Introducing the Critical Making Responsibility framework for analyzing responsible innovation processes in grassroots practices

Abstract

This paper introduces the Critical Making Responsibility Framework. The framework has been developed by the Critical Making consortium in order to analyze responsible innovation processes in grassroots innovation, specifically in the practice of making. The paper builds on a literature review to highlight the shortcomings of current Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks’ relevance towards grassroots innovation practices, and conversely, the lack of scientific understanding on ethics and responsibility in making. To fill the gap, this paper proposes a combination of the dimensions of the Grassroots Innovation Movements (GIM) analytical framework and the RRI capacity dimensions. Finally, the outlook reflects upon how the framework will be utilized in hands-on ways to support the work of academic and non-academic co-researchers of reflexive maker practices.

Keywords:

• literature review
• critical making
• grassroots innovation
• Responsible Research and Innovation
• participatory action research

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Barbara Kieslinger for her thorough revisions and continued support, Hanna Saari and Christian Voigt for reviewing the Critical Making Baseline report, which included the first draft of this framework, as well as the Consortium members for their contribution to its development.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 A more detailed literature review of the term can be found in the Critical Making Baseline report, developed to support the work of the Consortium (Sipos, Åkerman, and Wenzelmann 2022b). This report includes the analysis of various relevant practices, including its roots in critical technical practice, critical design, adversarial design, critical engineering, tactical media, etc.

2 See for example MoRRi or SuperMoRRI.

3 See for example the RRI-tools portal https://rri-tools.eu/ or the NewHoRRIzon societal readiness thinking tool https://newhorrizon.eu/thinking-tool/.

4 The working definition has been outlined in the Critical Making Baseline Report, which is yet to be published. At the same time, to “give back” to makers, a methodological toolbox translating the principles back to the everyday practice is being developed and tested in a participatory manner. See https://zenodo.org/record/5948298#.YoIx8C-23BI

5 The cases are anonymized to protect the identities of those who could be negatively affected by having their names or projects revealed, as they work in complicated political contexts. However, as a reviewer pointed out, referencing the projects adds relevance to their theoretization. The project highlights best practice cases – whenever safe and appropriate – on the https://criticalmaking.eu website and on social media.

Additional information

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101006285.

Notes on contributors

Regina Sipos

Regina Sipos is a Research Associate at the Technical University of Berlin, focusing on postcolonial computing, critical technical practice, collaborative technology design and social innovation in grassroots communities. She has around 15 years of experience working with grassroots innovators and building participatory and open platforms for co-creation, and held multiple executive-level, advisory board and steering committee roles supporting citizen science, social innovation and grassroots innovation communities. Successful third-party funded projects she co-developed include Critical Making and Infrastructuring in Grassroots Innovation.

Maria Åkerman

Maria Åkerman acts as a Principal Scientist at VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. She has multidisciplinary social scientific background in environmental policy, science and technology studies and economics and her key research interests include socio-technical transitions, sustainability governance, politics of environmental knowledge production and citizen and community-driven innovations. Working at the interface and across various disciplines, she has also been interested in methodologies of interdisciplinary research and collaborative and actionable knowledge production. Her recent projects have focused particularly on circular economy transition, energy transition and citizen engagement in climate action.