Social responsibility in research and innovation practice and policy across global regions, institutional types, and fields: Interview data and qualitative content analysis outputs revealing the perspectives and experiences of professionals

The European Commission-funded RRING (Responsible Research and Innovation Networked Globally) Horizon 2020 project aimed to deliver activities that promoted a global understanding of Socially Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). A necessary first step in this process was to understand how researchers (working across Global North and Global South contexts) implicitly understand and operationalise ideas relating to social responsibility within their day-to-day work. Here, we describe an empirical dataset that was gathered as part of the RRING project to investigate this topic. This Data Note explains the design and implementation of 113 structured qualitative interviews with a geographically diverse set of researchers (across 17 countries) focusing on their perspectives and experiences. Sample selection was aimed at maximising diversity. As well as spanning all five UNESCO world regions, these interview participants were drawn from a range of research fields (including energy; waste management; ICT/digital; bioeconomy) and institutional contexts (including research performing organisations; research funding organisations; industry and business; civil society organisations; policy bodies). This Data Note also indicates how and why a qualitative content analysis was implemented with this interview dataset, resulting in category counts available with the anonymised interview transcripts for public access.

Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent

BACKGROUND

While specialization plays an essential role in how scientific research is pursued, we understand little about its effects on a researcher's impact and career. In particular, the extent to which one specializes within their chosen fields likely has complex relationships with productivity, career stage, and eventual impact. Here, we develop a novel and fine-grained approach for measuring a researcher's level of specialization at each point in their career and apply it to the publication data of almost 30,000 established biomedical researchers to measure the effect that specialization has on the impact of a researcher's publications.

RESULTS

Using a within-researcher, panel-based econometric framework, we arrive at several important results. First, there are significant scientific rewards for specialization-25% more citations per standard deviation increase in specialization. Second, these benefits are much higher early in a researcher's career-as large as 75% per standard deviation increase in specialization. Third, rewards are higher for researchers who publish few papers relative to their peers. Finally, we find that, all else equal, researchers who make large changes in their research direction see generally increased impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent to which one specializes, particularly at the early stages of a biomedical research career, appears to play a significant role in determining the citation-based impact of their publications. When this measure of impact is, implicitly or explicitly, an input into decision-making processes within the scientific system (for example, for job opportunities, promotions, or invited talks), these findings lead to some important implications for the system-level organization of scientific research and the incentives that exist therein. We propose several mechanisms within modern scientific systems that likely lead to the scientific rewards we observe and discuss them within the broader context of reward structures in biomedicine and science more generally.

A bibliometric methodology to unveil territorial inequities in the scientific wealth to combat COVID-19

In this paper we develop a methodology to assess the scientific wealth of territories at field level. Our methodology uses a bibliometric approach based on the observation of academic research performance and overall scientific production in each territory. We apply it to assess disparities in the Italian territories in the medical specialties at the front line of the COVID-19 emergency. Italy has been the first among western countries to be severely affected by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reveals remarkable inequities across territories, with scientific weaknesses concentrated in the south. Policies for rebalancing the north–south divide should also consider, in addition to tangible assets, the gap in production and availability of quality medical knowledge.

Science, Technology and Innovation as Social Goods for Development: Rethinking Research Capacity Building from Sen's Capabilities Approach

Science and technology are key to economic and social development, yet the capacity for scientific innovation remains globally unequally distributed. Although a priority for development cooperation, building or developing research capacity is often reduced in practice to promoting knowledge transfers, for example through North-South partnerships. Research capacity building/development tends to focus on developing scientists' technical competencies through training, without parallel investments to develop and sustain the socioeconomic and political structures that facilitate knowledge creation. This, the paper argues, significantly contributes to the scientific divide between developed and developing countries more than any skills shortage. Using Charles Taylor's concept of irreducibly social goods, the paper extends Sen's Capabilities Approach beyond its traditional focus on individual entitlements to present a view of scientific knowledge as a social good and the capability to produce it as a social capability. Expanding this capability requires going beyond current fragmented approaches to research capacity building to holistically strengthen the different social, political and economic structures that make up a nation's innovation system. This has implications for the interpretation of human rights instruments beyond their current focus on access to knowledge and for focusing science policy and global research partnerships to design approaches to capacity building/development beyond individual training/skills building.