Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe level of competition of radio stations in NTB in the past few years has increased considerably with the presence of private radio. LPP RRI Mataran as a government radio, so naturally it must be able to compete and at the same time maintain its existence as a public broadcasting institution. This research uses descriptive qualitative research methods. By using Niche theory, LPP RRI Mataram can compete, while at the same time being able to maintain its existence as a public broadcasting institution because it can fulfill three major components to be able to compete with other industries. The three components are capital, advertisers who can support the survival of LPP RRI Mataram, namely from the state budget and regional budget. types of content, pro1, pro2, and optimize audio and video streaming technology resources and RRI Play, beyong. types of audience, the entire NTB community.

Leading RRI researchers and practitioners, together with policymakers and stakeholder organisations, discussed the state-of-the-art and future perspectives for RRI at the 'Pathways to Transformation' conference in June 2019, an event which was extended beyond Brussels, for instance by ca. 330 original tweets and ca. 840 retweets from ca. 160 unique accounts. In the conference, many participants expressed their concern about an uncertain future for RRI in the EC. As a result, numerous largescale EU-funded RRI projects signed a Joint Declaration, urging the European Commission to make RRI a key objective of the upcoming framework programme, Horizon Europe - a plea to both mainstream the approach across the programme and provide specific resources for strengthening the RRI knowledge base. As the Horizon Europe programme is being forged, it is timely to present the Declaration for a broader audience.

Sowohl Open Science als auch Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) zielen auf tiefgreifende Transformationen im Innovationssystem durch eine stärkere Öffnung von Forschung und Entwicklung für gesellschaftliche Akteure. Trotz dieser grundsätzlichen Nähe beider Konzepte wurde ihr Verhältnis bisher nicht eingehend analysiert. Dieser Beitrag möchte einen ersten Ansatz bieten, die Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede von RRI und Open Science hinsichtlich des diskursiven Ursprungs der beiden Metakonzepte, ihrer jeweiligen Herausforderungen und Ziele sowie ihrer Akteure und der Rolle der Gesellschaft zu diskutieren. Darauf aufbauend werden Implikationen und Potenziale einer konzeptionellen Integration aufgezeigt. Der Artikel schließt mit einem Ausblick auf mögliche Ansätze einer Integration.

In its "deliberative turn," the field of science and technology studies (STS) has strongly advocated opening up decision-making processes around science and technology to more perspectives and knowledges. While the theory of democracy underpinning this is rarely explicitly addressed, the language and ideas used are often drawn from deliberative democracy. Using the case of synthetic biology and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), this paper looks at challenges of public engagement and finds parallels in long-standing critiques of deliberative democracy. The paper suggests that STS scholars explore other theories of decision-making and explores what an RRI grounded in agonistic pluralism might entail. An agonistic RRI could develop empirical research around questions of power relations in contemporary science and technology, seek to facilitate the formation of political publics around relevant issues, and frame different actors' stances as adversarial positions on a political field rather than "equally valid" perspectives.

This document represents an inventory of 43 RRI Governance Innovation Practices (RRIGIPs), detected in RRI projects conducted in Europe and beyond. This inventory has been created within the context of TeRRItoria EU project (WP3, Task 3.2) and with the aim to identify useful and innovating RRIGIPs, which can provide valuable insights for designing and implementing the five Transformative Experiments foreseen by the project. These practices have been selected within a solid thematic and theoretical framework and through a thorough methodological procedure. This procedure has been comprised of four complementary to each other steps, where from the initial 80 projects, the final 15 projects and corresponding 43 practices were placed in the inventory. These 43 practices have been critically analysed mainly through desk research, as well as through interviews with the promoters of some of these practices. The variables that contributed to their analysis were namely: general description, objective, policies/strategies, synergies and correlations, barriers (and incentives), impact (inside and outside the ecosystem). After the analysis, certain conclusions were reached in relation to tendencies and 'trends' identified within the aforementioned practices for the implementation (or even institutionalisation) of the RRI approach and any of each basic tenets-keys. The tendencies and accompanying conclusions do not represent a set of universal guidelines for implementing RRI, since context is a major parameter that always needs to be taken into account. Their value lies in critically elaborating on some policies that can aid institutions ameliorate even their most intimate mechanisms through an efficient RRI uptake (based on their own aims), as well as in providing a valuable input for the consequent construction of a map of approaches, policies and tools for Territorial RRI (Task 3.3) and the execution of the envisaged experiments.

