Critical responsible innovation – the role(s) of the researcher

References

• Abbott, A. 2015. “Human Brain Project Votes for Leadership Change.” Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17060.
   Google Scholar
• Adam, A., and D. Kreps. 2006. “Enabling or Disabling Technologies? A Critical Approach to Web Accessibility.” Information Technology & People 19 (3): 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840610689822.
   Google Scholar
• Aicardi, C., L. Bitsch, N. Bang Bådum, S. Datta, K. Evers, M. Farisco, T. Fothergill, et al. 2021. “Opinion on “Responsible Dual Use” Political, Security, Intelligence and Military Research of Concern in Neuroscience and Neurotechnology.” Accessed March 8. https://zenodo.org/record/4588601#.YFW7_q_7SUk.
   Google Scholar
• Aicardi, C., and T. Mahfoud. 2022. “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the Human Brain Project.” Science, Technology, & Human Values.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., and S. A. Deetz. 2000. Doing Critical Management Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., and H. Willmott. 2003. Studying Management Critically. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Amunts, K., C. Ebell, J. Muller, M. Telefont, A. Knoll, and T. Lippert. 2016. “The Human Brain Project: Creating a European Research Infrastructure to Decode the Human Brain.” Neuron 92 (3): 574–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anon. 1987. Critical Legal Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Apel, K.-O. 1990. Diskurs Und Verantwortung.: Das Problem Des Übergangs Zur Postkonventionellen Moral. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag KG.
   Google Scholar
• Argyis, C., and D. Schon. 1989. “Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared.” American Behavioral Scientist 32 (5): 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032005008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balmer, A. S., J. Calvert, C. Marris, S. Molyneux-Hodgson, E. Frow, M. Kearnes, K. Bulpin, P. Schyfter, A. Mackenzie, and P. Martin. 2015. “Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community.” Science & Technology Studies 28 (3): 3–25. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, A., G. Born, and G. Weszkalnys. 2008. “Logics of Interdisciplinarity.” Economy and Society 37 (1): 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brey, P. 2008. “The Technological Construction of Social Power.” Social Epistemology 22 (1): 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720701773551.
   Google Scholar
• Brooke, Carole, ed. 2009. Critical Management Perspectives on Information Systems. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann Educational.
   Google Scholar
• Callahan, G. 2010. “Critical Realism … or Critical Idealism?” International Journal of Social Economics 37 (11): 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291011082838.
   Google Scholar
• Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. 2011. “Doing Critical Information Systems Research – Arguments for a Critical Research Methodology.” European Journal of Information Systems 20 (4): 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., H. K. Klein, and C. Brooke. 2008. “Exploring the Critical Agenda in Information Systems Research.” Information Systems Journal 18 (2): 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00295.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhury, S., and J. Slaby. 2011. Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience. 1st ed. Holboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Chua, W. F. 1986. “Radical Developments in Accounting Thought.” The Accounting Review 61 (4): 601–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruickshank, J. 2010. “Knowing Social Reality: A Critique of Bhaskar and Archer’s Attempt to Derive a Social Ontology from Lay Knowledge.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (4): 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393109340664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delanty, G., and N. Harris. 2021. “Critical Theory and the Question of Technology: The Frankfurt School Revisited.” Thesis Eleven 166 (1): 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136211002055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doolin, B. 2004. “Power and Resistance in the Implementation of a Medical Management Information System.” Information Systems Journal 14 (4): 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doolin, B., and L. McLeod. 2005. “Towards Critical Interpretivism in IS Research.” In Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application, edited by D. Howcroft, and E. Trauth, 244–271. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Elbanna, A., and M. Newman. 2022. “The Bright Side and the Dark Side of Top Management Support in Digital Transformation – A Hermeneutical Reading.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. 1993. Critical Theory of Technology. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. 2017. “Critical Theory of Technology and STS.” Thesis Eleven 138 (1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513616689388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feller, J., and D. C. Sammon. 2016. “On the Road to Trusted Data: An Autoethnography of Community Governance and Decision-Making.” Journal of Decision Systems 25 (sup1): 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2016.1187413.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U., and M. Fochler. 2010. “Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-Scribing Publics in Public Engagement.” Minerva 48 (3): 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, D., and F. Callard. 