for conference, you see my screen, yeah, yes, but you're just sharing the last the last slide out. Okay, just put in the first one. Okay, so this is it. Sorry. Yes. So some general information for those of you who haven't joined yesterday, let's say those. So I would like to let you know that the event is being reported. I hope nobody has any objections on that. Presentations reported will be shared on the event page for the participants afterwards.  And if you want to ask a question or any make a comment and so on, either raise your hand. So I can give you the floor or use the chat for comments and questions to the speakers or to interact with other participants. There are some hashtags here for social media interaction. And very briefly to introduce the agenda, first we have the keynote speech by Dr. Ellen Marie Forsberg from Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research. And then we break to two rooms, two parallel sessions. You have to choose to which session you go. One is the first one is titled Paving a Way to Sustainable Change via Quadruple Helix Responsible Research Innovation Embedment Methodology. And the second session is Sustainable Change in Territorial Regional Context and Trouting Responsible Research Innovation Organizations. Now you can see my name in both of them. This is clearly a mistake. I cannot be in two places at the same time. So the first one is going to be moderated by my colleague Dr. Adrian Solomon. And I'm going to moderate and present in the second parallel session. So I have a vested interest of you joining the second one. Okay, join the first one as well. And then we have an interactive session being moderated by my colleague Dr. Eleftherakis who is going to initiate a discussion about how to help your organization trigger institutional change to foster responsible research innovation and open science. I would also like to remind you that you have to pick in each one of these sessions and sort of register in order to follow each one of them. So now I'm going to give the floor to Dr. Erin Marie Fosberg for her keynote speech on Responsible Research Innovation and Institutional Change. Dr. Fosberg is a Magic Director and Senior Researcher at the Rovingian Institute for Sustainability Research and she has built up the also research group on Responsible Research Innovation and participate in several RRI projects including the RRI practice project and has a lot of publications on Responsible Research Innovation including a book that she co-authored lately on Implementing Responsible Research Innovation Organizational and National Conditions. So I'm going to stop sharing my screen and Dr. Fosberg, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Let me see if I can share my screen. Yes, you can see it. Good. Yeah, thank you very much. I'm very honored to be asked to give this speech and I'm very happy to be with the RRI community again. I wish it wasn't wrong but I'm looking forward to very fruitful discussions also online. So thanks for a good introduction. Let me see if I can be up. I'm mainly based on experiences from the RRI practice project. I will be talking about three main and interrelated topics. So changes in research institutions as organizations and changes in academia or research as a societal institution. I will talk about promotional RRI as an overall philosophy of policy and promotion of the RRI keys and deep institutional change versus incremental changes. So I won't be saying much about the project but just enough so you kind of understand what kind of project it was. It was a three-year SWAF project that ended last year. We had partners from 12 countries around the world. The aim was to analyze RRI-related discourses and pathways to implementation including barriers and drivers in in fact 23 research conducting and funding organizations in order to identify, understand, disseminate and promote RRI implementation best practices and you recognize this. We were to make RRI action plans like several projects have been doing. So you know more or less I think we were trying to achieve in the project. RRI practice had a explicitly organizational focus so we focused on research conducting and research funding organizations but we also saw them in a national context. So we analyzed these organizations and tried to work with them as embedded in the context. Today I will be talking also about another dimension that we didn't address very much in the RRI practice project namely research or academia as an institution across countries that also these organizations relate to. So we used neo-institutional theory in the project especially we built our analytic approach on Scott's the book you can see here on the screen and I will also be using resources from neo-institutional theory today because I think it's a very rich field of a scholarly field that gives a lot of very interesting and resources for understanding institutional change. So I can recommend going deeper into that if you are not so familiar with this literature. Institutional change is the the topic this morning and institutional change was one of the goals for the SWFs program at least in their last period from 2018 to 2020. They built it around five strategic orientations where the first one was accelerating and catalyzing processes of institutional change. So they wrote that this part will contribute to implementing the RRI keys through institutional governance changes in funding and performing organizations and they say in an integrated way and it's not exactly clear what they mean and also this key performance indicator of SWFs was related to the number of institutional change actions promoted by the program and again they say these can take the form of a package of changes across all or several of the five RRI keys. So I'll come back to that. For those of you who have been reporting to the European Commission you have seen this Excel sheet where we're supposed