How to make research and innovation more responsible

By SalM on September 3, 2020 in News

Interview with Caitriona Mordan, RRI Project officer for Dublin City University

You work in the area of RRI, or responsible research and innovation. What does that mean?

RRI is about developing research in a reflective way. Universities and other research institutions don’t exist in isolation, and it is important to engage with the people you are developing research for. That involves communication, ethics, trust, values and engaging with journalists, policy makers, industry and citizens. Science is making rapid advances and it is important that researchers can work with society to better address the issues we face.

How are you helping to make that happen?
At the moment I am involved in co-ordinating several RRI projects, and the biggest one of them is Nucleus, which includes 27 partner institutions across Europe and also in GeorgiaSouth Africa and China. The first phase of that project looked at attitudes and barriers to RRI and now we are in the second phase, where we are looking to build structures and frameworks to support the changes in culture that’s needed to encourage RRI.

What kinds of issues are you looking to address?
One is time frames. Research takes time, and sometimes industry and the media expect answers quickly. So, it’s important to have conversations and build trust and awareness around the processes and time-scales of research. We also see that in many cases researchers consider outreach as something they do after their research project has generated results, rather than using outreach as a way to inform how they design and carry out research projects.

So, what kinds of steps can you take to enable RRI?
We want research institutions to be able to change their cultures so that RRI is built into the culture. We are looking at steps such as setting up a steering committee, and ways to ensure that researchers get recognition and reward for practising RRI, so they can see the benefits and the impacts. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but by setting up these frameworks and evaluating them we can see what works well

What does your day-to-day work involve?
A lot of meetings, many of them online because the partners are international. We have to provide the milestones and papers to the European Commission, so my life is driven by deliverables but I really enjoy it. This is a new area, you have to think on your feet quite a lot, and I love the brainstorming involved in coming up with new strategies.

How did you get into this line of work?
I studied business and human resources initially, then I managed outreach programmes with Engineers Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland. I was always interested in the policy and education side of science and engineering, and I did a masters in science communication in Dublin City University. My thesis was on what motivates industry to engage in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and maths) education. From there I moved into working on RRI.

What do you do when you are not paving the way for more responsible research and innovation?
I have two kids and they keep me busy, but I like to go to the gym. Doing CrossFit feels great after sitting at the desk and commuting, and I enjoy running too. This year I want to get back into squash, it’s a great form of stress relief.

This article has been taken from the IrishTimes website. Follow the link to the source of the article

International Public Participation Models 1969-2020

By SalM on September 3, 2020 in News


Sally Hussey provides an essential public engagement resource compiling 60 international public participation models dating back fifty years to Arnstein’s influential ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’.

Last year, Sherry R. Arnstein’s  “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” celebrated its 50th anniversary. Originally published in the Journal of American Planning Association (JAPA) and one of its most cited articles to date, the longevity and impact of Arnstein’s Ladder can be recognised in the emergence of 60 public participation models since its inception.

Yet, Arnstein’s vision from 50 years ago bridges decades in more ways than one. Not only through its dynamic iteration in the history of public engagement frameworks and practices. Indeed, it provides a foundation for many of the central concepts that shape public engagement research and practice today. For just as current public participation spectrums continue to engender the work of shifting power in public decision-making – central to Arnstein’s vision – they also open out onto theories, methods and ideas that exist between the spectra.

But the inception of Arnstein’s Ladder in 1969 coincided with a shift in focus of the role of ‘citizens’, or public, and the conception of ‘participation’. Published at a “major inflection point” in the United States, with the Civil Rights Revolution, Vietnam war protests, the devastation of urban renewal, urban riots (Watts Riots and Newark Riots, for instance) and the increasing awareness of global environmental and ecological disasters, it demarcates the shift in the activation of citizens. Outgoing JAPA editor, Professor of Community and Regional Planning, University of Texas, Austin, Sandra Rosenbloom recently notes: “One result of the tumultuous events and major societal changes challenging the country at that time was a greater focus on the role of citizens in determining their own destiny and that of the neighborhoods and communities in which they lived. Citizen participation became both a duty and a rallying cry, but one that Arnstein viewed with great scepticism.”

While, in some countries, terminology has evolved to address exclusivity and divisive categorisation in the shift to from ‘citizen participation’ to ‘public engagement’, the link to contemporaneous challenges is evident in the need for people to determine their own destiny – to have their say – cutting across major changes posed by Black Lives Matter, climate chaos and increasing inequity resulting from population densification and urbanisation – not to mention the coronavirus pandemic that, in forcing a reset, prioritises equity considerations for marginalised and other equity-seeking groups and renewed efforts at fortifying community resilience. With democracy in crisis, public participation, it can be argued, has again become a “rallying cry” as governments scramble to connect to a disconnected public and, in a wake-up call to correct the balance of widespread mistrust, strive towards transparency, increased trust and legitimisation of public decisions.

As democratic societies across the globe increasingly commit to collaborative governance, public participation has thereby emerged as a rich arena. This includes the “deliberative wave” that has gained ground since 2010 that seeks ongoing, continuous and open dialogue and engagement between the public and public decision-makers. The recent focus on democratic innovations as a result of increased digitisation, too, emphasises a concern for the deepening of public participation in decision-making, where inclusive online engagement is one of the ways in which governments can engage communities. For benefits of online public engagement include improved governance, greater social cohesion, informed decision-making, community ownership, better responsiveness and transparency as well as increasing legitimacy of public decision-making.

