Literature DB >> 33599880

Contextualizing Security Innovation: Responsible Research and Innovation at the Smart Border?

Nina Klimburg-Witjes1, Frederik C Huettenrauch2.   

Abstract

Current European innovation and security policies are increasingly channeled into efforts to address the assumed challenges that threaten European societies. A field in which this has become particularly salient is digitized EU border management. Here, the framework of responsible research and innovation (RRI) has recently been used to point to the alleged sensitivity of political actors towards the contingent dimensions of emerging security technologies. RRI, in general, is concerned with societal needs and the engagement and inclusion of various stakeholder groups in the research and innovation processes, aiming to anticipate undesired consequences of and identifying socially acceptable alternatives for emerging technologies. However, RRI has also been criticized as an industry-driven attempt to gain societal legitimacy for new technologies. In this article, we argue that while RRI evokes a space where different actors enter co-creative dialogues, it lays bare the specific challenges of governing security innovation in socially responsible ways. Empirically, we draw on the case study of BODEGA, the first EU funded research project to apply the RRI framework to the field of border security. We show how stakeholders involved in the project represent their work in relation to RRI and the resulting benefits and challenges they face. The paper argues that applying the framework to the field of (border) security lays bare its limitations, namely that RRI itself embodies a political agenda, conceals alternative experiences by those on whom security is enacted upon and that its key propositions of openness and transparency are hardly met in practice due to confidentiality agreements. Our hope is to contribute to work on RRI and emerging debates about how the concept can (or cannot) be contextualized for the field of security-a field that might be more in need than any other to consider the ethical dimension of its activities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Innovation; Responsible research and innovation (RRI); Science and technology studies (STS); Security; Smart borders

Year:  2021        PMID: 33599880      PMCID: PMC7892741          DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00292-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  13 in total

1.  Keep it complex.

Authors:  Andy Stirling
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs.

Authors:  B Wynne
Journal:  Sci Cult (Lond)       Date:  2001-12

3.  Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces.

Authors:  Fern Wickson; Ellen-Marie Forsberg
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the 'MIT model' in three political cultures.

Authors:  Sebastian Pfotenhauer; Sheila Jasanoff
Journal:  Soc Stud Sci       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.885

5.  Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Sage 224 £19.99 0761973532 0761973532 [Formula: see text].

Authors: 
Journal:  Nurse Res       Date:  2006-07-01

6.  The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: the case of 'public engagement in science'.

Authors:  Bernadette Bensaude Vincent
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2014-02-03

Review 7.  Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Mirjam Burget; Emanuele Bardone; Margus Pedaste
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation.

Authors:  Barbara E Ribeiro; Robert D J Smith; Kate Millar
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.525

9.  The everyday lives of energy transitions: Contested sociotechnical imaginaries in the American West.

Authors:  Jessica M Smith; Abraham Sd Tidwell
Journal:  Soc Stud Sci       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.885

10.  What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab [corrected]: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory.

Authors:  Daan Schuurbiers
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 3.525

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.