Valorisation best practices of DISGI

NWO-valo2

Johanna presenting in the Hague

On Tuesday, March 27 Johanna gave a short presentation at the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) in The Hague. Her lecture was part of an internal NWO workshop on valorization of research. About 30 NWO staff attended the workshop. Johanna was invited to share the experiences and best practices of the DISGI project. These activities can be seen as examples of social valorization. These social valorization activities DISGI engages with are manifold and address different audiences. They range from giving inspirational lectures for students and public enrolled in Studium Generale activities to organizing knowledge exchange events with businesses.

Contact us if you would like to know more about our activities or if you want to organize an event with us.

Advertisements

Balancing responsiveness and investor security in Responsible Innovation

Our colleague Dr Auke Pols will be presenting at the Fourth Annual OZSW conference (Dutch research school in Philosophy), 9-10 December 2016 on the topic ‘Balancing responsiveness and investor security in Responsible Innovation’.

Here’s an abstract of the talk:

In recent years, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become a popular framework for developing and implementing new technology in the EU, as witnessed by its incorporation in Dutch and EU funding schemes. Building on process values such as anticipation, inclusiveness, responsiveness and reflexivity, RRI seeks to invite and incorporate stakeholder input from early on into the design process (Stilgoe et al. 2013). The hope is that this will lead to technical innovations that better fit societal and ethical values.

A general criticism of RRI is that it often ignores questions of power, politics and institutional settings (Van Oudheusden 2014). One significant political aspect of RRI that has received little attention so far is that RRI operates in a policy context where technical innovations are by and large developed by or in cooperation with the private sector. In this paper I argue that one fundamental problem of this arrangement is that the private sector prefers guaranteed returns on investment and thus stable and predictable policies supporting the innovation, or investor security. I show that this preference is in tension with RRI’s value of responsiveness and its stress on the importance of agility and flexibility when innovating. Basically, there is a trade-off here: increasing investor security diminishes motivation and opportunities to be responsive and vice versa. I explain how RRI could respond to this value conflict, using examples taken from the field of renewable energy technologies.

Renewable energy technologies illustrate this tension particularly well, as they often have difficulties competing with entrenched fossil fuel technologies and thus require significant and prolonged policy support and investor security to get off the ground. For example, the EU has an ambitious biofuel blending target for 2020 meant to create investor security and thus stimulate biofuel innovations for transport energy (Pols 2015). This target became controversial when it turned out that many biofuel projects created serious environmental and social problems. Nevertheless, in the face of diminishing social acceptance and ethical acceptability of biofuels, the EU changed its target only slightly. This was done to maintain investor security in the hope that this would stimulate further biofuel innovations that would solve the problems caused by earlier biofuel innovations (cf. Levidow et al. 2012). Thus, though this policy change exhibited some responsiveness towards the signalled problems, this responsiveness was made dependent on and limited by investor security. Hence the need to investigate the role investor security should play in RRI.

References

Pols, A.J.K. (2015). The Rationality of Biofuel Certification: A Critical Examination of EU Biofuel Policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28(4), 667-681. DOI 10.1007/s10806-015-9550-2.

Levidow, L., Papaioannou, T. and Birch, K. (2012). Neoliberalising technoscience and environment: EU policy for competitive, sustainable biofuels. In: L. Pellizzoni and M. Ylonen (eds.) Neoliberalism and technoscience. Theory, technology and society, 159-186. Farnham: Ashgate.

Van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(1), 67-86.

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42, 1568-1580.

Small is Beautiful – Lecture by Johanna Höffken

On Thursday, 20 October out team member Johanna Höffken will give a lecture on ‘Small is beautiful’ where she will also talk about our project? The lecture is organised in the context of TU/e becoming a Fair Trade University soon.

Here are the coordinates:

Thursday 20 October
12.45-13.20 hrs lecture (12.30 hrs welcome to get lunch)
Trappenzaal Vertigo

More information here: https://www.tue.nl/en/university/about-the-university/sustainability/sustainability-at-the-tue/go-green-office/fairtrade-university/

TUe_Fairtrade_University.jpg

Demystification and localization in the adoption of micro-hydro technology: Insights from India by Johanna Höffken

Our team member Johanna Höffken has just published an article titled ‘Demystification and localization in the adoption of micro-hydro technology: Insights from India’ in Energy Research and Social Sciences journal.

Here’s the abstract:

The phrase ‘small is beautiful’ holds true for the micro-hydro plants discussed in this article. Micro-hydro plants can convert the energy of falling water into electricity. In India, access to electricity cannot be taken for granted, especially in rural areas, which do not yet have grid extension or where it is too costly or infeasible. In these cases, micro-hydro plants are a welcome solution. Here I discuss the efforts of two non-governmental organizations, a private company, and a government agency, to facilitate micro-hydro projects in India, thereby increasing the socio-economic empowerment of rural inhabitants without electricity access. Based on extensive ethnographic data and constructivist conceptualizations of scale and consequences I find that these projects can indeed be described as “beautiful” technology interventions. In line with the common discourse on “small is beautiful,” the projects emphasize community engagement, control, and locality. Yet, importantly, they are “beautiful” in diverse ways. The actors set different priorities when implementing their small-scale technology interventions. Highlighting these priorities is important because they can empower people to acquire different roles, ranging from engaged consumers to prosumers. Instead of solely concentrating on the (small) scale of a technology I plead to consider the significance of implementing these interventions.

You can find the full article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616302092

Stakholder involvement and the case of Hidden Design

The first output from our project was published yesterday. Dr. Auke Pols published a paper titled:

‘May Stakeholders be Involved in Design Without Informed Consent? The Case of Hidden Design’

The paper is open access. You can find it here http://rdcu.be/jVvs

Abstract

Stakeholder involvement in design is desirable from both a practical and an ethical point of view. It is difficult to do well, however, and some problems recur again and again, both of a practical nature, e.g. stakeholders acting strategically rather than openly, and of an ethical nature, e.g. power imbalances unduly affecting the outcome of the process. Hidden Design has been proposed as a method to deal with the practical problems of stakeholder involvement. It aims to do so by taking the observation of stakeholder actions, rather than the outcomes of a deliberative process, as its input. Furthermore, it hides from stakeholders the fact that a design process is taking place so that they will not behave differently than they otherwise would. Both aspects of Hidden Design have raised ethical worries. In this paper I make an ethical analysis of what it means for a design process to leave participants uninformed or deceived rather than acquiring their informed consent beforehand, and to use observation of actions rather than deliberation as input for design, using Hidden Design as a case study. This analysis is based on two sets of normative guidelines: the ethical guidelines for psychological research involving deception or uninformed participants from two professional psychological organisations, and Habermasian norms for a fair and just (deliberative) process. It supports the conclusion that stakeholder involvement in design organised in this way can be ethically acceptable, though under a number of conditions and constraints.

Dutch Embassy in India Interviewes Johanna Hoeffken

Our project lead Dr Johanna Hoeffken was recently interviewed by the Dutch Embassy in India.

DSC_3627

Dr Johanna Hoeffken

She argued that the Smart Grids in India project (DISGI) has taken some key innovative steps towards understading, developing and implementing smart grids in India. These include:

  • Forming an interdisciplinary collaboration of scientists, businesses and societal stakeholders, both in India and the Netherlands
  • Bringing together two Dutch companies, PRE and Rural Spark, and two research institutions, TU/e and TERI University, with a total of 3 post docs, an engineer, a social scientist and an ethicist
  • Conducting a long-term and close study of smart grids
  • Giving equal importance to the technology, social embedding, ethical acceptability and institutional support

Read the full interview on the Dutch embassy website.