Taking risks with drones – Responsible innovation pedagogy for media education
Introduction
The increasing demand for drone imagery in the news media requires that more journalists learn how to operate camera drones. In order for journalism to uphold its professional standards of accountability in visual news coverage, camera drone piloting is not a competency that should be outsourced to external companies. Higher education institutions should have a special responsibility for educating drone pilots with a practical grasp of the possibilities and limitations. The quest for qualified technological skills as well as competent judgment when it comes to news values and journalistic codes of conduct is increasingly important. At this point in media history, it has become evident that journalism and new technology are closely related and that the journalism profession profits creatively from the disruptive tools that are introduced. At the same time, students of technology, like our bachelor students in “New media,” have much to learn from journalistic approaches and considerations of societal issues of importance.
The design experiment we report in this study explores two interconnected topics that can be formulated as two claims: First, when students are exposed to unexpected forms of risk in a new technology, they open up to creativity and subsequent reflexive exploration of the technology in question. Second, the experienced risk stimulates most students to display greater carefulness, accountability and responsibility when using the given technology. In order to find out more about these topics or claims, an existing smartphone programming course was reoriented to be applicable for semiautomatic drone flying. A 3DR Solo drone with its software was introduced as the semester’s main tool for the students, their teachers and administrators. As teachers, we were excited to investigate to what degree students would experiment with, and get a sense of, ethical dilemmas of visual intrusion as well as the value of shots and sequences from a drone perspective. Our study is informed by the principles ofresponsible research and innovation (RRI). In this approach, the research and innovation process should have desirable and useful outcomes for society as well as be ethically acceptable and environmentally sustainable (von Schomberg, 2012; Strand, 2015).
The chapter continues with a theoretical discussion of the relationship between technology, risk and learning, and focuses on the possible benefits of taking risks with drones in journalism and media education. A theory of responsible innovation pedagogy is presented; thereafter, the experimental method and its qualitative characteristics are outlined. The analysis is split into three sections dealing with the “risk experiences” of students, teachers and administrators, respectively. In the conclusion, we present four RRI insights relevant for students, teachers and administrators involved with drone flying in media education programs at higher education institutions.
Technology and risk
Risk is a central topic in modem theories on technology and society. The material characteristics of technologies, their weight, speed and force, often imply a risk of physical damage to its users as well as to things and to other people. A worker operating a power loom in an early nineteenth-century steam engine factory was at risk of having his fingers tom off by belts; the driver of a car without seat belts today risks his or her life. In our context, the drone carries risks due to its advanced functionality. When flown, it combines high maneuverability, camera vision, stability, long battery life and digital storage and transmission of signals. For mediation purposes, a host of different sensors can be attached to a drone, for example, photo, video, infrared camera and directional microphones; such sensors augment information capabilities in the desired direction.
How should risk be defined? In a pragmatic approach, risk is understood as something that is relatively predictable, that can be specified and in most cases avoided by taking safety measures. Antonsen (2009, p. 6) writes: “A risk analysis basically consists of what may go wrong, how likely it is that something in fact will go wrong, and the consequences involved if these things go wrong.” Risk is closely related to the concept of “safety.” Wold (2016) points out that the concept of safety is not to avoid or prevent something going wrong, but “to ensure that everything – or as much as possiblegoes right” (Hollnagel, 2014, p. 23). Wold writes that this “includes a focus on everyday activities, not just accidents and mishaps, as safety is understood as the ability to succeed under expected and unexpected conditions alike. Newer perspectives are increasingly involving social, cultural and technological factors in a dynamic interaction leading up to unwanted events” (Wold, 2016, p. 26).
We can now specify the risks involved in using a drone as part of a university course in media education. Clearly, there is risk of material damage or injury to persons due to the flying movements of the drone; such risk is enhanced by the students’ lack of experience with controlling the drone. This risk relates to being underneath and near to a flying drone, and requires safety measures as well as insurance. It is the responsibility of the pilot and the drone teacher to ensure that all rules are followed. In addition to the physical risk, there is an economic risk of liability for persons and institutions if something should happen due to lack of rule-following. Furthermore, media personnel are at risk of breaching privacy regulations when filming and/or publishing video clips. It can be ethically problematic to publish certain types of drone clips.