Responsible Research and Innovation appears as a paradoxical frame, hard to conceptualize and difficult to apply. If on the one hand research and innovation appear to follow logics blind to societal issues, responsibility is still a blurred concept interpreted according to circumstances.Different perspectives are implied in the RRI discourse rendering difficult also its application, because each social dimension proposes a different path for its implementation. This book will try to indicate how such conflictual understanding of RRI is caused by a reductive interpretation of ethics and, consequently, of responsibility.The resulting framework will represent an ethical approach to RRI that could help in overcoming conflictual perspectives and construct a multi-layer approach to research and innovation

Broadcasting Act No. 32/2002 has transformed Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI) and Televisi Republik Indonesia (TVRI) from a state-owned-body to public-broadcasting-service. This research aimed to investigate the impacts experienced by those two organizations concerning their philosophies, role, functions, and its implementation on operational levels. Utilizing case studies in West Java and South Sulawesi (Makasar), it is found that broadcasting dynamics in both area are highly dynamic. On the level of normative, both are consistent enough. But on the level of empirical implementation, there were still many obstacles. Although institutional structure relatively proportional, this research found that local autonomy spirit is rarelyBroadcasting Act No. 32/2002 has transformed Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI) and Televisi Republik Indonesia (TVRI) from a state-owned-body to public-broadcasting-service. This research aimed to investigate the impacts experienced by those two organizations concerning their philosophies, role, functions, and its implementation on operational levels. Utilizing case studies in West Java and South Sulawesi (Makasar), it is found that broadcasting dynamics in both area are highly dynamic. On the level of normative, both are consistent enough. But on the level of empirical implementation, there were still many obstacles. Although institutional structure relatively proportional, this research found that local autonomy spirit is rarely

This chapter frames RRI as an emerging governance approach in the EU regulatory context. We argue that reference to fundamental rights makes RRI a distinctive approach to responsibility compared to other existing paradigms and that human rights, in particular those laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are not necessarily a constraint but can instead be a catalyst of innovation. Eventually we maintain that a governance framework based on the complementarity between legal norms and voluntary commitments might successfully combine the respect of fundamental rights with the openness and flexibility of the innovation process.

The SiEUGreen project brings together a multi-disciplinary consortium of European and Chinese researchers, technology providers, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), financiers, local and regional authorities and resident communities, to apply novel urban agricultural techniques and new approaches for social engagement and investigate the economic, environmental and social benefits of Urban Agriculture (UA). Environmental, behavioral and economic data will be collected from the showcase communities and "feedback" to the researchers for analysis and improvement. SiEUGreen activities will involve human participants and institutions and their social, cultural, political and economic actions and behavior in generating urban agricultural techniques and waste recycling and reuse methods in selected European and Chinese urban and peri-urban areas. The data type generated from the showcases documenting the social and economic benefits of the SiEUGreen project will be of both qualitative and quantitative nature. SiEUGreen will adhere to the guideline outlined in the FAIR data management in Horizon 2020, andthisdatamanagementplanwill helpresearchpartnersmaketheirresearchdata findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (European Commission, 2016) to ensure that data are properly managed. The SiEUGreen project participates in the Pilot on Open Research Data launched by the European Commission along with the H2020. In open access SiEUGreen project, the partners will publish scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals and then selfarchive a version of the article for free public use in the designated repository. This document provides the data management framework for the project. The Data Management Plan (DMP) describes the type of research data that will be collected or generated during the project, how the research data are preserved and re-used and how scientific publications and other articles will be made publicly available, for example through free on-line access. It also provides the general guideline ...

