Criterios, principios e indicadores de conectividad para la inclusividad responsable en ciencia y tecnología

Referencias bibliográficas

• Barrenechea, J. (2015). Evaluación de la actividad científica: conectividad relevante y calidad relacional. Una propuesta teórico-metodológica (Tesis Doctoral). Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU, Donostia-San Sebastián.
• Barrenechea, J., García Fronti, J. e Ibarra, A. (2016). GOBERNPROY: una herramienta para la gestión de proyectos basada en la reflexividad inclusiva. En J. Barrenechea, B. Luque y J. Ibarra (Eds.), Aprender en innovación inclusiva. Un reto para proyectos innovadores y políticas territoriales (pp. 162–176). Bilbao: Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU.
• Borgatti, S. P. y Lopez-Kidwell, V. (2011). Network Theory. En J. Scott y P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 40–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
• Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320887
• Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196–233. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
• Casas, R. (2001) (Coord.). La formación de redes de conocimiento: una perspectiva regional desde México. Barcelona: Anthropos.
• Casas, R. (2003) (Coord.). Intercambio y flujos de conocimiento en las redes. En M. Luna (Ed.), Itinerarios del conocimiento: formas dinámicas y contenido. Un enfoque de redes (pp. 306–354). Barcelona: Anthropos.
• Eizagirre, A., Rodríguez, H. e Ibarra, A. (2017) Politicizing Responsible Innovation: Responsibility as Inclusive Governance. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(1), 20–36. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1440.101003.
• European Commission (2013). Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2014–2015: 16. Science with and for Society, C(2013) 8631 of 10 December 2013. Bruselas.
• European Commission (2014). Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2014–2015: 16. Science with and for Society, Revised, C(2014) 9294 of 10 December 2014. Bruselas.
• Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L. y Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496. doi:10.1177/0270467606295402
• Flipse, S. M., van Dam, K. H., Stragier, J., Oude Vrielink, T. J. C. y van der Sanden, M. C. A. (2015). Operationalizing responsible research & innovation in industry through decision support in innovation practice. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 15(2), 135–146. doi:10.3920/JCNS2015.x004
• Funtowicz, S. O. y Ravetz, J. R. (2000). La ciencia posnormal: Ciencia con la gente. Barcelona: Icaria.
• García, M., Ibáñez, J. y Alvira, F. (1996/2008). El análisis de la realidad social. Métodos y técnicas de investigación. Madrid: Alianza.
• Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. y Trow, M. (1997). La nueva producción del conocimiento. La dinámica de la ciencia y la investigación en las sociedades contemporáneas. Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.
• Guston, D. H. (2005). Institutional Design for Socially Robust Knowledge: The National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens. En S. Maasen y P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making (pp. 63–79). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Guston, D. H. y Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 93–109. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
• Heras, M. y Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2017). Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: how to measure the impact? International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2482–2507. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1392643
• Hoffmann-Riem, H. y Wynne, B. (2002). In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance. Nature, 416(6877), 123. doi:10.1038416123a
• Jansen, M. W., De Vries, N. K., Kok, G. y van Oers, H. A. (2008). Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy, 86(2-3), 295–307. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.005
• Karinen, R. y Guston, D. H. (2010). Toward Anticipatory Governance: The Experience with Nanotechnology. En M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen y C. Rehmann-Sutter (Eds.), Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime (pp. 217–232). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Limson, J. (2018). Putting responsible research and innovation into practice: a case study for biotechnology research, exploring impacts and RRI learning outcomes of public engagement for science students. Synthese, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-02063-y
• Luna, M. (2003). La red como mecanismo de coordinación y las redes de conocimiento. En M. Luna (Coord.), Itinerarios del conocimiento: formas dinámicas y contenido. Un enfoque de redes (pp. 51–78). Barcelona: Anthropos.
• Luna, M. y Velasco, J. L. (2006). Redes de conocimiento: principios de coordinación y mecanismos de integración. En M. Albornoz y C. Alfaraz (Eds.), Redes de conocimiento: construcción, dinámica y gestión (pp. 15–38). Buenos Aires: Redes, Centro de Estudios sobre Ciencia, Desarrollo y Educación Superior.
• McGregor, J. y Wetmore, J. M. (2009). Researching and Teaching the Ethics and Social Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Laboratory. NanoEthics, 3(1), 17–30. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0055-1
• Monsonís-Payá, I., García-Melón, M. y Lozano, J.-F. (2017). Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting. Sustainability, 9(12), 2168. doi:10.3390/su9122168
• MoRRI (2018). The evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe: The MoRRI indicators report. Bruselas: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
• Otero-Hermida, P. y García-Melón, M. (2018). Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain. Sustainability, 10(9), 2980. doi:10.3390/su10092980
• Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. y Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093
• Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E. y Guston, D. H. (2013). A Framework for Responsible Innovation. En R. Owen, J. Bessant y M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation (pp. 27–50). Chichester: Wiley.
• Ramji, A. y Creech, H. (2004). Knowledge Networks: Guidelines for Assessment. Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
• Rip, A. (1998). Modern and post-modern science policy. EASST Review, 17(3), 13–16.
• Rip, A. y van der Meulen, B. J. R. (1996). The post-modern research system. Science and Public Policy, 23(6), 343–352. doi:10.1093/spp/23.6.343
• Rip, A., Misa, T. J. y Schot, J. (1995). Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology. Londres y Nueva York: Pinter Publisher.
• Rodríguez, H., Eizagirre, A. e Ibarra, A. (2019). Dynamics of responsible innovation constitution in European Union research policy: tensions, possibilities and constraints. En R. von Schomberg y J. Hankins (Eds.), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (pp. 167–180). Cheltenham y Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
• Rodríguez, H., Fisher, E. y Schuurbiers, D. (2013). Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy, 42(5), 1126–1137. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.006
• Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85–91. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
• Schot, J. y Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2), 251–268. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
• Schuurbiers, D. y Fisher, E. (2009). Lab-scale intervention. EMBO reports, 10(5), 424–427. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.80
• Smith-Doerr, L. y Powell, W. W. (2005). Networks and Economic Life. En N. J. Smelser y R. Swedberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 379–402). Nueva York: Princeton University Press.
• Spaapen, J., Wamelink, F. y Roberts, L. L. (1999). The evaluation of university research: A method for the incorporation of societal value of research. La Haya: National Council for Agricultural Research.
• Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J. y Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. y Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
• Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294. doi:10.1177/0162243907311265
• Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468(7327), 1029–1031. doi:10.1038/4681029a
• Strand, R., Spaapen, J., Bauer, M. W., Hogan, E., Revuelta, G. y Stagl, S. (2015). Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation. Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union.
• Taylor-Powell, E. y Rossing, B. (2009). Evaluating collaborations: challenges and methods. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
• von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Bruselas: European Commission.
• von Schomberg, R. (2015). From ‘Responsible Development of Technologies’ to Responsible Innovation. Adaptado de J. Britt Holbrook y C. Mitcham, C. (Eds.), Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: A Global Resource (ESTE2), 2.ª edición. © 2015 Gale, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Recuperado de https://renevonschomberg.wordpress.com/from-responsible-development-of-technologies-to-responsible-innovation/
• Wickson, F. y Carew, A. L. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 254–273. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.963004
• Wilsdon, J. y Willis, R. (2004). See-through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Londres: Demos.
• Yaghmaei, E. (2018). Responsible research and innovation key performance indicators in industry: A case study in the ICT domain. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(2), 214–234. doi:10.1108/JICES-11-2017-0066
• Ziman, J. M. (1994). Prometheus Bound. Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ziman, J. M. (2002). Real Science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.