While there is risk, there is also gain. A drone pilot produces an extremely mobile video perspective and can add significant value to any visually oriented media product. It is clear from the start that teachers as well as students have much to gain from engaging with drones.
Learning and risk
Our approach to understanding learning and risk is anchored in a sociocultural perspective (Saljo, 2009). Learning is seen as process of mastery of conceptual and material artifacts. We approach these practices as relational to an infrastructure for learning. When a new artifact – in our case a drone – is introduced into the infrastructure for learning, it serves as a mediating artifact and the object of an emerging learning practice. Further, we see the infrastructure for learning as a combination of pedagogical, technological and institutional arrangements. More specifically, the students are supposed to control the risks and explore the creative potential of the drone in an emerging practice that should be nurtured further by teachers and supported by administrators. In the analysis, we observe the relationship between learning, pedagogy and rule-following, and try to describe their influence on the emerging learning practice.
Weilenmann, Saljo, and Engstrom (2013, p. 749) argue that “as the notion of literacy shifts towards participation and the ability to produce media content, rather than just consuming it, and as the tools for production become more powerful and diverse, the skills neede4 to participate will be increasingly medium specific.” In our design experiment, the main aim is to expose the students to the challenges of using a drone as a means for shooting video that is suitable for publication in a serious media outlet, and to explore further ways of programming the drone for journalistic purposes. Risks of damage, injury and liability are natural ingredients in such a learning scenario. The design of the learning scenario is inspired by innovation pedagogy (Kettunen, 2011; Darsø, 2011). According to Kettunen (2011), innovation pedagogy has its theoretical roots in the pragmatism of John Dewey. This pragmatic perspective is aligned well with a sociocultural perspective on learning (Saljo, 2010). A common focus is on the experiential nature of learning and how it is mediated by the tools of the trade. Kettunen (2011) further argues that this particular approach is well suited and flexible enough to accommodate challenges that arise in education in the applied sciences. This argument resonates well with our approach, as we focus on the application of technology in a journalistic context.
Innovation pedagogy, as emphasized by Darsø (2011), aims to teach students to become more innovative or creative by giving them responsibility for a development process. This tradition supports a definition of creativity as the ability to produce work that is novel – original and unexpected – and appropriate, useful and adapted to task constraints (Stemberg & Lubart 1999). The ideal pedagogical approach is to find a balance between making students accountable and guiding them with creative support and deliverables. Our approach is also inspired by problem-based learning (PBL), “a student-centered pedagogical approach in which students leam by the process of solving an open-ended problem within a team …. The PBL system differs from traditional instruction in that PBL engages the student in constructing knowledge and the teacher role moves from a knowledge provider towards a learning facilitator” (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
Responsible innovation pedagogy
As previously mentioned, this study is informed by a specific valueorientation, namely the responsible research and innovation (RRI) framework – an approach anchored to European policy processes and values. According to von Schomberg (2012), responsible research and innovation is:
A transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the ( ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).
The RRl approach has been developed further by Stilgoe, Owen, Macnaghten (2013), who state that responsible innovation “means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present.” They call for improved skills of anticipation. Researchers and organizations must ask what-if questions, and they must be able to adjust their course of action when they are faced with new knowledge. The EU Commission supports a number of initiatives in the RRl sector. Notably, there is an online toolkit for researchers who want to adopt the RRl ideals in their projects (RRl Tools, 2017).
In this study we combine the ideas of innovation pedagogy with those of responsible research and innovation. Such a combination can be labeled “responsible innovation pedagogy” and can be associated with recent explorations of RRl that are tailored to higher education institutions. A Horizon2020 project exists that specifically addresses higher education institutions and RRl (see HEIRRl, 2017). We aim to contribute to the discussion; in the conclusion of this chapter, we summarize the insights from this experiment in four principles of responsible innovation pedagogy.
