In the 21st century we live in the era of great challenges, which has led to greater interest in research and innovation. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become an important part of EU’s research and innovation policy, first of all in connection with EU research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 (Forsberg et al., 2015), where RRI is developed as a political framework in the governance of science. From an administrative standpoint, the aim of RRI is described as cooperation of different parties in the research and innovation process in order to respond to the needs and values of society (European Commission, 2013). Similarly, RRI is defined in the academic literature as ‘an attempt to govern the process of research and innovation with the aim of democratically including, early on, all parties concerned in anticipating and discerning how research and innovation can or may benefit society’ (Burget, Bardone & Pedaste, 2017; p. 9). The theoretical core of RRI is then described by four conceptual dimensions, namely, inclusion, anticipation, reflexivity and responsiveness (Stilgoe, Owen & Macnaghten, 2013), to which Burget and colleagues (2017) added two emerging ones: sustainability and care. The role of conceptual dimensions is to specify the general RRI framework and to enable people to understand the conceptual implications of RRI. The RRI dimensions are characterized as follows: (1) inclusion is defined as engaging various stakeholders (civil, governments, researchers and businesses) in the research and innovation process (Asante, Owen & Williamson, 2014; Felt, 2014); (2) anticipation means estimation of the long-lasting influences of research and innovation achievements (te Kulve & Rip, 2011; Owen, Macnaghten & Stilgoe, 2012); (3) reflexivity refers to reflecting on the needs and values of society (Forsberg et al., 2015; Stilgoe et al., 2013; Wilsdon, 2005); (4) responsiveness denotes responding to the needs and values of society (Maynard, 2015; Schaper-Rinkel, 2013); (5) sustainability refers to establishing and preserving the conditions where humans and nature can exist in concord and which allow fulfilling the social, economic and other demands for current and future generations (Brundtland, 1987); Abstract. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has recently gained wider importance in the European Union (EU) as an emergent framework informing the governance of science. While a growing body of literature describing RRI and its main conceptual dimensions has appeared in the last seven years or so and in several policy documents, the European Commission has emphasized the need to promote science education in the RRI context. However, there is no theoretical elaboration of how RRI can be meaningfully integrated into the practice of science education. In order to address this problem, the present research aimed at inquiring into the way in which science teachers make sense of RRI in school. Data were gathered with individual semi-structured interviews from 29 science teachers working in comprehensive schools and hobby schools. Abductive content analysis combining data and conceptual dimensions of RRI was used. In the light of how the science teachers in our sample have made sense of RRI, four theoretical categories have emerged: (1) meaning making; (2) taking action; (3) exploring; and (4) inclusion. These findings have important implications for developing a theory of RRI which can be beneficial for researchers as well as teachers for meaningfully integrating RRI into science education.

中文翻译：

---

科学教师对学校出现负责任的研究和创新的看法

21世纪我们生活在一个充满挑战的时代，这导致了对研究和创新的更大兴趣。负责任的研究与创新 (RRI) 已成为欧盟研究与创新政策的重要组成部分，首先与欧盟研究与创新计划地平线 2020（Forsberg 等人，2015 年）相关，其中 RRI 被开发为欧盟的政治框架。科学的治理。从行政的角度来看，RRI 的目标被描述为不同方在研究和创新过程中的合作，以响应社会的需求和价值观（欧盟委员会，2013 年）。同样，RRI 在学术文献中被定义为“试图管理研究和创新过程，目的是民主地包括，早期，预期和辨别研究和创新如何能够或可能造福社会的所有相关方”（Burget、Bardone 和 Pedaste，2017 年；第 9 页）。然后通过四个概念维度来描述 RRI 的理论核心，即包容性、预期、反思性和响应性（Stilgoe、Owen 和 Macnaghten，2013 年），Burget 及其同事（2017 年）在其中添加了两个新兴维度：可持续性和关怀。概念维度的作用是指定一般 RRI 框架并使人们能够理解 RRI 的概念含义。RRI 维度的特征如下： (1) 包容被定义为在研究​​和创新过程中让各种利益相关者（公民、政府、研究人员和企业）参与（Asante、Owen 和 Williamson，2014 年；Felt，2014 年）；(2) 预期意味着对研究和创新成果的长期影响的估计（te Kulve & Rip, 2011; Owen, Macnaghten & Stilgoe, 2012）；(3) 反思性是指对社会需求和价值观的反思（Forsberg et al., 2015; Stilgoe et al., 2013; Wilsdon, 2005）；(4) 响应性表示响应社会的需求和价值观（Maynard，2015；Schaper-Rinkel，2013）；(5) 可持续性是指建立和保持人类与自然和谐共存的条件，满足当代和后代的社会、经济和其他需求（Brundtland，1987）；抽象的。负责任的研究与创新 (RRI) 最近在欧盟 (EU) 中获得了更广泛的重要性，作为通知科学治理的新兴框架。虽然在过去七年左右的时间里出现了越来越多的描述 RRI 及其主要概念维度的文献以及一些政策文件，但欧盟委员会强调了在 RRI 背景下促进科学教育的必要性。然而，没有关于 RRI 如何有意义地融入科学教育实践的理论阐述。为了解决这个问题，本研究旨在探究科学教师如何理解学校的RRI。数据是通过对 29 名在综合学校和业余学校工作的科学教师的个人半结构化访谈收集的。使用了结合数据和 RRI 概念维度的溯因内容分析。鉴于我们样本中的科学教师如何理解 RRI，出现了四个理论范畴：（1）意义制造；(2) 采取行动；（三）探索；(4) 包含。这些发现对于发展 RRI 理论具有重要意义，这对研究人员和教师将 RRI 有意义地融入科学教育是有益的。