2015. “Social Science and Neuroscience beyond Interdisciplinarity: Experimental Entanglements.” Theory, Culture & Society 32 (1): 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414537319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forst, R. 2010. “The Justification of Human Rights and the Basic Right to Justification: A Reflexive Approach.” Ethics 120 (4): 711–740. https://doi.org/10.1086/653434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1980. Power-Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings – 1972–1977. Edited by Gordon Colin. New York: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Freeth, R., and U. Vilsmaier. 2020. “Researching Collaborative Interdisciplinary Teams.” Science & Technology Studies 33 (3): 57–72. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.73060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey, P., S. Schaupp, and K.-A. Wenten. 2021. “Towards Emancipatory Technology Studies.” NanoEthics 15 (1): 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00388-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frégnac, Y., and G. Laurent. 2014. “Neuroscience: Where Is the Brain in the Human Brain Project?” Nature 513 (7516): 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/513027a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhill, A., and M. Wilson. 2006. “Haven or Hell? Telework, Flexibility and Family in the e-Society: A Marxist Analysis.” European Journal of Information Systems 15 (4): 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimpe, B., B. C. Stahl, C. Ten Holter, P. Inglesant, G. Eden, M. Patel, and M. Jirotka. 2020. “From Collaborative to Institutional Reflexivity: Calibrating Responsibility in the Funding Process.” Science and Public Policy 47 (5): 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2011. “Responsible Innovation: Bringing Together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research.” Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie Des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Heng, M. S. H., and A. De Moor. 2003. “From Habermas’s Communicative Theory to Practice on the Internet.” Information Systems Journal 13 (4): 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00144.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschheim, R., H. K. Klein, and K. Lyytinen. 1995. Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horkheimer, M. 1970. Traditionelle Und Kritische Theorie: 4 Aufsätze. Frankfurt a.M: Athenäum-Fischer-Taschenbuch.
   Google Scholar
• Howcroft, D., and E. M. Trauth. 2004. “The Choice of Critical Information Systems Research.” In Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice, edited by B. Kaplan, D. Truex, D. Wastell, A. Wood-Harper, and J. DeGross, 196–211. Boston: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, P., H. Gharavi, and J. Klobas. 2006. “Technologies of the Self: Virtual Work and the Inner Panopticon.” Information Technology & People 19 (3): 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840610689831.
   Google Scholar
• Jochum, G. 2021. “Dialectics of Technical Emancipation—Considerations on a Reflexive, Sustainable Technology Development.” NanoEthics 15 (1): 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00387-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, G. C., A. G. Young, A. Majchrzak, and S. Ransbotham. 2021. “Avoiding an Oppressive Future of Machine Learning: A Design Theory for Emancipatory Assistants.” MIS Quarterly 45 (1): 371–396. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/1578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kant, I. 1788. Kritik Der Praktischen Vernunft. Ditzingen: Reclam.
   Google Scholar
• Kant, I. 1995. Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft. Neuauflage. Studienausgabe. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, H. K., and M. Q. Huynh. 2004. “The Critical Social Theory of Jürgen Habermas and Its Implications for IS Research.” In Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems, edited by J. Mingers, and L. P. Willcocks, 157–237. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Krijger, J. 2022. “Enter the Metrics: Critical Theory and Organizational Operationalization of AI Ethics.” AI & SOCIETY 37 (4): 1427–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01256-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. New ed. of 3rd rev ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kvasny, L., and H. Richardson. 2006. “Critical Research in Information Systems: Looking Forward, Looking Back.” Information Technology & People 19 (3): 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840610689813.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, A. S. 1991. “Architecture as a Reference Discipline for MIS.” In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches & Emergent Traditions, edited by H.-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim, 573–592. Amsterdam: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Marcuse, H. 2002. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. 1st ed. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, K. 1972. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band, Buch I: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals. 81972. Unveränderter Neudruck der 1. Auflage 1962. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, K., and F. Engels. 2015. Die deutsche Ideologie: Thesen über Feuerbach: Kritik der neuesten deutschen Philosophie in ihren Repräsentanten Feuerbach, B. Bauer und Stirner und des … in seinen verschiedenen Propheten. Berlin: Zenodot Verlagsgesellscha.