In order for a pedagogical arrangement to qualify as RRI, students, teachers and administrators must be engaged in an explorative, collaborative learning process that is not top-down. If the pedagogy works well, students are supposed to learn how to make a certain product and create their own knowledge along the way. The creative work is conducted in groups with great freedom of exploration but with strict rules for iterative development and time-boxing in order to deliver a quality product on time (as an exam deadline). Students are likely to learn how to collaborate in professional teams. Note that the direction of the course is adjusted if unexpected problems occur, or, in our case, if the perceived risk becomes too high.
The RRl approach has universal merit. Teachers are always concerned with finding ways to make students engage in creative learning activities in which they (students) design and create solutions, while simultaneously encouraging critical reflection on the implications and potential of the given design. We chose collaborative group work and open-ended problem solving to engage students in creative activities and critical reflection. Such course designs require a focused fostering of social bonds. In order to collaborate well, students need to experience a mutual sense of equality and fairness in the groups. Without such trust and acceptance of different specialties during the creative work, there would be little chance of the result becoming responsible.
Design experiment method
In the learning sciences, a long-standing tradition exists for conducting design experiments (Brown, 1992) and design-based research (Barab & Squire, 2004; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004). On a general level, such studies involve making interventions in existing educational settings by introducing new technologies in concert with a deliberate pedagogical approach to induce change in learning practices while systematically studying the implications of such an intervention. In other words, changes are done to mediating technologies and the organization of learning activities inspired by a given pedagogical approach.
We basically inserted a drone into an established course module and then dealt with and documented the trajectory of events. The course took place in the spring semester of 2016 at a university in Norway and covered 10 ECT. The module has existed for years, and its purpose has been to explore a new technology for journalistic purposes each year. Last year, the topic was sound media for Sarmsung smartwatches; in 2014, it was sound media for Android mobile apps. Neither the university teachers nor the students had any experience with drone flying before the courses started. We hired an external drone teacher, who runs a professional company for drone filming and teaching. A 3DSolo drone and four small drones, mostly for indoor training, were used in the course. The students got four half-day sessions in which they explored flying the drones indoors and outdoors.
In this design experiment, we worked in accordance with three principles of innovation pedagogy. It should be noted that we counted on ordinary support from the administration and expected the students to follow up the coursework in a responsible way: 1) Take calculated risks to cultivate novelty and creativity. In order to test what the technology can do, there must be as few rules as possible, and the risk involved in operating the drone for such exploratory purposes must be handled out of the box. 2) Teach the students to be reflective about the constraints of the technology. In the course of their exploration, the students were supposed to evaluate the rules and potentially acknowledge that the constraints on exploration were rational and necessary. For the teacher, this approach requires the ability to stimulate problem-salving processes. 3) Provide a structure for the students ‘work with time-boxing of iterations and deliverables. In order for creativity to blossom, there must be strict but empty limits to it. The teachers should try to create suitable cycles of production sprints and evaluation sessions that lead toward a final delivery. Such procedures may be established as routines in the educational program in the future.
From January to June 2016 students underwent practical training in drone flying and safety instructions, including the use of an operation manual. The students were divided into groups to design low-fidelity prototypes in an iterative process. There were four workshops, with evaluations of the prototypes by a panel of researchers (the authors of this article). The groups produced prototypes with a low technological readiness level but with validated journalistic potential. Specifically, the groups were charged with designing a low-fidelity prototype of an app for the 3DR Solo drone and producing a one-minute pitch video about the app’s intended functionality.
We interviewed 12 people when the course had been completed. There were seven students, three teachers and two administrators, and they were interviewed by the three authors during a period of one week. The interviews dealt with 1) flying, 2) rules, 3) programming, 4) journalism and 5) course evaluation. There are methodical challenges to interviewing almost everybody involved in a course. Firstly, all our informants were fully aware of the experiment before we interviewed them and therefore had a high level of meta-knowledge and were strikingly reflective about their experiences. Secondly, most of the informants knew each other and could potentially have learned the identity of the others. Thirdly, the interviewers were involved throughout the course and were known by the informants as stakeholders in the course. We are acutely aware of these issues and counteracted them by paraphrasing some of the informants’ statements and by being open about the potential conflict of interest. Please note that the interview guide and consent form were approved by the Norwegian Data Inspectorate. The interviews were transcribed, and the analysis is based on pen-and-paper readings of the material.