to we were supposed to report on the number and character of institutional changes that were the result of our project. So in RRI practice we reported 84 institutional changes and the way to report it was to indicate where the institutional change took place and whether it was related to ethics or open access or science education or what they call the full RRI package and then you would explain how some sort of new initiative was the result of either directly or indirectly of the project. So SWFs has been evaluated and very nice Q reports actually were written and they write that 238 individual institutional change actions were implemented and probably more because not all of the projects have finished reporting yet. So SWFs surpassed its target of 100 institutional changes in the beneficiaries so they were quite happy with the outcomes and that obviously didn't it didn't help because there won't be any more SWFs even though it was successful on its own key performance indicator. I will also just read a section from that report because it says something about how the European Commission thinks about institutional changes. So they write the project aiming to open up research funding and performing organizations use a variety of approaches and methods identify best practice analyzing obstacles and they say that one of the main outcomes of the portfolio of projects is strongly evidence-based inventory of impactful practices for the uptake of RRI. They show that different changes require varying amounts of effort some are easier to implement than others and that all manner of changes can be impactful depending on the context. So and they say finally the changes introduced groups and significant steps forward towards RRI for the organizations concerned but I think we have to ask the question what is an institutional change and what is an institution especially when you go back and you look at you know the 84 institutional changes we reported you can always ask the question to what extent that was an institutional change and in in in what sense. The problem with institution and institutional change as a concept is that it has also in normal language two meanings and I think often it's not clear which one we mean when we discuss. So just if you just google institution you will get these two meanings and one is that it's an organization so a university is a higher education institution the other is that it's an established law or practice like here the institutional marriage but you can also say that there's an institution of academia or maybe an institutional research it's a question of course but that means that there's kind of an overall practice vital practice with certain norms values conventions and when we are talking about institutional change we are sometimes talking about one and sometimes talking about the other do we want to change the organizations the conventions or both and I think that we've seen now from what I've read from SWAF that it's about organizations the institutional changes are in changes in organizations the organizational level and the overall societal institution level are of course related. An organization like a university needs the legitimacy as an organization in this overall institution and this legitimacy can be gained through different kinds of factors that are embraced in the overall societal institution so for instance it will its status will depend on things like university rankings noble price winners scores on indicators etc and I just took an example from Uppsala University which frames itself on its web pages very much in these terms so it says it's number 124 on the global world ranking its research output is on some indicator very high and it says in the text that eight scientists at the university have been awarded the noble price so this is something that matters to universities so when we want to change organizations like Uppsala University we didn't work with that but you know that could be an example how much can we actually try to change these organizations in the direction of RI before it starts to kind of challenge these academic conventions in the overall institution and reduce the organization's academic legitimacy unless we also reduce or unless we also change the societal institution as an overall institution so there is this attention here and I think that if we want to make institutional changes in the overall institution of academia we can work with organizations we can work with individual universities as well to have that kind of impact on the overall institution we can work for if we get Cambridge and Oxford change or other very prestigious universities that will have an impact on the overall institution we also need to work with the organizations that represent the the societal institution like the university the European University Alliance League of European Research Intensive Universities and other organizations like science Europe LA etc I think in addition if we want to change the institution the overall societal institution I think we need a critical discussion of like global university rankings the global role of Ivy League universities the published the international publishing houses and their impact on how all actors in the institution are being assessed intellectual property rights organizations and their influence on the way research is being assessed because when we work with you know employing for instance this is just an example a public engagement officer at the university University of Bristol how can that change academia as such to be more responsible and it might actually do it because we might see that there are some learning processes over time experiences are being shared it reaches the these overall institutional organizations but not necessarily because there are many other incentives that work against it and and that was what we focused on in our recommendations from the RRI practice project the two