   Google Scholar
• McAulay, L., N. Doherty, and N. Keval. 2002. “The Stakeholder Dimension in Information Systems Evaluation.” Journal of Information Technology 17 (4): 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268396022000017734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. 2001. “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology.” Information Systems Research 12 (3): 240–259. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, Michael D., and David E. Avison, eds. 2002. Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, M. D., and H. K. Klein. 2011. “A Set of Principles for Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems.” MIS Quarterly 35 (1): 17–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J., and J. J. Baroudi. 1991. “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions.” Information Systems Research 2 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. M. Macnaghten, E. Fisher, M. Gorman, and D. H. Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. R. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 27–50. Holboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., R. von Schomberg, and P. Macnaghten. 2021. “An Unfinished Journey? Reflections on a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 8 (2): 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1948789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravn, T., M. W. Nielsen, and N. Mejlgaard. 2015. “Metrics and Indicators of Responsible Research and Innovation.” MoRRI Project Deliverable. http://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2171_D3.2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, H., and B. Robinson. 2007. “The Mysterious Case of the Missing Paradigm: A Review of Critical Information Systems Research 1991–2001.” Information Systems Journal 17 (3): 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00230.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rome Declaration. 2014. “Rome Declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe.” https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N. 2014. “The Human Brain Project: Social and Ethical Challenges.” Neuron 82 (6): 1212–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.06.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, N., and J. M. Abi-Rached. 2013. Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, H., and S. Rose. 2012. Genes, Cells and Brains: The Promethean Promises of the New Biology. Reprint ed. New York: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salles, A., J. G. Bjaalie, K. Evers, M. Farisco, B. T. Fothergill, M. Guerrero, H. Maslen, et al. 2019. “The Human Brain Project: Responsible Brain Research for the Benefit of Society.” Neuron 101 (3): 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saravanamuthu, K. 2002. “Information Technology and Ideology.” Journal of Information Technology 17 (2): 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960210145977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlagwein, D., D. Cecez-Kecmanovic, and B. Hanckel. 2019. “Ethical Norms and Issues in Crowdsourcing Practices: A Habermasian Analysis.” Information Systems Journal 29 (4): 811–837. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuijer, J. W., J. Broerse, and F. Kupper. 2021. “Juggling Roles, Experiencing Dilemmas: The Challenges of SSH Scholars in Public Engagement.” NanoEthics 15 (2): 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00394-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soraker, J., and P. Brey. 2015. “Ethics Assessment in Different Fields – Information Technologies.” Deliverable. SATORI Project. http://satoriproject.eu/media/2.b.1-Information-technology.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, Bernd Carsten. 2007. “Positivism or Non-Positivism – Tertium Non Datur: A Critique of Philosophical Syncretism in IS Research.” In Ontologies: A Handbook of Principles, Concepts and Applications in Information Systems, edited by R. Sharman, R. Kishore, and R. Ramesh, 115–142. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, B. C. 2008. “The Ethical Nature of Critical Research in Information Systems.” Information Systems Journal 18 (2): 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00283.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahl, Bernd Carsten, S. Akintoye, L. Bitsch, B. Bringedal, D. Eke, M. Farisco, K. Grasenick, et al. 2021. “From Responsible Research and Innovation to Responsibility by Design.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 8 (2): 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1955613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahl B.C., S. Akintoye, B. T. Fothergill, M. Guerrero, W. Knight, and I. Ulnicane. 2019. “Beyond Research Ethics: Dialogues in Neuro-ICT Research.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 13, 105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00105.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, Bernd Carsten, and T. Leach. 2023. “Assessing the Ethical and Social Concerns of Artificial Intelligence in Neuroinformatics Research: An Empirical Test of the European Union Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI).” AI and Ethics 3 (3): 745–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00201-4.
   Google Scholar
• Taebi, B., A. Correljé, E. Cuppen, M. Dignum, and U. Pesch. 2014. “Responsible Innovation as an Endorsement of Public Values: The Need for Interdisciplinary Research.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882072.
   Google Scholar
• Unger, R. M. 1986. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, R., ed. 2011. Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, R. 2020. “In Memory of Karl-Otto Apel: The Challenge of a Universalistic Ethics of Co-Responsibility.” Topologikno 26: 151–162.
   Google Scholar
• Waelen, R. 2022. “Why AI Ethics Is a Critical Theory.” Philosophy & Technology 35 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00507-5.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, B. 2018. “Ethics as an Escape from Regulation: From Ethics-Washing to Ethics-Shopping.” In Being Profiled: Cogitas Ergo Sum, edited by E. Bayamlioglu, I. Baraliuc, L. A. W. Janssens, and M. Hildebrandt, 84–90. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whittle, A., and A. Spicer. 2008. “Is Actor Network Theory Critique?” Organization Studies 29 (4): 611–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607082223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, W. F. E. 1991. Participatory Action Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Wicks, A. C., and R. E. Freeman. 1998. “Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-Positivism, and the Search for Ethics.” Organization Science 9 (2): 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggershaus, R. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theory and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: New ed. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 2006. “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Community Genetics 9 (3): 211–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yaghmaei, E. 2018. “Responsible Research and Innovation Key Performance Indicators in Industry: A Case Study in the ICT Domain.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 16 (2): 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-11-2017-0066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaghmaei, Emad, and Ibo van de Poel, eds. 2020. Assessment of Responsible Innovation: Methods and Practices. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Young, A. G. 2018. “Using ICT for Social Good: Cultural Identity Restoration through Emancipatory Pedagogy.” Information Systems Journal 28 (2): 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar