GREAT project aim is neither to find a common definition of RRI to settle interpretative quarrels, nor to make an heterogeneous collections of the stakeholders perceptions on it. It is not even to accumulate all the existing (sometimes conflicting) key responsible activities that could be cover by a kind of meta-responsibility. If all can be useful, our ambition is bigger. We have to take into account three sorts of representations (Aristotle mimesis): a) what the things are, b) what people say they are and c) what they have to be. Because responsibility is a strong normative concept, it would have been not enough to depict existing practices (a) or to interview appropriate actors (b). Indeed, cumulative approach will let the users in front of different approaches and conception without any criteria to assess them. Moreover, the socalled axiological neutrality is useless, as moral sociologists have shown this, avoiding on the one side poor descriptivism and, on the other one, massive normative decontextualized judgement.
We have to pass from the analysis and understanding of moral (mores) to the one of ethics focused on responsibility. With a stance that focuses on the question of normativity connected to responsibility. We should be in the capacity to analyse the ways RRI, not only as a norm but with its normativity (reflexive stance in the condition of norm construction) is understood and implemented by different actors in their contexts, to be effective. This dynamic is an ongoing process of adjustment between normative horizon context and between norms and values.
To continue reading, download the PDF.