Suchergebnisse

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

This position paper is a deliverable from the first work package, WP 1 National risk regimes: The role of citizens, of the HomeRisk-project. The main aim of work package 1 is to identify the expectations and responsibilities of citizens in national risk plans in the three participating countries Norway, Sweden and Iceland. The basis for this report is the three National reports on this matter from the main partner in each country; SIFO (Norway), Mid Sweden University (Sweden) and University of Iceland (Iceland). The three reports are presented as individual chapters in this report. First, we briefly describe the three national risk regimes in these countries, and then we present and discuss how actors such as households, citizens and consumers are understood in them. Based on these reports, we find that the three countries have much in common. First of all, that there actually are a number of plans and laws in place. Further, that all three national governments have built up and sustain national and regional capabilities in case of emergencies. Within the scope of the HomeRisk-project, we have studied three kinds of actors: households, citizens and consumers. We note that households are hardly mentioned in any of the national plans or laws. It is citizens or the general public that it is referred to. With regard to consumers, we note that the general public only is referred to in this role, when it comes to ICT fallouts. This in contrast to electricity fallouts, where it appears that the general public is framed as citizens, rather than as consumers. There are of course differences between the countries as well, one of them is that there is more of an implicit expectation that Norwegian public authorities will step in if crises occur. In Sweden, The Law on Protection against Accidents ('Lag om skydd mot olyckor'), specifies that (only) for individuals who are not able to handle an event, then the public authorities are obliged to help. Whereas in Iceland, the implicit expectation is that households should be (must be) able to handle crisis on their own.

Increasing product lifespans is one of the most effective environmental strategies and therefore repair is a part of the circular economy approach that aims to keep products and materials longer in use. This article explores drivers and barriers for repair from consumers' and commercial repair actors' viewpoints, in order to understand how the repair rates of household appliances, mobile phones and clothing could be increased. The study is based on a consumer survey of 1196 respondents in Norway, and 15 qualitative interviews with actors in the commercial repair industry working with repairs of household consumer goods. A surprisingly high share of repairs was conducted by consumers themselves. The main barrier is the consistently low price of new products, and often of poor quality, which contributes to low profitability in repair work for businesses and low motivation from consumers. Furthermore, access to competent personnel is a major challenge for the repair industry, a need which is expected to increase in the coming years. Both the industry and consumers agree that better quality of products is a starting point for increased product lifespans, and this will also increase the motivation and the number of profitable repairs. These results have political implications on how to promote longer product lifespans through repair such as increased utilization and knowledge of consumers' complaint and warranty rights. ; The research project was supported by the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Families. Article writing was supported by the Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), Oslo Metropolitan University and Research Council of Norway [grant number 303080]. ; publishedVersion