Gender, Pluralism and Epistemically Responsible Innovation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-968Keywords:
innovation, epistemic responsibility, feminist epistemologies, epistemic pluralism, genderAbstract
This article critically examines the framework of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) from a feminist and pluralist perspective, highlighting its epistemic limitations and proposing its reformulation in terms of epistemically responsible innovation. It is argued that, although RRI promotes the anticipation of impacts and public participation, it has maintained a technocratic conception of responsibility without revisiting the epistemological assumptions that structure innovation. Responsible innovation, yes, but responsible with whom, for whom, and under what criteria? Drawing on feminist epistemologies and the Gendered Innovations approach, it is argued that integrating gender analysis not only improves equity but also produces more robust knowledge and more effective technologies. This article advocates for a model of epistemically responsible innovation based on epistemic pluralism and epistemic responsibility, capable of redistributing epistemic authority, recognizing marginalized knowledge, and instituting frameworks of collective responsibility. Rather than merely managing risks, it proposes innovation aimed at transforming the structural conditions of knowledge production, incorporating voices, bodies, and values historically excluded. RRI, thus understood, is not only an ethical imperative, but also an epistemological strategy for expanding the boundaries of what is possible in science and technology.
Downloads
References
Ahmed, Sarah (2006). Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press.
Alsos, Gry Agnete, Ljunggren, Elisabet & Hytti, Ulla (2013). Gender and innovation: State of the art and a research agenda. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 236-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-06-2013-0049.
Bagočiūnė, Laura (2024). Critical Examination of Gender Equality in Responsible Research and Innovation context: A Bibliometric Analysis. Information & Media, 99, 203-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Im.2024.99.11.
Benjamin, Ruha (2019). Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bikard, Michaël, Fernandez-Mateo, Isabel & Mogra, Ron (2025). Standing on the Shoulders of (Male) Giants: Gender Inequality and the Technological Impact of Scientific Ideas. Administrative Science Quaterly, 70(3), 695-732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392251331957.
Bührer, Susanne & Wroblewski, Angela (2019). The practice and perceptions of RRI —A gender perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 77, 101717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101717.
Burget, Markus, Bardone, Emanuele & Pedaste, Margus (2017). Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.
Carrier, Martin & Irzik, Gürol (2021). Responsible research and innovation: coming to grips with an ambitious concept. Synthese, 198, 4627-4633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02319-1.
Chang, Hasok (2012). Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3932-1.
Clavero, Sara & Galligan, Yvonne (2021). Delivering gender justice in academia through gender equality plans? Normative and practical challenges. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(3), 1115-1132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12658.
Code, Lorraine (1987). Epistemic Responsibiliity. Providence: Brown University Press.
Code, Lorraine (1991). What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Comisión Europea (s/f). Horizonte 2020. Recuperado de: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-2020_en.
Comisión Europea (2021a). A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025.
Comisión Europea (2021b). She figures 2021: Gender in research and innovation: statistics and indicators. Recuperado de: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/06090.
Comisión Europea (2025). She figures 2024: gender in research and innovation: statistics and indicators. Recuperado de: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/592260.
Delaney, Niamh, Iagher, Raluca & Tornasi, Zeno (2020). Institutional changes towards responsible research and innovation: achievements in Horizon 2020 and recommendations on the way forward. Recuperado de: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/682661.
Doan, Petra L. (2010). The tyranny of gendered spaces – reflections from beyond the gender dichotomy. Gender, Place & Culture, 17(5), 635-654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2010.503121.
Dupré, John (1981). Natural kinds and biological taxa. The Philosophical Review, 90(1), 66-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2184373.
Epstein, Steven (2009). Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fagerberg, Jan (2005). Innovation: A guide to the literature. En Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery & Richard R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felt, Ulrike, Barben, Daniel, Irwin, Alan, Joly, Pierre-Benoît, Rip, Arie, Stirling, Andy & Stöckelová, Tereza (2007). Science and governance: Taking European knowledge society seriously. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Recuperado de: https://sts.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_sts/Ueber_uns/pdfs_Felt/taking_european_knowledge_society_seriously.pdf.
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Londres: New Left Books.
Food & Drug Administration (2013). FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA approves new label changes and dosing for zolpidem products and a recommendation to avoid driving the day after using Ambien CR. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Recuperado de: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-approves-new-label-changes-and-dosing-zolpidem-products-and.
Frahm, Nina, Doezema, Tess & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian (2021). Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(1), 174-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921999100.
Fricker, Miranda (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García Dauder, Dau & Pérez Sedeño, Eulalia (2017). Las mentiras científicas sobre las mujeres. Madrid: Los Libros de La Catarata.
Garcia-Campa, Santiago & Sanahuja, Rosana (2023). Gender Mainstreaming and RRI: The Double Challenge. En Elsa González-Esteban, Ramón A. Feenstra & Luis M. Camarinha-Matos (Eds.), Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (188-202). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33177-0_12.
Gendered Innovations (s/f). Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research. Universidad de Stanford & Comisión Europea. Recuperado de: https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu.
González García, Marta (2015). La medicalización del sexo. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata.
González García, Marta (2023). Ciencia y valores en las políticas del sexo como variable biológica. En Eulalia Pérez Sedeño (Ed.), Cuerpos en rebeldía: Aproximaciones interdisciplinares (19-38). Granada: Editorial Comares.
Hamraie, Aimi (2017). Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Haraway, Donna J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Harding, Sandra G. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harding, Sandra G. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harding, Sandra G. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hendl, Tereza & Jansky, Bianca (2021). Tales of self-empowerment through digital health technologies: a closer look at ‘Femtech.’ Review of Social Economy, 80(1), 29-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.2018027.
Hoagland, Sarah L. (2012). Denying Relationality: Epistemology and Ethics of Ignornace. En S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance (95-118). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Imrie, Rob (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873-882. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.624250.
Kellert, Stephen H., Longino, Helen E. & Waters, C. Kenneth (2006). Scientific Pluralism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kendig, Catherine (2020). Ontology and values anchor indigenous and grey nomenclatures: A case study in lichen naming practices among the Samí, Sherpa, Scots, and Okanagan. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 84, 101340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101340.
Longino, Helen E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, Helen E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, Helen E. (2006). Theoretical Pluralism and the Scientific Study of Behavior. En Stephen H. Kellert, Helen E. Longino & C. Kenneth Waters (Eds.), Scientific Pluralism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (102-131). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
López Cerezo, José Antonio & González García, Marta (2013). Encrucijadas sociales de la innovación. Isegoría. Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política, 48, 11-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2013.048.01.
Ludwig, David & Weiskopf, Daniel A. (2019). Ethnoontology: Ways of world-building across cultures. Philosophy Compass, 14(9), e12621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12621.
Ludwig, David & Ruphy, Stéphanie (2024). Scientific pluralism. En Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). Recuperado de: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/scientific-pluralism/.
Medina, José (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and the Social Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, Sandra D. (2003). Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802683.
Obedin-Maliver, Juno & Makadon, Harvey J. (2016). Transgender men and pregnancy. Obstetric Medicine, 9(1), 4-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1753495X15612658.
OCDE & Eurostat (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4th ed.). The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. París: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.
Otero-Hermida, Paula & García-Melón, Mónica (2018). Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain. Sustainability, 10(9), 2980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10092980.
Owen, Richard, Bessant, John & Heintz, Maggy (2013). Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.
Owen, Richard & Pansera, Mario (2019). Responsible innovation: process and politics. En René von Schomberg & Jonathan Hankins (2019), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (35-48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718862.
Pérez Sedeño, Eulalia (2025). Ciencia con valores: hacia una “nueva” filosofía de la ciencia. Isegoría. Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política, 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2025.72.1679.
Picardi, Ilenia (2022). Making gendered science: A feminist perspective on the epistemology of innovation based on science and technology studies. En Gry Agnete Alsos, Ulla Hytti, Elisabet Ljunggren & Eileen Drew (Eds.), Research Handbook on Gender and Innovation (167-181). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800377462.00019.
Quijano, Aníbal (2000). Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005.
Robles-Piñeros, Jairo, Ludwig, David, Santos Baptista, Geilsa Costa & Molina-Andrade, Adela (2020). Intercultural science education as a trading zone between traditional and academic knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 84, 101337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101337.
Sánchez de Madariaga, Inés (2013). From Women in Transport to Gender in Transport: Challenging Conceptual Frameworks for Improved Policymaking. Journal of International Affairs, 67(1), 43-65.
Schiebinger, Londa (2008). Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schiebinger, Londa & Klinge, Ineke (2013). Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research. Comisión Europea. Recuperado de: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/gendered_innovations.pdf.
Schiebinger, Londa & Schraudner, Martina (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 154-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961518.
Stilgoe, Jack, Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
Stilgoe, Jack, Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil (2020). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. En Andrew Maynard & Jack Stilgoe (Eds.), The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering, and Clean Energy (347-359). Londres: Routledge.
Thomas, Jane (2002). Nutrition intervention in ethnic minority groups. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61(4), 559-567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2002195.
Trades Union Congress (2017). Personal protective equipment and women. Recuperado de: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/personal-protective-equipment-and-women.
TRANSFORM (s/f). Transformando la experiencia del paciente a través de la ciencia ciudadana. Recuperado de: https://www.transform-project.eu/transforming-the-patients-experience-through-citizen-science/.
Van Wynsberghe, Axelle, Alonso Raposo, María, Aschberger, Karin, Braun, Robert, Ciuffo, Biagio, Duboz, Amandine, Garus, Ada, Grosso, Mónica, Guimarães Pereira, Ângela, Marques dos Santos, Fabio, Mourtzouchou, Andromachi & Starkbaum, Johannes (2023). Welcome to the toolkit for Responsible Research for Policymaking: R you Ready? Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/412407.
von Schomberg, René (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. En Richard Owen, John Bessant & Maggy Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (51-74). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
von Schomberg, René & Hankins, Jonathan (2019). International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718862.
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.