Analysis: three degrees of risk taking
In this section, responses from informants are presented and interpreted, with the students first, then the teachers and finally the administrators. The analysis gives equal weight to these different functional roles in the course.
1: Risk stimulates creativity among students
Students experienced that being allowed to fly an actual drone was a type of risk that stimulated their motivation to test the technology further. To feel what it was like to fly a camera drone was better done outdoors than indoors. One student says: “Flying the drone outdoors was scary, but mostly fun. I liked the adrenaline kick that you get because there are so many things that can happen.” In contrast, flying the small drones manually indoors, with or without cameras, was harder than expected for the students. These drones proved difficult to keep under control, and frustration made students lose energy and interest. Outdoors, students felt that they were in control with the flying camera and were challenged not by the technology itself but primarily by uncontrollable weather conditions. In particular, strong wind was a risk factor that made the participants reflect on possible loss of control and its consequences. One student says that he could “feel the sense of losing control as the drone went higher. It disappeared behind roe, over an area with parked cars. It was scary. I don’t want to damage cars. Not fun!”
The ten-minute slots that students were allowed to test the 3DSolo drone outdoors came to an end abruptly after a few weeks. Since students were not allowed by the administration to practice drone flying as much as they wanted, there was a period when the administrative rules were broken. A month into the semester, one of the teachers allowed students to fly the 3DR Solo drone informally in a nearby park. One student describes the event where a teacher broke the rules to support the students’ piloting experience: “He said that we should go out there and try and make mistakes, that it was ok. We had a flight each and tested the various functions so that we knew how they worked. We could start to think about what was already implemented and what could be developed further, and what we could make out of it.” Other students found the rule-breaking OK as well as long as the teacher was watching what was going on. One student said: “Since everybody understands that the drone can land on a car or something, there is a tension between what you dare to do and all the creative stuff that might come out of it.”
After a few weeks of drone flying, the administration found out and decided to confiscate the drone due to concerns about lack of insurance. If anything happened, the university would most probably be liable for the full cost. The students had to wait for several weeks before they were allowed to fly the drone again, and then only for five to ten minutes under supervision of the drone teacher. This decision was disappointing to everyone, and it deflated students’ creative energy. “We would have liked to fly more with the big drone, but we know why we couldn’t,” one student says obediently. The confiscation influenced exam materials because the drone teacher had to produce aerial footage on behalf of the students. Students had good ideas that could not be continued. One student says: “We had high expectations, because of all the cool videos on YouTube and the Internet. And you think, “Ah, we must do this too!,” but it turns out you can’t. The drone teacher had to do it all, and he didn’t do it the same way I would have wanted.”
Students experienced that flying the drone outdoors in safe areas and in accordance with aviation regulations served as constructive risk taking as long as they felt they were in control of the drone. Since the teachers were perceived to be in charge of the flying, also during the period when the administrative· rules were broken, students felt they were taking a lower risk than what seemed to be the case with teachers and administrators. One student comments: “The teacher is experienced, and was thinking about the consequences while we were only thinking about possibilities. For example we wanted more spectacular images from the sea, but the end result was a little more boring than we had thought.” Students had a more risk-taking attitude than the drone teacher. The question that several students posed was whether more flying would have made them more careful by the end of the course: “Maybe ifwe had been allowed to fly more, we might have thought it over more too, or something would go wrong,” one student says.