first are to change the incentive regime to promote an organizational culture for RRI and broaden the concept of excellence and impact because these two are norms from the overall institution that kind of puts a lid on on RRI and the capacity organizations have to engage in public engagement and engage in more anticipatory and inclusive activities so we have been discussing the RRI keys for years and I think we have to return to that discussion again because what is an what is an institutional change and what impact does it have and many of the institutional changes we've seen are on the keys so is that a distraction or is it a ladder on a more kind of on the way to a more fully responsible research and innovation system in line with the RRI philosophy and and I I quite like the definition that is given by the european commission that RRI is an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation so is is is are the keys a way to get there and I think we see you know also from the swath's evaluation report they present the institutional changes broken down on the keys so a lot of them are establishing a new gender equality policy for instance or an office or establishing a system for open access so it's not so it's not such an integrated package that it was kind of formulated in the beginning but you could hope that maybe even institutional changes on the level of the RRI keys it would be a means to kind of open up the system so in RRI practice we did an analytic job on analyzing how what what kind of practices were mentioned so we analyzed the 12 national reports and looked at what was mentioned as good practices either existing or in as part of the RRI plans and we saw across the keys that what is most frequently noted is individual practices this is pilot projects like experiments like okay we had this project in the neighborhood in our in-culture where we engaged citizens in discussions about cities urban urban research for instance things like that and then the next most frequently mentioned was setting up an organizational unit like a public engagement office or a gender office making organizational policies on RRI public engagement starting doing research on these kinds of topics checklist and toolkits so you see the list so maybe you could hope that even if they are on very specific parts of the RRI construct it starts gearing the organizations towards other values or other aspects of research than simply excellence or or production of publication points so maybe it's a way for increased responsiveness to societal values and concerns and you have to remember that we work with organizations in India China and Brazil and their starting point was it varied very much so for some organizations that was a big breakthrough maybe on the steps towards more responsive research and innovation and maybe these incremental changes are what we can expect so that will be my last reflections and going back to neo-institutional theory we could say that we could look at what is noted in a very simplistic way from my side as the forces of institutional change and see that these forces are perhaps not very strong in what at least we found in RRI practice project so in the theory they talk about institutional and technical forces in the environment and you can note for instance changes in national conditions for university funding would be such a force so if the ministry so higher education start funding universities but based on different criteria that would definitely be a force for change in the universities another force for change in the universities would be or in academia such would be exogenous shocks like a dramatic loss of trust in science maybe due to big misconduct scandals or reaction public reactions to some sort of world biotechnology artificial intelligence these kinds of things or that there is an increasingly important competing logic for instance an alternative to the excellence logic if that comes up as a very kind of strong force that would change the universities so we don't really see those these three first forces are exogenous and we don't really see that they are perceived as being so strong that they are motivating a deep institutional change there is an increasing important competing logic related to sustainability and societal challenge driven research that is changing academia but to what extent that's a radical change you you I think it's that's a discussion and then you see there's the fourth one is endogenous change so that's what you can do from within institutional entrepreneurship either that one organization takes a lead in changing the whole overall institution or a person in an organization can change that organization and I think that in swaths they're basically trying to influence the endogenous factors so they are trying they're using us to be change agents and champions for our eye and influencing the organizations we work with it's much harder for the swaths program to influence these three first ones so I think yeah so it's kind of natural that they they chose to work to put their efforts into the endogenous factor I think that lasting institutional change would require both endogenous and exogenous factors and I think maybe we see it at least partly in open access not open science but open access this has become an area of research policy where there are both external expectations from funders and also there have been very important change agents but for a deep institutional change of academia we don't at least not from our experience we don't see that combination at least not yet we see and that was a very widespread and acknowledgement of the need for incremental improvements so almost everyone we spoke with would agree that you could be better on gender on on sharing of research on science communication so there is a common understanding of the need for incremental improvements but not for the deep institutional change we can discuss that