Reflexive, relevant and interactive: a STEM student-centred pedagogical approach for responsible research and innovation (RRI) training in higher education

Brahic, Bénédicte AM ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9678-8928, Miao, Shijie, Webb, Simon J ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9793-8748 and Harvey, Alison G ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7346-2252 (2024) Reflexive, relevant and interactive: a STEM student-centred pedagogical approach for responsible research and innovation (RRI) training in higher education. Research in Science and Technological Education. pp. 1-20. ISSN 0263-5143

Accepted Version File will be available on: 4 July 2025. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (439kB)

Abstract

Background: Whilst Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles are increasingly informing and shaping Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) research narratives and practices, the training of higher education (HE) STEM students in RRI is still developing, creating a mismatch between training provision and sector practices and expectations. Purpose: Training of HE STEM students in RRI principles is a key component of the long-term changes RRI frameworks hope to achieve. However, little is known about postgraduate (PG) students’ awareness of, perceptions of and attitudes towards RRI, despite the pedagogical implications. This paper offers grounded insights and recommendations to shape this emerging area of pedagogical research and practice. Sample: Forty-nine PG STEM students with a range of nationalities enrolled in six UK higher education institutions. Most students had not received prior formal RRI training, although a small number of students who had received some RRI training were selected for comparative purposes. Design and methods: An exploratory, small-scale student-led, mixed-methods study that investigated PG STEM students’ engagements with RRI. Key objectives were to assess awareness and knowledge base; explore attitudes towards RRI; gauge the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RRI engagement; identify student preferences in relation to RRI training. Results: The data points to the importance of individual characteristics and cultural backgrounds in shaping students’ engagement with RRI, as well as the significance of the context of student engagement with RRI. Although generally unaware of formal RRI frameworks, respondents provided examples of RRI that were drawn from national/cultural contexts. The perceived relevance of RRI varied with training level (Masters’ or PhD). A preference for interactive training in RRI was expressed, with some students commenting on the challenge of becoming reflexive practitioners. Conclusions: This study provides important evidence to inform the pedagogical approach to RRI in HE STEM training, which the authors argue ought to be supported, reflexive, relevant, and interactive.