Grounded in the democratic notion that public decisions should be shaped by people and communities affected by those decisions, public participation models have emerged not only to better map engagement in practice and theory but to ensure that people can shape decisions that affect their everyday lives.

The full list of 60 public participation models compiled (1969-2020)

** If you follow the link to the original post by Sally Hussey you will find a short description of each of the participation models and a link to the original source**


  • 1. The Patient Leadership Triangle, David Gilbert, 2020
  • 2. Balanced E-Participation Index, 2019
  • 3. The Community Engagement Components Practical Model, 2017
  • 4. Canadian Union of Skilled Workers (CUSW) Participation Model, CUDW, 2016
  • 5. Les Robinson’s Curiosity-Ometer, Les Robinson, 2016
  • 6. The Engagement Triangle, Capire Consulting Group, 2015
  • 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Spectrum of Public Involvement, 2015
  • 8. Parliament’s Public Participation Model, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, 2015
  • 9. The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Australasia “Community Engagement Model”, 2014
  • 10. Scotland’s Digital Participation Pathway, The Scottish Government, 2014
  • 11. Bryer’s Model of Social Media Participation in Urban Infrastructure Projects, Thomas A Bryer, 2012
  • 12. Kaizen’s Archetypes of Community Participation, Kaizen Partnership, 2012
  • 13. The Yinyang Model, Shier et al, 2012
  • 14. Typology of Youth Participation, Wong et al, 2011
  • 15. Six Principles of Online Participation, Tim Davies, 2011
  • 16. Changing Views on Participation, Pedro Martín, 2010
  • 17. Ladder of Online Participation, Bernoof & Li, 2010
  • 18. Three-lens Approach to Participation, DFID-CSO, 2010
  • 19. Behaviour Grid, BJ Fogg, 2010
  • 20. The Participation Tree, Harry Shier, 2010
  • 21. Consumer Framework for Digital Participation, Communications Consumer Panel UK, 2010


  • 22. Key Dimensions of Participation, Driskell & Neema, 2009
  • 23. Matrix of Participation, Tim Davies, 2009
  • 24. Pathways through Participation, NCVO & IVR, 2009
  • 25. Participation 2.0 Model, State Services Commission, New Zealand, 2007
  • 26. Engagement in the Policy Cycle, Diane Warburton, 2007
  • 27. Online Participation Behaviour Chain, Fogg & Eckles, 2007
  • 28. Lundy’s Model of Child Participation, Laura Lundy, 2007
  • 29. Four C’s of Online Participation, Derek Wenmoth, 2006
  • 30. Levels, Spaces and Forms of Power, John Gaventa, 2006
  • 31. The Clear Participation Model, Lawndes & Pratchett, 2006
  • 32. Four L Engagement Model, Tony Karrer, 2006
  • 33. Varieties of Participation, Archon Fung, 2006
  • 34. The Engagement Streams Framework, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, 2005
  • 35. Silverman’s Citizen Participation Continuum, Robert Silverman, 2005
  • 36. Five Components of Participation, Robin S Smith, 2005
  • 37. The United Nations E-Participation Index, 2003
  • 38. Ladder of Volunteer Participation, Adam Fletcher, 2003
  • 39. Youth Engagement Continuum, FCYO, 2003
  • 40. Triangle of Youth Participation, Jans & de Backer, 2002
  • 41. Youth Participation in Society, Jans & de Backer, 2002
  • 42. Dimensions of Youth Participation, David Driskell, 2002
  • 43. Seven Realms of Participation, Francis & Lorenzo, 2002
  • 44. Active Participation Framework, OECD, 2001
  • 45. Pathways to Participation, Harry Shier, 2001
  • 46. Clarity Model of Participation, Clare Lardner, 2001
  • 47. Strategic Approach to Participation, UNICEF, 2001
  • 48. The International Association for Public Participation, Public Participation Spectrum, IAP2, 2000, 2005, 2007


  • 49. Wheel of Participation, Scott Davidson, 1998
  • 50. Degrees of Participation, Phil Treseder, 1997
  • 51. Rocha’s Ladder of Empowerment, Elizabeth M Rocha, 1997
  • 52. Typology of Participation, Sarah C. White, 1996
  • 53. Typology of Participation in Development Programs and Projects, Jules Pretty, 1995
  • 54. Typology of Participation in Policy Processes and Planning, 1995
  • 55. Framework for Participation, David Wilcox, 1994
  • 56. Ladder of Participation for Waste Management, Peter M Wiedemann & Susanne Femer, 1993
  • 57. Ladder of Children’s Participation/Ladder of Youth Participation, Roger Hart, 1992


  • 58. Connor’s Ladder of Participation, Desmond M Connor, 1988


  • 59. Socio-economic Participation Model, Norman H. Nie et al, 1972, 1978


  • 60. Ladder of Citizen Participation, Sherry Arnstein, 1969

This article has been taken from the RRI Tools webpage.