At the end of the semester, the students submitted prototypes of drone apps for journalism, and their deliverables showed a real engagement in how drones could be designed to benefit the public sphere. One student explains his/her motivation like this: “We thought about the requirement that it should be useful for a journalist, and we saw that there were no particular products in that sector. So, we decided on creating the drone-rig, where a TV-journalist can go out and do a live report alone if there is no camera person available. You will not need to go to a course or take an education in drone flight to be able to use the drone rig; you just grab it and run.” In relation to the rules for drone piloting, this is a radical proposal because rules specify that a drone cannot be used without first notifying everybody in its vicinity during shooting and engaging a team of at least two or three persons. Since a TV station would presumably want to be the first with a breaking news story, these rules would presumably not be followed, or they would make the concept void if they were followed.
2: Risk stimulates calculated risk taking among teachers
The three main teachers in the course are creative experts in their fields: media design, drone piloting and programming; their role was to enthuse and engage students in learning the skills selected for our purposes. Teachers have a duty to support a culture of fair and transparent testing criteria. The course leader was formally responsible for making a fair assessment of the deliveries, considering that the grades will appear on the students’ CVs afterwards.
It is an intense experience to teach somebody to fly a vehicle. One teacher says: “The first time l saw that you could bring a camera up into the sky I just decided to have it, and I started building it myself. And when I flew it I realized that “Wow,” this is not only a possibility to bring something up to the sky, but it is also fun” The teachers are acutely aware of the powers that this “fun thing” has. One of the teachers says: “You must be vigilant when you are doing this, it is not a completely streamlined user experience. You cannot throw the drone up and lower your shoulders; you must watch out all the time. There is a real risk of injuring people, and it is important that the pilot and the assisting team know what they are doing.” The other teacher also talks about the risk of hurting people. “Whenever people call to discuss an assignment, I ask about the surroundings so that I know what risks are involved. If something goes wrong with the device and it starts falling down – what then? The worst-case scenario is that it hits somebody in the head, in the hand or body, because this is the most important thing in this life – people, right?” While the teachers ·recommend that students should fly actively, they were concerned about managing the risks beforehand. One teacher says: “To get nice shots sometimes requires taking a risk. Definitely. But then you validate these risks, and you are prepared. If something happens my fingers will move that way, to make my planned exit from this risk. As a human being controlling the device I am prepared for that, and I pay attention to all the movements of the device itself, the wind movements, sunlight, people’s movements.”
There is a difference among teachers in their willingness to take risks. One of the teachers allowed the students to test the drones without prior consent from the administration. Why did he do this? Interestingly, he said it is important to teach the students to have “copper in the attitude,” meaning that you have to dare to push some boundaries. “If one is too squeamish out of the starting blocks, one gets nowhere. You need to speed up, fire all the guns, and then be careful too, and not do this at a public square, but on a grassy field.” The teacher is concerned that the students should manipulate the technology directly: “In order to teach them something, we must have access to the metal, and we can connect straight to the drone CPU with a cable and do what we want. And for the learning process nothing is better than just exploring, with full access, and test out everything, and get to know how it fits together.” This teacher’s attitude cultivates independent decision making among students. He would allow any dedicated student to test and program the drone in whatever way the student found worthwhile, and make it his job to “reduce the anxiety that the students felt in relation to the risks.”
3: Risk stimulates carefulness among administrators
Our interviews with administrators add a critical and new dimension to the understanding of journalism and media education. We expose decisionmaking hierarchies that cause tensions when high-risk technologies are employed.
Whereas risk management procedures are integrated in the management of disciplines, such as engineering and chemistry, social science departments are traditionally less experienced in managing risk related to technological experiments. Our informants work in a department in which risk management of this kind is not the norm. Regular media and information science teaching and research do not involve explosions, human injury or rule-breaking. On the contrary, the social sciences and humanities are a rather quiet branch of higher education where management colleagues are likely to be upset at suddenly being asked to take risks involving drones and students. Most interestingly in this case, it was not the physical danger of flying drones that dominated management’s rhetoric; it was the fear of breaking aviation and insurance rules and getting into trouble – regardless of whether or not there were any accidents (in our situation, there weren’t any accidents.).
