Solidarity-Based and Responsible Research and Innovation
Reflections from the South on How to Promote Them
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-889Keywords:
Solidarity-Based and Responsible Research and Innovation (S&RRI), training for responsibility, research policies, academic evaluation, innovative public procurementAbstract
Responsible Research and Innovation -RRI- is being proposed as a guide for the production and use of knowledge. The concept, which emerged from Europe, takes on a proactive dimension when viewed from the South: responsibility for solving problems that affect the vast majority. Thus, responsibility is linked to solidarity, giving rise to Solidarity-Based and Responsible Research and Innovation (S&RRI). Those who research and innovate play a central role in S&RRI, but they cannot do so alone. There are shared responsibilities for this to be achieved; it is unrealistic to expect that the entire context in which research and innovation occur will remain unchanged and that S&RRI will advance. This article briefly analyzes some of the areas of action whose transformations are necessary to open spaces for responsibility and solidarity in the production of knowledge: undergraduate education, research policy, academic evaluation, and organized demand for innovations that solve problems. It also briefly shows, through Latin American examples, that S&RRI is something to be promoted, as it already exists.
Downloads
References
Acemoglu, D. & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. Nueva York: Public Affairs.
Arocena, R. & Sutz, J. (2022). Conocimiento para la transformación. Integración universitaria para afrontar la insustentabilidad y la desigualdad. Integración y Conocimiento, 11(1), 4-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61203/2347-0658.v11.n1.36515.
Beck, U. (1995). Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (2000). Risk Society Revisited: Theory, Politics and Research Programmes. En B. Adam, U. Beck & J. Van Loon (Eds.), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory (211-230). Londres: Sage.
Berg, P. (2008). Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature, (455), 290-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/455290a.
Bortz, G. (2025) Lab in the slum. Reassembling methods, institutions, spaces, and identities in Rosario, Argentina. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, DOI: www.doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2025.2494442.
Buendía, A. & Natera, J. M. (2022). Educación superior, CTI y desigualdad: límites y contradicciones sistémicas en tiempos de COVID-19. Integración y Conocimiento, 11(1), 54-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61203/2347-0658.v11.n1.36521.
Comisión Europea (2013). Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. Bruselas: European Commission. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2777/46253.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2015) The Evaluation Society: Critique, Contestability and Skepticism. Spazio Filosofico, 1(13), 21-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13135/2038-6788/9450.
Dai, R. & Watal, J. (2021). Product patents and access to innovative medicines. Social Science & Medicine, 291, 114479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114479.
DORA (2012). Declaration on Research Assessment. Recuperado de: https://sfdora.org/read/.
Eurostat (2022). R&D personnel - Statistics Explained. Recuperado de: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=551400.
Felt, U. (2017). “Response-able Practices” or “New Bureaucracies of Virtue”: The Challenges of Making RRI Work in Academic Environments”. En L. Asveld, R. van Dam-Mieras, T. Swierstra, S. Lavrijssen, K. Linse & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 3. A European Agenda (49-68). Dordrecht: Springer.
Fundación Europea de la Ciencia (2013). Science in Society: caring for our futures in turbulent times. Policy Briefing, 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4601.7289.
Galantino, M. G. (2022). Organized Irresponsibility in the Post-Truth Era: Beck’s Legacy in Today’s World at Risk. Italian Sociological Review, 12(8S), 971-990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13136/isr.v12i8S.598.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Londres: Sage.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., Rijcke, S. & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.
Martin, B. & Whitley, R. (2010). The UK Research Assessment Exercise: A Case of Regulatory Capture? En R. Whitley, J. Gläser & L. Engwall (Eds.), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production (51-79). Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
PEDECIBA (2004). Criterios, herramientas y procedimientos generales para la evaluación de la actividad académica de los investigadores. Recuperado de: https://www.pedeciba.edu.uy/uploads/reglamento/6b936851737683dda980694825d4fd4690d1d424.pdf.
Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quino (1997). Todo Mafalda. Buenos Aires: Ediciones de la Flor.
RICYT (2024). Investigadores por sector de empleo (EJC) - 2012-2021. Recuperado de: https://app.ricyt.org/ui/v3/comparative.html?indicator=INVESTEJCSEPER&start_year=2012&end_year=2021.
Rovelli, L. & Vommaro, P. (2024). Evaluación académica situada y relevante: aportes y desafíos en América Latina y el Caribe. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
Sábato, J. & Botana, N. (1968). La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. INTAL, 1(3), 15-36.
Schot, J. & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2-3), 251-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1.
Srinivas, S. & Sutz, J (2008). Developing countries and innovation. Searching for a new analytical approach. Technology in Society, 30(2), 129-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.12.003.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
Suárez, D., Barletta, F. & Yoguel, G. (2022). El sistema universitario argentino y los desafíos post-COVID19. Integración y Conocimiento, 11(1), 128-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61203/2347-0658.v11.n1.36530.
Sutz, J., Bortagaray, I., Gras, N., Mederos, L. & Tomassini, C. (2025). La construcción de políticas de investigación en universidades latinoamericanas públicas, autónomas y cogobernadas: recorridos por la experiencia uruguaya. Buenos Aires: CLACSO. Recuperado de: https://www.clacso.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Construccion-de-politicas.pdf.
Sutz, J. & Gras, N. (2024). La evaluación de la investigación: no cambiar, cambiar, cómo cambiar. Integración y Conocimiento, 13(1), 109-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61203/2347-0658.v13.n1.44216.
Sutz, J., Tomassini, C. Schmukler, M. C. & Tejera, L. (2025). Mobilizing research for contextualized innovation: scarcity and urgency as drivers during Covid-19 in the South. Science and Public Policy, scaf020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaf020.
Tiku, N. (2018). The Year Tech Workers Realized They Were Workers. Wired, 24 de diciembre. Recuperado de: https://www.wired.com/story/why-hotel-workers-strike-reverberated-through-tech/.
VSNU (2019). Room for everyone’s talent. Towards a new balance in the recognition and awards of academics. Recuperado de: https://recognitionrewards.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/position-paper-room-for-everyones-talent.pdf.
Weizenbaum, J. (1976) Computer Power and Human Reason. From Judgement to Calculation. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