of course and I would like to discuss it too because and this is a picture of the University of Bologna it's been there for a thousand years and I hope it will be there for another thousand years and of course it's not been the same it's adapting all the time but there is perhaps something in the core of what's doing that should remain the same that and that's actually good we don't want too deep transformation we want the right kind of adjustments and I think we what we haven't addressed sufficiently is how we are being influenced by logics that are external to research itself so I'm thinking of new public management production indicators global competitive ethos publishing industry intellectual property rights and other things and it's influencing academia as such it's hard to address and it's hard for us to tackle it's hard for horizon Europe to tackle the questions of politics the questions of international politics with institutions that are very difficult to influence so in horizon Europe the R.I. agenda will be less visible and maybe it R.I. didn't have the force to kind of tackle these systemic problems but maybe open science would be a better instrument than if Rene von Schoenberg was here he would probably argue for that that remains to be seen and whether kind of the same would happen to open science that it's reduced to open access and I think also we would have to ask if we need kind of new global coalitions beyond what the European Commission can do because this is not only a European question but if we need that kind of global coalitions and of course UNESCO is already there but maybe not in a position to tackle that I think the next question is then what are our responsibilities as a European R.I. community what can we do are we contributing to the kind of institutional change globally on academia research that we believe is necessary so I think that was basically reflections not so clear conclusions from my side but hopefully they will spur some some more discussion in the audience I hope so so thank you very much thank you very much Dr. Fosberg for a very very nice and very inspiring introduction to this all these issues I'm guessing there are a lot of questions but you want to ask a question please go ahead we are like 53 people now here but I think the the platform can handle that or you can write a question in the chat and I will read them so whoever wants to to ask a question is you know I'm trying to find that there's nothing in the chat so who wants to yes Luciano I see that you raise your hand you can I think you can you can go ahead and talk I don't need to do something okay are you hearing me yes thank you very much for the for the Luciano science less of authorities lay people deciding to interact directly with the leadership and support and what is happening in science so the question is what means what's the solution to change means is that the solution change is already occurring because the solution change are occurring every day and in many ways so counting the solution are changing changes a little bit strange because it's a quite an accountable term institutional change including many things occurring every day so I think as the solution change the hyper competition the change in the relationship and organization of research organization for example we the end of the community appears typically of the science of the past and now we have people that the especially phd students working hard and without any possibility to enter the system or think about the crisis of the reproducibility of of data what is happening for what concerns peer review and so forth there are many institutional change already occurring so the question is what are we are doing I believe that what we are doing is uh with true where I and through other uh I mean uh labels under different labels for example uh we can think about smart innovation for example uh we are trying to manage politically these changes uh changes are already occurring and the problem is that they are affecting the the the very way in which uh scientific science scientific knowledge is produced so it's something serious it's not concerning only science society relationships in the terms of public engagement or democratization it's something concerning the role of science in our society and the possibility for science to keep on producing scientific knowledge in a new context in new social context so uh I believe that RRI and and is not the answer also because probably is only a label uh but the question underlying RRI is really serious because the problem is managing in a way or in another changes are already occurring and that could be uh could have some serious consequences about the possibility to produce reliable knowledge uh so we have to change the way to do that that that is the question so thank you very much I'm sorry if I stress this point but uh it's particularly important understanding what we are doing because otherwise if we consider RRI so important we have to take into consideration that probably in the next uh European framework program RRI will be a term that will be used lesser and lesser uh the question is understanding what is under under the the the label and I think that the the question is serious and we continue to be serious for a long period of time thank you yes thank you can I just briefly comment to that um yeah no I I think that um from our experience in RRI practice there isn't really a widespread understanding that there is a crisis in research um I think that the stakeholders uh at least in the countries and around the organizations that we studied were saying that yeah it's mostly on track uh we have to I think the agenda that it has the highest potential for change now is the societal challenge uh agenda and the sustainability agenda and now you know with COVID-19 and everything there's a very widespread consensus that we consensus that we have to orient the research