oversight, guidance and investment in the innovation; and the recipients of the innovation (e.g., the individuals and communities) who must hold the other stakeholders accountable.
RRI is founded upon four or five (depending on whose counting) pillars: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness, and transparency. As the term suggests, anticipation is about forecasting; looking for any potential opportunities and risks that might come from innovation. Inclusion is about ensuring that different perspectives are courted and listened to, particularly from under-represented groups. Reflexivity is about regularly questioning the innovation approach, to gauge how it sits with and reflects societal norms, values and practices. Responsiveness is about ensuring that one makes appropriate changes to the approach being pursued based upon experience or feedback on how things are going, including responding to any unforeseen or unintended consequences. Finally, transparency is about being as open as possible about the innovation process, knowledge generated and the direct and indirect consequences of its introduction to society.
According to Wilford and colleagues (2016) who did a review of nearly 200 European funded projects (supplemented with interviews and workshops) as part of the GREAT project, the 5 pillars of RRI (or dimensions) tend to play out in 7 ways, summarised as:
1. Doing the right thing
2. Good and reflexive governance
3. Creative Learning (science education)
4. Choosing together (engagement and involvement)
5. Unlocking the full potential of teams (gender equality)
6. Sharing results of research and innovation (open access)
7. Taking care of the planet (environmental stewardship)
Doing the right thing is at the core of RRI, it links to many of the other dimensions and takes many forms. In essence, though, it is about ensuring the research and innovation effort is ethical. That the research is inclusive and open, that harm is minimised, that teams comprise those with the necessary skills and knowledge and that outcomes are transparently and honestly reported.
Good and reflexive governance practices are about ensuring openness and transparency around decision-making and any impacts or outcomes arising from the innovation process. It recognises that R&I stakeholders can have vested interests that might affect decision-making, but that they are open about these where they exist. This dimension also relates to the level of engagement and involvement of others (including publics) within the R&I process (with a steer towards more inclusive, co-construction approaches), and the need to be a reflexive practitioner(s), being self-conscious and self-critical of one’s approach and adapting where necessary.
The dimension of creative learning stems from a recognition of the value of having a scientifically and technologically literate society. Creating outreach opportunities from R&I processes can help to stimulate a knowledgeable, skilled and competent citizenry (including future employees) and has the benefit of allowing for greater inclusivity of others by empowering them to contribute.
Which leads us to the concept of ‘choosing together’, which is predicated on the R&I effort seeking to meaningfully involve social actors (not just paying lip service) in the decision-making process. It is recognised, however, that the scale and type of engagement will be contextually dependent. For instance, there should be fuller and more widespread involvement where societal or environmental impacts could be large. Of course, it is not always possible (or desirable) to involve social actors in all decisions, for example, the subject knowledge required to meaningfully contribute to complex or niche matters might exclude the inclusion of some. Ultimately, according to Wilford et al. (2016), it is about striking “a defensible balance” between the commercial objectives and societal needs.
In their review of RRI, Wilford and colleagues (2016) view the concept of ‘unlocking the full potential of teams’ through a relatively narrow lens of gender inequality. The gist of the argument is that, within technological R&I, the opinions and actions of women have been underrepresented and that RRI should seek to actively address this gender imbalance (where it is problematic). We do not dispute this; however, we would expand the notion to other under-represented groups also.
Sharing the result of research and innovation, which maximises access to any knowledge generated is another cornerstone of RRI. The idea is that through providing open access to the findings of research will facilitate the uptake and propagation of ideas, while also holding those responsible for knowledge generation to the highest professional standards. As with the concept of choosing together, Wilford et al.’s review recognises that it will not always be possible to be fully open due to commercial sensitivities. Again, the resolution here is one of striking balance, such that open access to knowledge is maximised where possible.
The final dimension from the review, which was added to the dimensions typically advocated by the European Commission, is that of taking care of the planet. This recognises the necessity for humanity to develop in environmentally sustainable ways, in order to tackle the incumbent challenges of our time, including biodiversity loss and the climate crisis. The message is clear, innovation should aim to mitigate negative environmental impacts.
RRI according to the FEVER project
The FEVER project will employ an RRI. We are the first to admit that this is new territory for the team and that we might get things wrong along the way, but we will endeavour to work hard and reflexively to ‘do the right thing’ and to honour the core pillars and dimensions of the approach.
We do this with recognition of the benefits that could stem from meaningfully adopting the approach. We understand that and RRI approach could aid the team in better anticipating, identifying and responding to the risks and opportunities into which our EV charging concept will be introduced. We note that there is value to adopting an open, inclusive and participatory approach to research in terms of enhancing the credibility of the consortium and affording us greater access to insights and opinions from prospective end-users and host communities. We are also cognisant of the potential benefits stemming from our outreach efforts, in terms of educating and inspiring prospective end-users, host communities and the wider populace.
Environmental sustainability is at the heart of the project concept, being that it will help to provide essential green infrastructure to support growth in low-carbon mobility; however, we shall work hard to mitigate any local environmental consequences associated with the development of the demonstrators and will evaluate the environmental footprints of the supply chains underpinning the manufacture and delivery of project components.
Finally, while principally an ethnically white, male-dominated team of engineers, the FEVER consortium does have meaningful representation from women and those from non-white, non-engineering backgrounds. The team will work hard to ensure that all voices are heard and that recruitment into the team, and to the planned research activities, is inclusive, and ensures that the perspectives of a diversity of social actors are incorporated. At the end of the day, playing a card game with just one suit from one deck, or even just one card from that deck, is neither interesting nor fun!
References
Huijts, N. M., Molin, E. J., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 16(1), 525-531.
Upham, P., Oltra, C., & Boso, À. (2015). Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 100-112.
Wilford, S., Fisk, M., & Stahl, B. (2016). ‘Guidelines for Responsible Research and Innovation’, Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Leicester. Available at: http://www.great-project.eu/Deliverables10 [Last accessed: 03/11/2022]