Ruth Debora Massie, 090815001, mahasiswi (S1) Ilmu Komunikasi, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Sam Ratulangi. Penelitian ini berjudul "Manajemen Program Siaran Dialog Interaktif di Kantor RRI Manado". Dibawah bimbingan dari Drs. Philep. Morse. Regar, MS sebagai dosen pembimbing pertama (1) dan Dra. N. N. Mewengkang, MSi sebagai dosen pembimbing kedua.Sebuah proses manajemen dibutuhkan untuk dapat mengatur/mengontrol jalannya siaran, mulai dari merencanakan kegiatan siaran, mengorganisasikan orang-orang yang handal dalam bidangnya sesuai kebutuhan, menggerakkan sumber daya yang dimiliki, dan mengawasi segala aktivitas proses pelaksanaan siaran.Tujuan penelitian ini untu kmengetahui tentang penerapan fungsi-fungsi manajemen pada program siaran Dialog Interaktif di kantor RRI Manado.Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif deskriptif.Metode ini dipilih dengan tujuan untuk dapat lebih menggambarkan mengenai fungsi-fungsi manajemen yang diterapkan dalam program siaran radio. Yang menjadi informan kunci dalam penelitian ini adalah kepala RRI Manado, bidang pemberitaan, siaran, dan teknik studio RRI, dan 2 orang pendengar sebagai informan pendukung. Data dikumpulkan melalui wawancara, studi pustaka, dan internet searching, selanjutnya menganalisa hasil penelitian dilakukan untuk dapat memperoleh jawaban atas penelitian yang dilakukan dan berusaha untuk membuahkan suatu kerangka pikir.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwaManajemen Program Siaran Dialog Interaktif di Kantor RRI Manado sudah berjalan dengan baik, dari segi fungsi manajemen, yaitu Perencanaan (Planning), Pengorganisasian (Organizing), Penggerakkan (Actuating) dan Pengawasan (Controlling). Dari segi Tools of Managemen tatau Sarana Manajemen yang ada juga dimanfaatkan sesuai dengan porsinya masing - masing.

Over the last decades, the dominant ways of conducting science have been challenged by responsible research and innovation (RRI) (Stahl et al. 2019). RRI is outlined in the Rome declaration as 'the on-going process of aligning research and innovation to the values, needs, and expectations of society' (European Commission 2014). In RRI, societal actors work together during the whole Research and Innovation (R&I) process in order to better align R&I outcomes to commonly (European) shared values. The matter of what we, as a society, want out of science and technology is as, if not more important, than, say, health, safety and risk management. Since 2009, the political and academic discourse on RRI has experienced exceptional growth (Timmermans 2017). Although the strength of the discourse has stabilised or decreased over the last few years (Silva et al. 2019), its emphasis on 'societal and environmental impact' and 'user involvement' are still pursued in important research calls such as the new Horizon Europe Framework Programme for 2020 to 2027 (Von Schomberg and Hankins 2019). So far, most research on RRI has been conceptual, addressing frameworks and approaches, whereas less attention has been paid to practical issues relating to its implementation such as challenges, dilemmas and constraints (Nathan 2015; Timmermans 2017; Kuzma and Roberts 2018; Ribeiro et al. 2018). To address this knowledge gap and to better understand potential barriers to the widespread adoption of RRI, this paper focuses on the challenges faced by researchers who are meeting the RRI framework for the frst time. This focus is warranted on the basis of two primary observations; frstly, because we have found these challenges to be most explicitly articulated in the frst phase of an R&I processes, and secondly, because the research results presented in this paper will speak directly to those most in need of this kind of knowledge, i.e. researchers who are about to implement mandatory RRI for the frst time. ; Open Access funding provided by OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University. This research was funded by the Research Council of Norway, grant numbers 238849/O70 and 269084/O70. ; publishedVersion

* Verantwortungsvolle Forschung und Innovation oder Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) stellt die Frage nach dem gesellschaftlichen Nutzen von Forschung und Innovation. * Damit wird die Grundlage für eine erneute Diskussion um Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik gestellt. * Wissenschaft steht sich einer zunehmenden Bedeutung anwendungsorientierter Forschung und damit auch wissenschaftsexterner Erfolgskriterien konfrontiert. * Anwendungsorientierte Forschung kommt nicht darum herum, ihre normativen Anker zu reflektieren und zu explizieren. * Im Wissenschaftssystem fehlen bisher institutionelle Voraussetzungen um die durch anwendungsorientierte Forschung umgesetzte dritte Funktion von Wissenschaft (gesellschaftliche Relevanz) angemessen bewerten zu können.

Using indicators to further implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation is a cornerstone in EC policymaking and generally seen as a good practice. The RRI-Practice project provides evidence that using indicators is far from unproblematic. Where indicators may have advantages, we provide evidence that indicators may cause outright resistance to RRI and may be seen as curbing learning. Indicator use vary considerably along national norms, and organizational cultures. It is important to use indicators that facilitate learning processes, use measurements that further, rather than curb, RRI, and take up as few resources as possible with respect to reporting. We further show that evaluations, which include users, are a viable alternative to indicators with respect to implementation of responsible research and innovation. Additionally, if national funding providers are to employ indicators, indicators need to be sanctioned by higher level governance actors. We finish with practical advice on working with indicators. ; publishedVersion