The RRI map: making sense of responsible research and innovation in science education

ABSTRACT

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has attracted the interest of educational researchers in an attempt to see how teaching RRI can be introduced into education. The literature has focused on how to link the RRI framework to the specific field of science education in comprehensive school and upper secondary school. While explicit connections with existing philosophies of science education (Nature of Science, Inquiry-Based Learning, Socio-Scientific Issues, Citizenship Education) have been brought out, we still lack a more comprehensive and less fragmented picture. To overcome fragmentation and gain a coherent view of RRI in science education, in this article we provide what we call the RRI Map. We identify three main activities which teachers can engage learners in to relate to teaching science responsibly. Such activities are (1) making sense of the scientific enterprise, (2) taking action to face challenges by making use of scientific knowledge and (3) exploring theoretical possibilities.

KEYWORDS:

• Responsible research and innovation
• Nature of Science
• inquiry-based learning
• socio-scientific issues
• citizenship education
• responsibility as care

Introduction: the challenges of making RRI relatable in education

The term Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) was initially introduced in various European Union policy documents (e.g. ‘Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013’, 2013; ‘The Sixth Framework’, 2002) with the aim of providing a framework for the governance of science in Europe. In policy documents, the definitions of RRI that are provided focus on environmental and ethical aspects, and they stress inclusion, anticipation and participatory governance as the pillars of science governance (European Commission 2013; Sutcliffe 2011; von Schomberg 2011).

In the meantime, a growing body of literature has appeared that contributes to the ongoing debate. The academic contributions also emphasise inclusion and anticipation (Bremer et al. 2015; Forsberg et al. 2015; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013), pointing out a distinctive trait attempting to include different stakeholders and the public early on in the research and innovation process (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017). The inclusion of the different stakeholders and actors is meant to ‘increase the possibilities to anticipate and discern how research and innovation can or may benefit society as well as prevent any negative consequence from happening’ (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017, 9).

Researchers have come to agree on a series of conceptual pillars or dimensions (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017) which provide an analytic framework informing the governance of science. Such dimensions are (1) collective stewardship of science and innovation (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013), which entails the inclusion and participation of various stakeholders and actors in the decision-making processes (Bremer et al. 2015; Forsberg et al. 2015; Sunderland et al. 2014); (2) responsiveness concentrating on problems as well as chances as they emerge; (3) anticipation of possible negative outcomes as opposed to various risk management techniques that can identify threats only retrospectively (von Schomberg 2013); (4) reflexivity for addressing specific predicaments related to innovation and scientific progress, such as our ambiguity and finitude (Grinbaum and Groves 2013), as well as comprehensive ethical issues (Stahl et al. 2014); (5) sustainability defined as the formation and conservation of the states under which humans and nature can exist in accordance and which allow guaranteeing the social, cultural, economic and ecological demands for present and future generations (Keeble 1988); and finally, (6) care, as a certain form of engagement with the practice of research (Adam and Groves 2011; Bardone and Lind 2016).

Education is acknowledged as playing an important role in the promotion of the ideals behind RRI (e.g. Bardone et al. 2017; Lundström, Sjöström, and Hasslöf 2017; Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012; Stahl 2013). The existing literature has focused on how to link the RRI framework to the specific field of science education in comprehensive school and upper secondary school – with particular reference to the European context, which is where RRI emerged as a framework for governing science and research. A survey of the literature was conducted with the aim of identifying which existing philosophies of science education educational researchers had already brought out a clear connection with RRI. The survey shows that several philosophies of science education have been explicitly connected to RRI. The philosophies of science education are described in relation to the developments of history, sociology and science, with an emphasis on learning of and about science (Schulz 2014). Such philosophies are Inquiry-Based Learning (e.g. Bardone et al. 2017; Constantinou, Tsivitanidou, and Rybska 2018; Hadjichambis et al. 2018; de Jong et al. 2018; Pedaste et al. 2015a), Socio-Scientific Issues (e.g. Evagorou and Mauriz 2017; Hadjichambis et al. 2018; Chowdhury, Holbrook, and Rannikmäe 2020; Maass et al. 2019; Okada and Sherborne 2018), Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning (Levinson and PARRISE Consortium 2017; Lundström, Sjöström, and Hasslöf 2017; Verhoeff 2017), Citizenship Education (e.g. Ariza et al. 2014; Levinson and PARRISE Consortium 2017; Lundström, Sjöström, and Hasslöf 2017), Nature of Science (e.g. García-Carmona and Acevedo-Díaz 2018; Laherto et al. 2018; Tirre et al. 2018), playfulness in learning and reflection process (van der Meij, Broerse, and Kupper 2017), drama in science education (Verhoeff 2017), and praxis-oriented, problem-based and real-world learning (Tassone et al. 2018). Gorghiu and colleagues suggested that one of the ways to introduce RRI into education is through informal learning (Gorghiu, Anghel, and Ion 2015).

The aforementioned survey of the literature shows that there is a growing interest among science education scholars in making an explicit connection between RRI and existing science education philosophies. However, while the educational relevance of RRI has been acknowledged in the specific domain of science education, the connection remains somehow peripheral and needs to be theorised into a more coherent whole. To this end, the main aim of the present paper is to show how bringing together different philosophies of science education under a unified framework and stressing their complementarity can help the introduction of RRI into education, more specifically in science education. Our framework is supposed to contribute to the discussions around the integration of RRI in education, and as such it addresses both educational practitioners and educational researchers. At this stage, however, our focus is predominately at the conceptual level, rather than the rough ground of the teaching practice. While those different philosophies bring out similarities with RRI core elements, theorising is needed in order to achieve a more coherent whole that would point at the continuity between RRI and its pedagogical applications in science education. The present article is a contribution in that direction. As we will see, each philosophy of science education often covers some of the core aspects of RRI, but the overall message that RRI is supposed to bring out remains implicit as well as fragmented. Indeed, those philosophies were developed before the introduction of RRI. But this is also the reason why it is important to try to bring them together in a coherent framework so as to stress the connection with RRI.

