Responsible research and innovation in practice: Driving both the ‘How’ and the ‘What’ to research
Open accessAbstract
There have been ongoing discussions in research communities, including the field of trustworthy autonomous systems (TAS), on how researchers may meaningfully engage with responsible research and innovation (RRI). By critically reflecting on the RRI aspects of an ongoing research project focusing on the efficient capture of richer quantitative human response data (e.g., from consumer surveys), this paper offers a case study on how research development can be ethically driven. The role of RRI in the project is unpicked against the broader considerations of its possible interactions with researchers in a typology we developed: as a research safeguard, research subject, and research driver. Going beyond the more common practice of using RRI simply to safeguard how research should be conducted, it is demonstrated that it can also serve as a positive driving force to explore what should be researched. Experiences and challenges are elaborated within the main stages of research development, potentially applicable to a wider range of future projects in the field.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Responsible Research and Innovation practices are gaining traction across various research disciplines.
“This aligns with Responsible Research and Innovation practices, which are gaining traction across various research disciplines (Chen et al., 2022).”
From Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 10
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Ausloos, J., Heyman, R., Bertels, N., Pierson, J., & Valcke, P. (2018). Designing-by- debate: A blueprint for responsible data-driven research & innovation. Responsible research and innovation actions in science education, gender and ethics: Cases and experiences (pp. 47-63). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-73207-7_8 · DOI
- He, H., Gray, J., Cangelosi, A., Meng, Q., McGinnity, T. M., & Mehnen, J. (2021). The challenges and opportunities of human-centred AI for trustworthy robots and autonomous systems. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2021.3132282 · DOI
- Hesketh, R. (2021). Trusted autonomous systems in healthcare [Report]. 10.18742/ pub01-062. · DOI
- Urquhart, L. D., & Craigon, P. J. (2021). The moral-IT deck: A tool for ethics by design. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(1), 94-126.
- Authors
- Chen, J., Nichele, E., Ellerby, Z., & Wagner, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chen, Jiahong
- Venue
- Journal of Responsible Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-10
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 100042
- ISSN
- 2666-6596 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4289527636
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Responsible Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Lincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- EPSRC (EP/M02315X/1, EP/P011918/1, EP/T022493/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Technology, and Society
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- responsible research and innovation, trustworthy autonomous systems, research ethics, research development, research subjects, consumer survey data, research typology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
