Periodic Reporting for period 3 - NUCLEUS (NUCLEUS - New Understanding of Communication, Learning and Engagement in Universities and Scientific Institutions) Reporting period: 2018-09-01 to 2019-08-31 Summary of the context and overall objectives of the project The NUCLEUS project focused on institutional change with regard to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). The four years were structured into two phases: the project first analysed the conditions and obstacles for implementing RRI in research-performing organisations (RPOs). Secondly, in a form of ‘action research’, it experimented with institutional change processes in the governance and culture of 10 RPOs worldwide.The underlying questions were always: How we can we best place public interests at the heart of research & innovation? How can the systemic change be achieved that would be required for such a fundamentally transformative endeavour as RRI, challenging many established policies and practices.As one of the largest RRI projects until today, NUCLEUS has thereby contributed to an evidence-base for RPOs to anticipate the implications of their activities and plans, include relevant stakeholders upstream, to reflect and respond to those stakeholders’ concerns and expectations. Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results achieved so far NUCLEUS has delivered both practical and policy recommendations towards supporting RPOs in building strong and sustained partnerships with stakeholders upstream, hence already during the research process.From the experience of the institutions that participated in NUCLEUS, the project proposes the following recommendations to overcome some of the most commonly identified barriers regarding the integration of RRI into institutional practice, governance and culture:1) RRI is only successful if it is promoted and supported, with STEM at different levels.These levels are within the operational, governance and decision-making structure of academic institutions as well as from local and regional governments and cities to national and European policymaking. Promotion of STEM is still crucial, but RRI needs to be embedded within STEM and other disciplines, cocreating between them2) RRI should be understood as a process in context.It does not necessarily need to be called “RRI”, as this can create barriers of language and hierarchy, and raise defence mechanisms. The central principle is that research and innovation should connect and communicate with the context in which it is produced and circulated.To implement RRI, the NUCLEUS governance experiments in ten research performing organisations worldwide, point towards four steps that should be taken:a) SELF-ASSESSUndertake a self-assessment exercise which indicates the level an institution is at with regards to RRI integration: (i) Identify your “RRI” within your institutions, among your partners; (ii) analyse what you can do to increase RRI in your institution.>> Understand that RRI is a process in context, requiring professional facilitation, communication and organisation in the governance of research and innovation within an institution or region.>> Understand that RRI needs to work as a set of outputs and outcomes: workshops, MOOCs, trainings, rewards and resources, HR awards schemes, that incentivise researchers to do more RRI and that embed responsibility in all co-created research.>> Understand the local and connecting global contexts. Understanding existing cultures and practices (both internal to the institution and external) gives the foundation for the introduction and sustained growth of RRI principles. b) PLANDevelop an action plan based on the self-assessment. The action plan can also serve as a strategic planning tool for the institution. From experience we have found it useful to:>> Identify RRI champions both inside the institution and outside already aligned with RRI concepts, particularly at the top level of a research organisation to advance and embed the principles of RRI – “top-down to bottom-up”.>> Establish a Research Engagement Committee that acts as a forum for all stakeholders to co-create RRI together.>> Have mentors to help you through the process.>> Carefully articulate the alignment between RRI principles and institutional strategic objectives and responsibilities when seeking management buy-in.>> Increase inter- and transdisciplinarity that brings the sciences, the arts and humanities together, reimagining the concept of ‘research excellence’ with associated indicators.c) ACTImplement the action plan. Here the specific circumstances and audiences are fully contextualised to help support change in the institution.>> ‘Walk stealthily’, working with your own ‘institutional DNA’; map out common engagement activities, scope them and identify where the RRI components can be aligned.>> Societal partners need come first but then respond co-creatively, ethically, gender-sensitively, inclusively and professionally on shared solutions.>> Participate and co-create at all times to enable participatory codesign of research and innovation. This is how RRI ‘comes alive’ through building trust.>> Include expert-driven mentoring and group mentoring in developing, critically (self)evaluating and monitoring action plans. Expertise may also come from publics, media experts, policy experts, CSOs and enterprise agencies.d) REFLECTSelf-Reflection is necessary continuing an iterative process; implement critical institutional reflection, analysis, evaluation, learning and improvement at key stages, and mutual learning with new and collaborating partners. Analyse, act then “walk stealthily” some more, until engagement activities are linked to senior management decision-making.>> Let the RRI DNA, eventually, “take over the host”: this means structure change that now normalises RRI; if there are enough critical points, the culture eventually changes.>> Link up RRI Nuclei regionally and globally, for a Living RRI Network, through similar projects and initiatives.Moreover, RRI is a continuing process, not a final outcome, which makes this (a-d) a continuing process loop.NUCLEUS involved a multidisciplinary consortium of 25 partners from inside and outside of academia. The project was co-ordinated by Professsor Alexander Gerber (ag@hsrw.eu). Progress beyond the state of the art and expected potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far) One of the most important aspects that distinguished NUCLEUS from other RRI initiatives funded by the EC during FP7 and HORIZON 2020, was the project’s inclusive approach to RRI that went far beyond the "Keys" by explicitly addressing the co-responsibility of stakeholders through the RRI process dimensions of anticipation and inclusion, reflexivity and response.In the light of analysing and experimenting with these perspectives beyond the original policy prescription of the "RRI keys", the NUCLEUS teamed up with "RRI-Practice" in the final year of both projects, to initiate an EU-wide initiative for mainstreaming RRI in the following Framework Programme, "Horizon Europe". THe projects co-hosted Europe’s largest RRI conference in 2019, "Pathways to Transformation", where 200 leading researchers and practitioners in this field discussed together with policymakers and stakeholder organisations the state-of-the-art and future perspectives for RRI in Europe. Hundreds of impacts on social media furthermore extended the conference far beyond Brussels. As a result, numerous RRI initiatives signed a Joint Declaration, urging the European Commission to make RRI a key objective of its upcoming Framework Programme. NUCLEUS is consulting with policymakers, citizens and other stakeholders to chart its RRI Roadmap.