For example, as we will see, a philosophy such as ‘Nature of Science’ (NOS) specifically addresses issues that help students develop a more reflexive attitude towards the scientific enterprise (Holbrook and Rannikmae 2007), but it does not address issues related to inclusiveness or responsiveness. Hence, it is necessary to complement NOS with other philosophies that would stress more participatory forms of research and innovation as well as the role that the scientific enterprise can have in responding to global challenges. This paper contributes to establishing such a comprehensive framework of how RRI is connected to different philosophies applied in science education. All the aforementioned philosophies can be potentially applied to higher education, but what we described in this article specifically addresses K-12. We focus on K-12 education because students’ attitudes towards science are mainly determined during school years (Arık and Topçu 2020).

In this paper, we will also introduce the so-called ‘RRI map’, which will help us categorise pre-existing philosophies in K-12 science education in Europe and examine their strengths and limitations in pointing out and addressing the educational value of RRI. The map is, first of all, a tool to assess the present debate concerning how to integrate RRI into science education. Secondly, it also provides the foundations to articulate the desired learning outcomes related to teaching RRI in K-12.

It is worth mentioning here that the RRI map is the main contribution that this article offers, and it stems from an act of theorisation in the field of educational research. As such it aims at exploring the possibility of integrating RRI into education, more specifically in science education. While the RRI map is not the result of an empirical investigation, in this section, we briefly elaborate on the main assumptions that led us to its theorisation.

First of all, the RRI map takes seriously that RRI in science education is not to be linked to a specific body of knowledge the learners should acquire the way they acquire knowledge about the second law of thermodynamics, for example. That is, we are not referring to RRI as a specific set of concepts that students can learn about. Rather, it is more a way of teaching science in K-12 which is centred on the idea of educating learners who are capable of regarding and practicing science responsibly. In this regard, we fully endorse the view put forward by Egeland and colleagues, who see RRI as learning itself (2019, 376). In this sense, we make the distinction between what to learn and how to learn it, with RRI informing the latter.

Second of all, the RRI map identifies three main activities teachers can engage learners in relation to teaching science responsibly. Such activities are: (1) making sense, (2) taking action and (3) exploring theoretical possibilities. Such categorisation originated from a previous study conducted by Burget et al. (2018), who explored the way in which science teachers make sense of RRI in school focusing specifically on which meanings science teachers attribute to the terms ‘responsibility’, ‘research’ and ‘innovation’. In the study, the abductive content analysis performed on the semi-structured interviews with 29 science teachers led to the identification of the aforementioned activities.

The third and last element leading to the theorisation of the RRI map was the disambiguation of the term responsibility in the specific pedagogical context and the corresponding different temporal dimensions that they address. This originated from the previous research done by Bardone et al. (2017), who, building on the work done by Adam and Groves (2011), identified the need for distinguishing between responsibility as care and responsibility as accountability, which, in turn, implies the shift from outcomes to processes (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Main elements that led to the theorisation of the RRI map.

The paper will proceed as follows: in the first section, we will provide a short discussion as to why the notion of responsibility needs to be re-examined. This will provide the basis for presenting the RRI map. In the second section, we will take into consideration five existing philosophies in science education. We will provide a brief description for each of them and the way in which they have been connected to RRI. In the third and last section, we will offer a discussion in which we will clarify the main implications of using the RRI map.

Disambiguating responsibility and introducing the RRI map

Disambiguating responsibility: from outcomes to processes

As previously mentioned, we posit that RRI in science education tries to focus on including students in learning about science as responsible subjects in three key activities: making sense, taking action, and exploring theoretical possibilities. Before describing them one by one in relation to the very core of RRI, a preparatory step should be made in relation to the disambiguation of the notion of responsibility itself. What do we actually mean by responsible subjects? And consequently, what does it mean that learners are engaged in learning science responsibly?

This is not the place to venture into an extensive discussion concerning what responsibility means, which has been a central issue in moral philosophy and future generations (Jonas 1984) as well as in the intricate relationship between engineering and technology, on the one hand, and society, on the other (Bovens 1998; Doorn and Nihlén Fahlquist 2010). Here, the pressing question is trying to disambiguate the term ‘responsibility’ itself, which presents some issues that need to be clarified. A few authors have, in fact, pointed out that the term responsibility should be disambiguated (e.g. Adam and Groves 2011; Bardone and Lind 2016; Inglis 2000; Laughlin 1996). What those authors have pointed out is that the notion of responsibility can acquire different meanings depending on whether we look at the outcome of a process or the process itself. The formulation of the issue done by Lucas (1996) may come in handy here. Lucas claims that when we look at the notion of responsibility in terms of outcomes to achieve, we are referring to a triadic relationship, in which a person (1) is responsible for accomplishing something (2) to someone else (3). This means that the responsible person is the one who is appointed to carry out a certain task in order to achieve a certain outcome, which has been predetermined and agreed upon beforehand with a third party the person is responsible to. Here, the word accountable is a synonym for responsible (Giri 2000). Also, Lucas claims that responsibility overlaps with answerability. As Bardone et al. (2017) noted, when transferred onto the educational practice, such a notion sees students as responsible insofar as they successfully accomplish certain tasks, usually assigned by the teacher, whom they become responsible to. In other words, students are mere executors of the teacher's plans. Educationally speaking, that is problematic, because in establishing such a relationship of dependence, students may fail to develop a deeper contact with the complexity and uncertainty of the world and to eventually become the authors of their own lives (Biesta 2015).