system more towards solving these urgent societal challenges and of course climate change is also one of those so I think that has but I think that there there is a from our experience this is possible with adjustments of the system in a certain direction that's taking place already so there isn't this common understanding that there's a big threat to the research system in general I would say so if that's not an uh if that's not a shared diagnosis then you know RRI won't be the answer or RRI is just an answer to more kind of manageable questions about increasing you know gender sensitivity or or research ethics and research okay um thank you uh Dr. Fosberg there is one question uh in the chat uh let me read it for you so from uh Giovanni DeGradis uh I'd like to ask a question if it is so difficult to implement deep changes in academic research because of the forces working and guest change how much more difficulties to implement changes towards the responsible innovation in private companies where I believe that the forces working against it are even stronger hmm yeah that's the tricky one we didn't study that in RRI practice but I have some experience with it from other contexts and I'm not so sure I think that in some context the actually private industry are more progressive than the state for instance so when it comes to sustainability and you know green adapting to the green to climate change and to making cleaner and greener production and come quite a few companies are taking stronger actions than what is required or expected from the national authorities so um I don't think the answer is so clear cut if I can make if I can make a comment on that following what your answer I think that there are plus and minuses uh in this context because in a private institution when a decision is being made for an institutional change there is the internal resistance might be a lot less than the internal resistance in academia let's say where there is a much more uh uh let's say there's much more way to not do things or to not implement things and so on so it's uh in a lot of cases we might see that it might be easier in this way we did study one private tundra in Italy and and that was a very good example actually of it was something medical research and it was taking for instance this public engagement and user involvement very much more seriously than a lot of kinds of research organizations we studied in the project because it had to so yeah okay there's another question from Fabio Faudo from your experience on RRI practice did you deal with the issue to make the changes sustainable and durable beyond the lifespan of the project yeah we we tried to do that and to indicate follow-up uh and make the action plans in a way that you know with the follow-up points and assessments but it's really hard because it's a three-year project and we couldn't you know keep following up the organization so the only thing we could do was to we worked with an action research methodology so the action plans that were made were not coming from us but from the organizations themselves so I think that that would be the best way to ensure that it would actually be followed up because it would have gone through a system of decision-making in the organizations but we don't know now we can't know whether they actually did what they said they would I don't see any other can I ask one question if I may in your project a very interesting aspect is that you worked a lot with a lot of countries that are not european outside of the european union and RRI I mean as a concept is a european concept devised by the european commission because a lot of the issues are very global like ethics and everything but what is what is your experience can you elaborate a little bit more on non-european countries especially you know like China India Brazil yeah no we we were very conscious of that so what we did and I didn't go into that today but we we when we work with action plans and work with the organizations and also the countries we we of course focused on the keys because well we had to that was kind of written into the topic description but also the air dimensions because we believe that they represent RRI in a good way but finally we asked in the beginning of the process project what is responsibility and research and innovation for you so that that allowed for that kind of operationalization that was that makes sense to to to China or India or Brazil and I think it wasn't that different from what how we see it in in Europe because it's a global system and you know people travel across India and China and Europe and Brazil and everything so there was very much and even I think even more commonalities than we expected but we opened up for these countries to use other concepts and also but also in Europe because like Germany they said that for us the very important part of RRI is sustainability so they included sustainability in the RRI action plans so that was important for us not to have this kind of imperialistic approach and anybody else wants to ask something Pablo yes yes just I just I would ask Alemari if she wants to say something more about how the next research program or as a Europe should capitalize all the the results the outcomes of these 10 years no more than 10 years but anyway it's a long story of experiences related to yeah responsible research and innovation but more in general going back to 2000 science in society in general how all this richness should be used for the future for the future of the next program I think it's an occasion having you today to ask this okay thank you yeah thank you I'm I'm glad you asked we are going to have together with Alexander Geber on one story on well tomorrow we are going to have a session on that where I will be presenting some of my reflections on what is coming up in Horizon Europe because I'm working now on kind of a lobby project funded by the Research Council of