Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41296215›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2025

Societal Readiness Thinking Process 2.0: Incorporating Epistemic Reflexivity for Responsible Innovation.

Robert Braun, Michael J Bernstein, Arnab Chakraborty, Johannes Starkbaum, Florian Winkler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Robert BraunSocial and Sustainable Transformation Research Group, Institute for Advanced Studies - Institut für Höhere Studien, Josefstädter Straße 39, Vienna, 1080, Austria. braun@ihs.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0003-0579-3532
Michael J BernsteinCenter for Innovation Systems and Policy, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, GmbH Gieffengasse 4, Vienna, 1210, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7980-0489
Arnab ChakrabortySocial and Sustainable Transformation Research Group, Institute for Advanced Studies - Institut für Höhere Studien, Josefstädter Straße 39, Vienna, 1080, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1324-5958
Johannes StarkbaumSocial and Sustainable Transformation Research Group, Institute for Advanced Studies - Institut für Höhere Studien, Josefstädter Straße 39, Vienna, 1080, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2514-3289
Florian WinklerSocial and Sustainable Transformation Research Group, Institute for Advanced Studies - Institut für Höhere Studien, Josefstädter Straße 39, Vienna, 1080, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-7160-6566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Frameworks for ascertaining the societal dimensions of research and innovation (R&I), such as the Societal Readiness Thinking Tool (SRTT), have supported reflection on ethics and responsibility but often risk reducing reflexivity to procedural checklists or impact assessments. This paper develops an enhanced version, the reflexive SRTT 2.0 process, by incorporating concepts of epistemic reflexivity and ethnomethodological sensitivity. We introduce the concept of reflexive societal readiness, which understands readiness as a situated, ongoing accomplishment shaped by both local practices and institutional "relations of ruling." Drawing on ethnomethodological observations, reflexive questionnaires, and an initial workshop in the Horizon Europe project AGRO4AGRI, we examined how researchers engaged with reflexivity in practice. Our findings reveal three recurring patterns: reflexivity was often deflected through reliance on methodological safeguards, outsourced to societal impact experts or stakeholders, and substituted with compliance to regulatory frameworks or dominant imaginaries of sustainability and competitiveness. These practices uphold internal project orders and limit the potential for interdisciplinary learning and critical engagement. To address these obstacles, SRTT 2.0 proposes a reflexive process combining (a) observation of situated practices, (b) reflexive questioning that foregrounds individual positionalities, and (c) workshops that foster collaborative and institutional learning. This design enables researchers to critically interrogate their assumptions, engage more meaningfully with inclusion, and question the sociotechnical imaginaries shaping their work. We argue that embedding such reflexive processes into project lifecycles can extend and strengthen Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks by cultivating collaborative, empathetic, and institutional learning. While challenges remain, SRTT 2.0 offers a transferable pathway for fostering more reflexive and responsible innovation practices.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchKnowledgeResearchResearch PersonnelSocial ResponsibilityThinkingEuropeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAIRREpistemic reflexivityEthnomethodologyRRIScience and technology studiesSocietal readiness

Identifiers

PMID41296215
PMCPMC12657569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.