The very notion of responsibility can also be framed differently, when we look at responsibility in relation to a process one is engaged in (Bardone et al. 2017: Bardone, Raudsep, and Eradze 2022). Responsibility as accountability (or answerability) stresses that somebody is responsible for something to somebody. That is crucial when there is a specific chain of command, in which the tasks one is responsible for are unambiguously defined and clearly known beforehand. However, when students are engaged in activities that go beyond the direct application of seemingly algorithmic procedures, the students do still respond to the teacher, but the engagement with what they are responsible for becomes more important than the achievement of a certain outcome (Bardone, Raudsep, and Eradze 2022). In that case, the notion of responsibility identifies more a type of engagement that is essentially rooted in taking care of what one is doing. In this case, students are seen as responsible insofar as they take ownership of experiencing the world first-hand and have a chance to determine themselves (Bardone et al. 2017). In this sense, learning is not simply the accomplishment of a series of tasks mandated by the teacher to whom learners eventually respond. It translates into a form of meaningful engagement in and with what the students are doing that cannot be mistaken for the mere accomplishment of tasks or fulfilment of duties. Consequently, the relationship with the teacher changes. The teacher may become the initiator of an activity, a discussant, a challenger or the one who invites learners to explore. Learners are given the possibility to start exploring the relevant problems for themselves and thus connect to what Reed (1996) termed primary experience, which strongly relies on a more constructivist approach to learning. Responsibility as care is the kind of conception that we are going to take into consideration in the rest of the paper.

The RRI map

The disambiguation of the term leads to regarding responsibility as a particular form of engagement (e.g. with the process of learning about science), rather than a particular kind of outcome that should be achieved (e.g. a certain score in tests). The task set for this section is to proceed with the clarification of what RRI implies to be responsible for. To this end, we introduce what we call the RRI map, which is precisely meant to identify the activities in which students together with the teacher can take care of and be engaged with learning science responsibly.

As anticipated, the RRI map is based on a previous study conducted on teachers’ perception of RRI (Burget et al. 2018). We identified three main activities that chiefly regard learning science: exploring, making sense, and use of scientific knowledge. Such activities represent the three possible ways in which, generally speaking, we engage with the temporal dimension, namely, the past, the present, and the future. We engage with the past by looking backwards at what we have done and learnt reflecting on the process that led to learning; we engage with the present by promptly responding to what is happening in our immediate surroundings; and we engage with the future by looking forward to exploring what we can do.

These three ways of engaging with time correspond, in turn, to three practical meanings that the term responsibility as care may acquire, which are: (1) responsibility for sense-making, (2) responsibility for action-taking, and (3) responsibility for exploring possibilities (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The RRI map: responsibility as care.

Backward-looking: taking responsibility for sense-making

When we look backwards, we are in the position of trying to make sense of what we have done and how it was done. This typically concerns an event that has come to an end, although reflexivity might be involved in thinking about the future and the ongoing processes that we are presently dealing with, as it also includes turning our attention to our beliefs, values and strategies in order to be ‘active shapers’ of our ‘socio-cultural context’ (Archer 2000, 308). So, we are able to get a bird's eye view that allows us to gain a better perspective on the decisions made, the projects carried out, the strategies adopted, which now can become an object of examination and reflection. We are, in other words, in the position of looking at what has occurred in a more holistic manner so as to reach a better understanding, which might then involve future decisions.

Understanding here may involve first-order reflections, that is, reflections concerning how certain activities were carried out; but also second-order reflections about the meaning or the broader significance of what has been done. This is the natural state, for example, to discuss and raise awareness as to the peculiarities of the scientific enterprise, the role and status of innovation in the current society, its achievements and pitfalls. And indeed, it can also offer the chance to reflect upon the role of technological innovation in education – whether it helps or hinders learning.

The meaning that responsibility acquires in this case consists in being engaged in, and consequently caring for, the process of sense-making. In this sense, we do not claim that there might be an irresponsible way of sense making. Rather, it is the engagement in making sense, that is, the attempt to reach a broader understanding of a certain topic, that can be considered as an act of care. In the RRI literature this is fairly captured by the notion of reflexivity (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013), which specifically addresses second-order reflections (Kinsella 2012).

As mentioned above, RRI places great emphasis on inclusion, which implies a strong commitment to including all the relevant parties (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012; Wiarda et al. 2021). The term ‘relevant’ here refers to the fact that the selection of those who should be included in the process is not a straightforward process (Saille 2015; Jirotka et al. 2017; Martinuzzi et al. 2018). As far as we are concerned here, inclusion means the inclusion of students in sense-making processes, which may connect what learnt during science classes to broader issues. In our previous study on teachers’ perception of RRI (Burget et al. 2018) teachers mentioned the ‘morning cycles’ in school where learners can share their thoughts about the information from the books or journals they have read. The information exchanged can be e.g. scientific, ethical or related to real life. The responsibility for making sense should be given to learners, who, starting from their interests and concerns, may come to develop a more nuanced vision of what is happening around them (Burget et al. 2018).

Action-taking: taking responsibility for responding to immediate concerns

As we move from the past to the present, responsibility as care acquires a different connotation. It is no longer identified with a retrospective activity, where we have the chance to sit and ponder on the broader significance of what we have done and how, our decisions, strategies, etc. Conversely, caring as a way to take responsibility concerns the concrete issues as they arise in the here and now of our activities. In other words, we turn to our immediate concerns (Bardone and Lind 2016). Such concrete issues are specific to the situation we are in and therefore cannot be approached as general and abstract matters. That is to say, such concerns need to be tackled by acknowledging their being concrete and specific, if not unique. So, the kind of engagement with time does not allow us to sit and ponder, but it compels us to promptly respond and thus take action. That happens on a time scale that prioritises what requires our attention now and, consequently, immediate action. In the RRI literature this is fairly captured by the notion of responsibility as responsiveness (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). It is worth noting that promptly reacting to the immediate concerns as they arise does not mean to act in a pre-reflexive way or regardless of what one has made sense of or learnt. It is not a mere reaction. However, promptly responding to issues as they arise is not necessarily initiated by a process of sense-making, but by the sense of urgency of a problem that might have been already identified.

Examples of this kind of responsibility do not include general considerations about the nature of science, the role of innovation in society, but problems as they appear here and now. For example, they regard more practical matters such as the growing number of hours spent by youngsters on their mobile devices and whether to limit the access to smartphones on the premises of a school. In this case, responsibility can be interpreted as taking care of the immediate concerns by promptly responding to them as they arise.

When we talk about taking responsibility for responding to immediate concerns, we imply that the whole process is inclusive. In other words, being responsive and ready to act in case the situation at hand requires us to do so is not something that exclusively regards certain actors in school (e.g. the teacher or the management of the school). The wide participation of all actors is a fundamental component that is intrinsic to this very idea: common problems should be approached in a participatory way. The inclusion of students is indeed fundamental. In our previous study (Burget et al. 2018), teachers mentioned giving students the responsibility for contributing to creating research-based solutions for the well-being of all members of the school. Teachers also noted that they could also support students in collecting ideas as to how to make the school more sustainable and more liveable (Burget et al. 2018). More in general, students can also provide solutions to the problems that the school may face by putting to use the scientific knowledge they have learnt in class.

Forward-looking: taking responsibility for exploring possibilities

As we move from the past and present to the future, responsibility takes on yet another form. We are no longer engaged with making sense of things that have already been done. Nor are we dealing with pressing issues that need a prompt reaction. On the contrary, we are engaged in activities that are generative of possible futures. In other words, we adopt an attitude that is forward-looking. This means that we are called to exploring possibilities as they unfold without firm ground or the guarantee that what we are doing is the right thing. It is worth noting that such explorations may involve taking action. However, in this case that is not meant to address an issue in the ‘here and now’, which needs our attention, but it has a more forward-looking, exploratory component: we act to explore. The whole notion of responsibility here becomes much more elusive, because the future is essentially open and uncertain (Biesta 2015). In this case, responsibility materialises in the decision to explore new ventures while remaining open to (theoretical) possibilities and chance encounters. In other words, it is taking responsibility for creating and imagining.

For example, we may think of all the activities teachers and students are engaged in and do not have a clear answer to which, however, require all the parties involved to look for a possible answer. The way in which the RRI literature looks at our engagements with a more forward-looking dimension is partly captured by the notion of anticipation (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017). Anticipations may refer to expectations, which are inevitably present-time representations of the future (Ruggiu 2019). Also, they can constitute narratives, which provide ‘guiding visions and normative functions’, which can transform the future upon which they are predicated (Ruggiu 2019, 55). In general, though, the forward-looking aspect of anticipation remains more connected to forecasts and foresight rather than a genuine inquiry/exploratory activity. In other words, looking forward does not necessarily focus on narratives that mitigate risks on the basis of present expectations but on explorations of new perceptions and possibilities that might eventually lead to learning (Bohm 2004).

Even in this case, taking responsibility for exploring possibilities does not concern the minimum of actors, but it is a responsibility that implies the active participation of all parties gravitating towards the ecology ‘school’. A good example of this can be the inquiry-based learning lesson where a teacher expects the students to take the lead in the different stages of an inquiry (Bardone et al. 2017). A teacher may decide to let students identify the topic for an inquiry activity for themselves so as to increase their sense of ownership. A teacher may also let students plan the experiment and choose the necessary resources themselves (Burget et al. 2018).

Table 1 provides a summary of the three meanings that the term responsibility may acquire depending on whether we are dealing with the past, present or future. As we can see, these three meanings we have singled out somewhat overlap with the RRI dimensions mentioned above. Notably, the RRI map presented acknowledges the importance of taking responsibility for exploring possibilities, which is underrepresented in the current discourse around RRI.

Table 1. A summary of the meanings of responsibility.

Activity	Temporal dimension	Main RRI dimension involved	Taking responsibility for
Sense-making	Past	Reflexivity	Making sense of the broader significance of science in and for society
Action-taking	Present	Responsiveness	Addressing immediate concerns as they arise with the help of science
Exploration	Future	Anticipation	Exploring possibilities

RRI in existing philosophies of science education

In the previous section we disambiguated the term responsibility and then presented the RRI map. The task for this section is to put it to use in order to map the areas that the different philosophies of science education already cover. We do that in order to overcome fragmentation and to bring the philosophies under a common denominator showing their complementarity when it comes to promoting RRI in and with science education. The philosophies that we are going to consider in our analysis are the following: Nature of Science (NOS), Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI) and Citizen Education (CE). We limited our analysis to these philosophies, as these are the ones mentioned more frequently in the literature related to RRI in education. As an appendix, we will also consider Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning (SSIBL), which is a hybrid of IBL, SSI and CE (Ariza et al. 2014; Blonder et al. 2017; Hadjichambis et al. 2018; Levinson and PARRISE Consortium 2017; Romero-Ariza, Abril, and Quesada 2017a; Romero-Ariza, Quesada, and Abril 2017b; Verhoeff 2017). The next chapter explains the philosophies individually. We will see the degree to which each of these philosophies addresses various RRI-related activities. We will also show that none of them covers all the dimensions of RRI (Table 2).

Table 2. The degree to which each of these philosophies addresses various RRI-related activities.

Philosophy of Education	Sense-making	Action-taking	Exploration
NOS
IBL
SSI
CE
SSIBL

Nature of science

By definition, NOS is essentially an attempt to reach a better understanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Lederman 1998; Holbrook and Rannikmae 2007; Lederman and Zeidler 1987). More precisely, NOS means how science is understood and what the rules are and the methods science consists of. It is not necessary here that students learn what science is, but that they are familiar with how to do science, making sense of science as a practice, while being able to distinguish science from other non-scientific enterprises (McComas 2017).

In recent years several articles have been published where NOS is developed specifically in the RRI context (García-Carmona and Acevedo-Díaz 2018; Heras and Ruiz-Mallén 2017; Laherto et al. 2018; Lundström, Sjöström, and Hasslöf 2017; Okada and Sherborne 2018; Ratinen, Kähkönen, and Lindell 2018; Stavrou, Michailidi, and Sgouros 2018; Tirre et al. 2018). Okada and Sherborne (2018) have paid attention to RRI-related teaching, stressing the nature of science or – in other words – ‘how we know what we know’. This means learners should know how science works as well as its role in society (Ratinen, Kähkönen, and Lindell 2018). However, Heras and Ruiz-Mallén (2017) explicitly consider NOS in the light of the RRI policy framework, claiming that only one of the RRI dimensions – RRI values and ethical issues – is related to NOS. Recently, Laherto et al. (2018) have highlighted the ‘modern’ type of NOS. This type of NOS means involving various parties, being interdisciplinary in nature, considering social values of science and political powers. In education this means developing autonomy and social and socio-institutional values of learners.

If we now turn our attention to the RRI map, we can say that NOS is mostly concerned with sense-making activities. As mentioned above, NOS is an interdisciplinary venture, which deals with epistemological issues in science, historical developments and the kind of beliefs and values characteristic of the scientific enterprise (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Lederman 1998; Erduran and Dagher 2014). This means that NOS is predominantly connected to ‘understanding’ science and understanding how science ‘works’.

Although several studies (e.g. Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Schwartz, Lederman, and Crawford 2004) claim that NOS can be fruitfully implemented alongside inquiry-based learning as a way of understanding the nature of science, Sandoval (2005) indicates that the effect inquiry-based learning has in this regard is negligible. This may be the case because a teacher is playing a central role in the NOS philosophy. A teacher should have a comprehensive view about science, be familiar with terminological issues as well as conceptual ones. Teachers also have the role of initiating critical discussions with the learners in order to build meaningful knowledge around the scientific enterprise (Cakir 2011). Thus, the learner does not really have a chance to be involved in exploring the nature of science for themselves. Which implies that NOS does not seem to be particularly relevant when students are given the responsibility for exploring.

Similarly, action-taking does not seem to be the main priority under this particular philosophy. As NOS is mostly concerned with reflecting on the nature of science and producing knowledge about the scientific enterprise, the connection to making use of that kind of knowledge is therefore not of immediate relevance for NOS.

Inquiry-based learning

IBL is a learner-centred philosophy where learners are engaged in inquiry activities, which resemble, to some extent, what scientists do. During an inquiry activity, learners are supposed to go through a number of ‘inquiry phases’, namely orientation, conceptualisation, investigation, conclusion, and discussion (Pedaste et al. 2015b). The teacher's role is that of facilitating the inquiry process, providing support when it is needed through the whole process (Spronken-Smith et al. 2008). Overall, inquiry-based learning considers learners as active agents in acquiring scientific knowledge as well as in other meaning-making activities.

RRI in science education is considered an ‘umbrella term that covers different aspects of the educational philosophies based on the constructivist approach to learning, and IBL is listed as one of them (Heras and Ruiz-Mallén 2017). In RRI- and IBL-related literature, developing the values, skills and knowledge of teachers and learners are highlighted (Ariza et al. 2014; Romero-Ariza, Abril, and Quesada 2017a; Constantinou, Tsivitanidou, and Rybska 2018; Okada et al. 2019; Okada and Sherborne 2018). For instance, in involving learners in inquiry-based learning activities, they are supposed to become scientifically literate, understand science and the consequences for society (Ariza et al. 2014; Constantinou, Tsivitanidou, and Rybska 2018). However, a number of studies (Ratinen, Kähkönen, and Lindell 2018; Silm et al. 2017) also suggest that teachers have difficulties linking RRI- and IBL-based educational activities, this problem has been specifically identified among primary school teachers. Developing new approaches to RRI teaching with different parties – educators, teachers, researchers – has been indicated as a solution to the aforementioned issue (Ratinen, Kähkönen, and Lindell 2018).

Turning to the RRI map, exploration seems to characterise inquiry-based learning the most. Inquiry activities are usually designed to allow learners to explore and discover a certain area of knowledge themselves. This implies that learners are given the chance to get engaged in activities that are not entirely defined beforehand and would therefore require the learner to take responsibility for making non-trivial decisions as to how to proceed during the inquiry.

Contrary to NOS, inquiry-based learning is marginally related to sense-making. The predominant aim of the inquiry is to develop knowledge during the process. Exploration is the method for increasing understanding, which only partly overlaps with sense-making activities. In this sense, NOS can be considered complementary to IBL, as mentioned before. Yet when taken individually, it is reasonable to argue that IBL remains centred on the exploration of possibilities, while NOS remains centred on making sense of the broader significance of scientific inquiry.

Coming to action-taking, here, again, inquiry-based learning seems to not offer much. As we noted above, students are often given the chance to bring to school topics of interest to them. But they may not necessarily be related to a problem or an immediate concern they are facing. Nor is an inquiry activity necessarily connected to finding a solution or a fix to an urgent matter. Indeed, an inquiry activity can be performed in relation to an urgent matter, especially when a preliminary exploration of the alternative available is required. So, analogously to sense-making, action-taking may not be a core activity in itself, but it may follow after an inquiry has come to an end.

Socio-scientific issues

SSI is a philosophy in science education that focuses on those contentious and controversial issues of social interest which are not entirely approachable by making use of only scientific knowledge (Zeidler and Nichols 2009). Such socio-scientific issues are therefore not the exclusive domain of application of scientific reasoning, as they tend to be complex and thus require the adoption of a multifaceted approach, which also takes people's value orientations into consideration. Besides scientific knowledge, they involve making moral and ethical considerations (Sadler 2004; Sadler, Barab, and Scott 2007) as well as the ability to deal with ambiguities due to their inherent complexity.

The connection of RRI and SSI comes predominantly from the inclusion of the RRI aspects in the science curricula in Europe and thus, the social aspects of science and SSI are emphasised (Blonder et al. 2017; Evagorou and Mauriz 2017). The similarities between RRI and SSI include addressing the socially acceptable, ethical and sustainable development in technology and science, comprising at the same time democracy, inclusiveness, transparency, reflexivity and anticipation (Evagorou and Mauriz 2017; Hadjichambis et al. 2018; Lundström, Sjöström, and Hasslöf 2017). In addition, the support of the development of active and responsible citizens is mentioned (Hadjichambis et al. 2018).

Analogous to NOS, the predominant aspect covered by SSI is sense-making. Dealing with socio-scientific issues entails, for example, the ability to analyse, synthesise, evaluate the information and consider different standpoints in the discussion (Zeidler et al. 2005). As a result of the latter, learning itself becomes more meaningful both for the teacher and learners. Therefore, it can be said that SSI is a basic feature of sense-making, as it refers to reaching a better understanding of what the scientific enterprise can do for addressing complex issues in society.

The other two activities of the RRI map are less covered. As for action-taking, the previous studies on SSI emphasise that learners’ participation is seen, on the one hand, as being a participant in social dialogues (Sadler 2009) but on the other hand as willingness to act (Simonneaux 2014). The action-taking part, therefore, depends on the aim of the socio-scientific process, because SSI by nature does not always entail the immediate action.

What concerns exploring possibilities, it appears that SSI entails the ill-structured problems where one part of it is uncertainty (Sadler, Barab, and Scott 2007). However, in that regard it should be noted that the socio-scientific issues do not emphasise the exploring in order to gain new knowledge. Thus, SSI has a limited connection to exploration.

Citizenship education

The aim of CE is to allow students to participate in decision-making in society, raise awareness of legislation, democracy, economy and social cohesion (Sincer, Severiens, and Volman 2019; Willemse et al. 2015). In describing CE two divergent perspectives appear. One part of CE concerns facts and concepts and relations between them, whereas the second part concentrates on taking action in the public sphere (Geboers et al. 2013; Gifford and Gomez 2014; Schulz et al. 2016).

The literature where the connection between RRI and CE is explicitly brought out concentrates on the SSIBL philosophy, and CE is considered part of it (Lundström, Sjöström, and Hasslöf 2017; Romero-Ariza, Abril, and Quesada 2017a; Romero-Ariza, Quesada, and Abril 2017b; Verhoeff 2017). However, the elaboration of the CE philosophy in RRI-related papers remains modest. In the RRI-concerned papers the authors see CE as taking into account the social and moral part of the society and learning about the principles and skills beneficial in a democratic and multi-cultural European society. CE is mostly considered from the critical-democratic citizenship viewpoint (Veugelers 2007; Ariza et al. 2014; Maass et al. 2019), which includes democratic, dialogical and reflective learning (Ariza et al. 2014).

Similarly to NOS and SSI, sense-making is the leading activity concerning CE. The main idea is to expand the learners’ worldview so that they understand the systems and processes in society that enable active participation in today's world. The additional tools of CE include debates, reasoned argumentation and problem solving (Gifford and Gomez 2014), which are, at the same time, characteristics of the sense-making process.

Action-taking is the other part which describes the nature of CE – the citizens are expected to be active in the democratic society (Geboers et al. 2013; Schulz et al. 2016). In that regard, it can be mentioned that in CE sense-making and action-taking are the activities which characterise the philosophy the best. In the future, citizens should first make sense of the legal, political and economic background as well as the social cohesion in order to take informed action in today's society.

Exploration is not the principal activity which characterises CE, mainly for the reason that CE does not aim at exploring new possibilities or leave room for imagination and creation of the future.

Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning

SSIBL (Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning) can be treated as a hybrid philosophy, because it includes components of IBL, SSI and CE (Levinson and PARRISE Consortium 2017; Romero-Ariza, Abril, and Quesada 2017a; Verhoeff 2017), but also drama education (Verhoeff 2017). The aim of SSIBL is to support the agency and motivation of young people when carrying out the inquiry. SSIBL consists of the following activities: (1) posing a research-based question, (2) carrying out an inquiry, (3) finding a solution to a question and taking action (Amos and Levinson 2019). The SSIBL philosophy is also different from the other philosophies because it is specifically developed in line with RRI in education (Ariza et al. 2014; Blonder et al. 2017; Hadjichambis et al. 2018; Knippels and van Dam 2017; Levinson and PARRISE Consortium 2017; Romero-Ariza, Abril, and Quesada 2017a; Verhoeff 2017).

The ideas of SSIBL include critical citizenship education, which is based on inquiry-based learning and situated in the context of social and political issues. The core of the SSIBL framework is to research a question which is important to young learners to solve the local or global issues and bring out the outcomes of the inquiry via democratic processes to the public, which may also entail taking action. The entire process is based on contextualised scientific knowledge (Levinson and PARRISE Consortium 2017). SSIBL itself consists of several dimensions or features. Verhoeff (2017) outlines four dimensions, namely (1) knowing about issues, (2) skills to bring forth the socio-scientific-based inquiry, (3) values that are connected to well-being and social justice, and (4) democratic deliberation and inclusivity. Romero-Ariza, Abril, and Quesada (2017a) have simultaneously proposed three key features: authenticity, mapping the controversy, and taking action. All these dimensions have similarities to the main characteristics of RRI and are, through the SSIBL framework, feasible in the school context.

In contrast to the earlier philosophies, the SSIBL philosophy is not described according to the RRI map, because SSIBL already includes all the philosophies described. Hence, SSIBL is elaborated further in the next section.

Practising RRI in and with science education: a few practical considerations

The present section outlines the main implications of using RRI in order to map the existing philosophies. As mentioned in the beginning of the article, the level of contribution we are aiming at is eminently conceptual. Our goal is to show through the RRI map how existing philosophies in science education can be brought under the same umbrella and help understand how to integrate RRI into education using science education as the specific domain of application. That being said, this section is devoted to bringing the discussion to more practical terms.

Figure 3 and Table 2 represent how the different philosophies can be located on the RRI Map presented above. The different shades of grey represent the degree to which different RRI-related activities are addressed.

Figure 3. Putting the different philosophies on the RRI map.

We individuate three main levels: (1) the activity is mentioned and can be addressed specifically (dark grey); (2) the activity is not mentioned explicitly but it can still be addressed (grey); (3) the activity is not addressed (light grey). It is worth noting that the main added value of the map is precisely to help teachers map their own teaching in relation to the different RRI-related activities, which the teacher may want to cover in order to teach RRI. For example, the map allows the teacher to see the different RRI-related activities, which one to choose and the corresponding philosophy that might help pursue the pedagogical goal the teacher has in mind. Also, it might help the teacher see what they might be able to pursue when, conversely, a specific philosophy is selected since the start. Additionally, the map can help the teacher see which elements they are not addressing due to choices made or simple practical constraints. In this sense, the map provides the teacher with a bird's eye view on the RRI-related activities that they may want to consider in their teaching. As such it is a simple tool to assess what the teacher may need to cover in subsequent teaching units.

It must be noted that RRI by its nature does not cover solely the individual subjects separately but is more a cross-curricular approach. For example, if the aim is to make sense of how scientific knowledge is constructed, NOS can be a valuable candidate. In the previous section, we made the case that sense-making activities can be exemplified by the morning cycles in school, during which learners can bring in what they think about the information that they have previously obtained from books or journals regarding scientific topics, which, though, have a connection with ethical dilemmas or real-life issues. In this sense RRI in education can be seen as an integration into the existing curricular activities rather than a subject on its own. This is in line with what we stated in the introduction, where we pointed out that RRI in K-12 is not a topic learners learn about but rather informs the way in which science is taught.

As mentioned already, NOS does not do much when it comes to taking action and exploring theoretical possibilities, as it tends to focus on the nature of the scientific enterprise, rather than using scientific inquiry to address pressing societal issues and/or investigating new theoretical ventures.

It is worth noting that sense-making does not solely refer to achieving a deeper understanding of the nature of science. This second-order type of reflection characterising sense-making may contribute to bringing out controversial multifaceted and pressing issues, which partly originate from science. In such cases, SSI can be considered as the most appropriate pedagogical choice. The teacher's role can be the initiator of a discussion, a challenger, or an endorser. In comparison with NOS, the learners have the opportunity to take responsibility for stating and discussing socio-scientific issues, as those SSI issues do not require familiarity with the inner workings of science. This knowledge can be supplied by the teacher, but the learners join in to debate, discuss and further their knowledge on specific issues. As with NOS, SSI also does not specifically engage learners with exploring theoretical possibilities. The same goes with taking action, although through SSI learners have the chance to make connections between scientific concepts and societal, pressing issues.

When the pedagogical goal concerns more the development of the capacity to respond to societal issues, the CE philosophy seems to be the most appropriate one to consider. Not only does CE include active participation, but also the possibility for the learners to make sense of the inner workings of society (Schulz et al. 2016) and subsequently apply the relevant knowledge to concrete cases, which at the core are action-taking activities. In the previous section, we mentioned that an example of a taking action activity that can be carried out at school is the creation of research-based solutions for issues that directly concern the school as a community. So, for example, the research-based solution can be related to improving the well-being of all members of the school, how to make the school environment more sustainable and livable. In this case, the connection to science is given by the fact that scientific knowledge can be applied to concrete challenges that are very much related to the different communities learners take part in, starting from that of the school.

Analogously to the two previous philosophies, taking action does not quite engage students in exploring theoretical possibilities. Scientific knowledge is more like an instrument that is applied, rather than a goal in itself. If the teacher is interested in exploring theoretical possibilities, IBL seems to be the most appropriate philosophy. As noted above, learners are given the chance to establish a form of engagement with the process of knowledge production, in which they progressively take ownership of it. One example that was previously mentioned was carrying out an inquiry lesson where the teacher lets the students take the lead in the different stages of the inquiry. This may start from the identification of the topic to investigate in order to increase the sense of the learner's ownership, but can also involve deciding how to plan and then carry out the experiment along with choosing the most suitable pieces of equipment to deploy.

While first-order reflections on the process itself can be promoted throughout the different inquiry phases, making learners more aware of the way in which scientific knowledge can be produced, more abstract and general reflections on science, and its contribution to more complex social issues, might not be seen as the main goal of IBL. That can only be done on particular occasions depending on the topic addressed. The same can be said about action-taking, which can be seen, at best, as a step after the inquiry process has come to an end.

While we have now stressed the specificities of each and every philosophy, we argue that they should not be viewed separately. They can be considered as a phase in practicing RRI. For instance, the learning process may start with a problem that a teacher or learner has found practically relevant. This may lead to inquiring into possible solutions to the problem to then finish with making sense of the entire process. Or, to make another example, teacher or learners find a topical issue and try to develop a better understanding through the use of exploration. The latter can be supported by the SSIBL philosophy, which is also developed in the RRI-related educational research literature (e.g. Ariza et al. 2014; Blonder et al. 2017; Hadjichambis et al. 2018). In the SSIBL philosophy the exploration will start with the research question which captured the interest of learners and if they are now searching for the answer through the inquiry process. The process of SSIBL also requires democratic participation and taking action (Levinson 2017). In this respect, it is important to emphasise that the focus on responsibility as care is higher in SSIBL than in all other philosophies separately. Also, dealing with topics the learners are interested in, and given them a chance to participate and take action, provides them with the chance to take ownership of what they are doing (Bardone et al. 2017).

One last consideration concerns teachers. We stressed that the engagement of learners in doing RRI stems from the teacher's ability to suitably integrate the different philosophies. As noted above, choosing one philosophy or the other depends on the actual pedagogical goal that the teacher has in mind. This indeed implies that teachers are familiar with the aforementioned philosophies along with their weaknesses and strengths in relation to the core pedagogical values of RRI. Additionally, it is worth noting that the role of the teacher herself/himself may vary depending on the philosophy being actually deployed. During the transition from one philosophy to another, teachers can change their roles, e.g. from acting as the leaders, initiators of the process, to being facilitators of the process or discussants.

Conclusion

The overarching goal of this article was to contribute to the ongoing debate concerning how RRI can be made relatable to education, chiefly in the field of science education, which has been identified in the literature as the most suitable domain where to locate the educational activities meant to promote RRI. While there are existing philosophies in science education that are suitable and have been used for the introduction of RRI into education, we argued that the current level of debate is affected by a certain degree of fragmentation that should be somehow overcome. This paper was meant to address this challenge.

We presented what we called the RRI map, which is a conceptual device to highlight the complementarity of the different existing approaches. Building on our previous research, we identified three main activities that can be carried out in science education and that are relevant to the promotion of Responsible Research and Innovation in school, which correspond to taking responsibility for (1) making sense, (2) taking action and (3) exploring theoretical possibilities. While none of the five existing philosophies that we have analysed in the paper explicitly address all three activities, we have tried to show where they can be combined so as to cover the entire RRI map. The plurality of views expressed in the different philosophies can be considered as a plus, not a minus.

Incidentally, the elaboration of the RRI map brings out issues that concern RRI as such. For example, we have pointed out the necessity of disambiguating the term responsibility, which is a topic that has been raised in the literature devoted to RRI as well (Flink and Kaldewey 2018). In this paper, we held the view that the term responsibility should be located in the process, not identified with the fulfilment of certain outcomes. In this sense, we strongly hold a view on responsibility that is processual and is therefore connected to care rather than accountability. This seems to fit better with the overall intention of shifting away from the results of research and innovation in the process.

In addition, we have also pointed out that RRI should be concerned with the imaginative and more open-ended activity of exploring possibilities, which takes the uncertainty related to research and innovation seriously. Besides, it adds another layer to the one introduced by various anticipatory techniques, which, though, are still rooted in the management of outcomes rather than in the process.

Since we have chosen science education, it goes without saying that the same limitations affecting the field affect our treatment of the topic. We have not touched upon issues that concern the integration of technology into the educational scene, which some may view as a fundamental aspect brought out by RRI. This, though, might be considered a challenge to address in the near future.

Disclosure statement

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

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emanuele Bardone

Emanuele Bardone is an Associate Professor at the Centre of Educational Technology at University of Tartu, Estonia. His main research interests revolve around critical educational technology and philosophy of technology. He is currently Director of the International Master's Programme in Educational Technology in the same university.

Mirjam Burget

Mirjam Burget received her PhD in educational research from the University of Tartu, Estonia. Currently, she is an Analyst at the Center for Applied Anthropology of Estonia. Her research interests include sustainability, science education and responsible research and innovation in education.

Margus Pedaste

Margus Pedaste is a Professor of Educational Technology at the Institute of Education of the University of Tartu, Estonia, where he is leading the Centre for Educational Technology. His research interests are in educational technology, science education, inquiry-based learning, technology-enhanced learning and instruction, learning analytics, and augmented reality.