The science-society relationship in Aotearoa: practicing responsible innovation in the New Zealand research and innovation system

ABSTRACT

Reports on Aotearoa New Zealand’s research, science, and innovation (RSI) system suggest the sector could improve its social responsibility and create more social value. However, researchers and innovators within the sector find this challenging. Through qualitative interviews and a national survey of RSI system participants, this study explores the current perceptions, practices enacted, and support given around responsible research and innovation practices. Findings indicate that researchers and innovators have diverse understandings of what responsible research and innovation entails, viewing anticipation and reflexivity-aligned practices as the most important aspects of responsible research and innovation. Participants feel most supported by research organisations and funding bodies to enact such aspects of responsible practice. However, they perceive a discrepancy, across all dimensions explored, between what researchers and innovators should do, and what they actually do in terms of enacting responsible practices. Thus, significant room for improvement is identified, particularly regarding practices that align with researchers’ and innovators’ obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and requirements under Vision Mātauranga.

KEYWORDS:

• Responsible innovation
• Aotearoa New Zealand
• science-society relationship
• research and innovation system

Acknowledgments

Firstly, we would like to thank all those who participated in our interviews and survey for sharing their time, experience, and insights with us. We would also like to thank Professor Phil Macnaghten, of Wageningen University and Research Centre for his support and guidance, and the two reviewers who provided us with helpful suggestions to strengthen our manuscript.

Disclosure statement

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

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.

Notes

1 The result of a 1-tailed t-test between the lowest scoring anticipation/reflexivity support statement (13.4) and the highest scoring support statement for any other dimension (24.5) results in p value of .001.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) through Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) support of the Responsible Transitions programme at AgResearch (Lincoln, New Zealand).