Norway where we have been trying to get information on what's happening in Horizon Europe and also to influence it and see if we can try to strengthen the visibility of RRI in Horizon Europe and I think that it's I will give some credit to the RRI people in the European Commission and they are working to continue to make use of all experiences from the last 10 years or whatever on RRI but also before RRI into Horizon Europe and they have succeeded on different levels RRI is an overall objective and is in the whole mandate of the Horizon Europe program it's also so there is kind of this overall mandate for RRI in Horizon Europe and the whole mission orientation is of course a way you could say that is an RRI ethos in that and it doesn't come necessarily from the RRI community but this is an adaptation of research funding that is in line with at least quite a few of the convictions of RRI and then we have I think there won't be a new swaths RRI will be placed in widening and strengthening the the widening and strengthening program of Horizon Europe which is very much focused on the widening countries so I'm not sure what kind of visibility there will be there it's placed there with open science ethics gender and these are the keys and it's there but it doesn't have the same visibilities but on the other hand for instance the definition of ethics research ethics and that is included in Horizon Europe is probably wider than it was in Horizon 2020 so it's more incorporating elements of RRI into the research ethics concept which I quite like also coming from research ethics where in Norway we're always taking a very broad approach to research ethics so I think quite a few of the of the learning points and the experiences from RRI come in there and also of course you have citizen science and the broad open science agenda so I think the most disappointing so far from what I've learned about Horizon Europe is the European Innovation Council I think it's more or less absolutely RRI free and it's very much about groundbreaking radical innovations but without any more or less any sensitivity on societal issues and certainties or all of the RRI aspects that we are promoting so I think that all in all there is a lot of lessons still that are captured in Horizon Europe from earlier RRI work fortunately though with slightly less visibility of the concept but I think that and I would like to kind of invite all of you to join us in this work for increasing the sensitivity for RRI and where it really kind of is urgent with the groundbreaking new technologies and the innovation part of Horizon Europe. I know Lyndon is here so maybe Lyndon will like and comment as well. I can see Giovanni raising her hand yes and speak. Hi thank you very much for the talk and no I wasn't just to ask a little follow-up question on my previous question because maybe I haven't formulated very well and I didn't want to very much to assume that the private sector is less open to RRI than the public sector I think that in some cases a public institution and research institution can be pretty conservative and business is very innovative. I was more concerned about what we can perhaps call incremental innovation or innovation which is not radical or very new but it's more the bringing of innovation to more products to products that are often of lower cost so because I think that the emphasis has very much been on innovation on research on things that are very close to the cutting edge but very often the way in which some innovation then hits society very strongly is when they become more popular when they are implemented and extended to products that are low cost and therefore are developed not by very innovative or big companies but often by small companies working on a very competitive level with very low profit margin so how can we extend the agenda of a responsible innovation to these kind of innovators that are not the big innovators but are often those that really bring innovation to the public and sometimes they cannot afford to do it in a particularly considerate way. No I think that's a very important question and it is a dilemma that we talk about responsible research and innovation as one thing because I think that often what we do talk about when we say RRI is responsible research and a lot of things we talk about won't fit with for these kinds of companies SMEs and you know that you talk about so it will be it will make them estranged kind of from the whole concept so I think we might want to for me at least I think RRI where it came from and what is where it's absolutely necessary is for the very radical research based innovations and also other kinds of innovations should be responsible of course but the norms and the way we address it doesn't very it doesn't fit that well if we use the concept that we use for responsible research so no I think that's a field for more work basically. Thank you also may I say that this is a very interesting topic and Andrea Riccio from Sapienza is here and we're starting a project together for the RRI start which is going to focus exactly on early stage innovation, early stage funding for innovation and startups and so on how to bring this RRI concepts into this which I think it's quite unique because we're all focusing in all our projects mostly on academia and on the research part of the research innovation so the innovation part especially early stage startups and so on this is an important topic and hopefully we can have some answers in the future we still have to start this project so with this and if there is no other question I think we should close this session thank Dr. Fosberg very much for this really very interesting discussion and we're going to follow it up next next day as you said so we're all looking forward for tomorrow as you know there are two parallel sessions now so please choose your parallel session and I'll see you I will be the second one in five minutes