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 them
2) 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-ASSESS
Undertake 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) PLAN
Develop 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) ACT
Implement 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) REFLECT
Self-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).