Risk induces administrative accountability and a sense of responsibility in university management. The rules for drone flying issued by the aviation authorities will, by themselves, require university administrators to behave carefully. In relation to students and teachers, the role of management is to ensure that rules and regulations are followed when experiments (such as drone flying) are carried out within the frames of a university course. An administrator explained, “Since there is so much fuss about this now, in my opinion the university should make a legal assessment of how to tackle the situation. The university’s lawyers always have to think about the “worst case scenario,” and they would rather say no than yes. They are afraid that they will give advice that turns out to have a boomerang effect. So we would have to prepare the case well and follow the regulations from the aviation authorities.
There is a willingness to find solutions but also a pragmatic realization that things take time. The administrative staff agree that there are certainly going to be better solutions next year. There was interest in sharing accountability across the Higher Education Institution (HEI) landscape and a willingness to learn from other university sectors, for example, archaeology and geography, where researchers fly drones for research purposes. The informants displayed interest in collaboration with private companies and other state institutions such as the NRK, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. These external institutions take an interest in the university’s drone education. “NRK signaled that they are very interested in establishing a university drone pilot certification to recruit from.” The NRK drone pilots and television producers have much experience, and the administrative staff listen to their advice. For example, there are several classes of drones with different certification requirements. The university files the smallest class (ROl). However, one informant tells us that “The NKK. people recommended to us to go up one level. There is so little you can do with the smallest type, regarding where you can fly and things like that. If you go up a class, you can fly more actively and ask permission to fly in a city and other locations that you would otherwise not be allowed to.” Here, the ambitions of the NRK are followed and included in the desired educational quality of the higher education institution.
Despite the creative gain achieved with high-risk behavior, it is clear that higher education institutions have to comply with the law. Administrators, backed by law consultants, have legitimate reasons to work with worstcase scenarios for what can happen during teaching sessions. Teachers and students must also accept the fact that it takes time to find safe and rulecompliant solutions to the problems posed by introducing new high-risk technologies in a higher education institution.
Conclusion: four learning principles
While it was interesting to see how many actors were involved in drone management, the students were always the main protagonists. We exposed the students to drone technology in practice and challenged them to explore its potential for journalism in a process called responsible innovation pedagogy. What worked and what did not work so well? We wanted to arrange a course not only to learn about the creative potential of drones (and not only to learn about the immanent physical risks and safety regulations associated with drone flying) but also to stimulate the students to reflect on and be critical about how such a technology can be applied in journalism in a responsible way -according to the norms of news journalism. It turned out that the parties involved were concerned about the risk-taking aspect of the drone technology. The perceived risks of drones made administrators and teachers act so carefully that the students’ creative process was slowed down, and learning was involuntarily reoriented to rule-following. The general impression was that everybody sought a balance between the perceived risk on the one hand and their shared responsibility on the other. However, the general impression was also that the individual’s perception of safety in the situation was the most dominant influence on the learning process. Thus, risk taking was less prevalent than attempts to gain more control.
When interpreting the behavior reported in our analysis, we saw that the learning curve was significant for the students, teachers and administrators, albeit differentiated. In this process, students learned about risk directly; highrisk sensations appeared to stimulate learning and ownership of the. product. Teachers attempted various versions of calculated risk, where students were given leeway but under a watchful eye. Ideally, teachers should teach drone flying in the same way that a chemistry teacher does when creating an explosion in the classroom. Students learn something about the forces with which they are dealing, but they do so in a controlled situation where the level of possible damage is limited. Our design experiment was, however, not based on established knowledge about how to teach drone flying. As such, it involved greater risks for everyone. While this risk can be considered a weakness in the course planning, it also showed that teaching drones in media education is an emerging practice. There is little or no prior competence.
The validated insights from the design experiment previously described lead us to formulate four learning principles that a higher education institution course should have in order to constitute a responsible way of teaching students to use high-risk technology:
– Focus on context understanding in the practical setting where the high-risk technology is going to be used. Make field trips and walk the terrain. Students must acquire the necessary motor skills to deal with the practical situation of using the high-risk technology.
– Allow for independent decision making regarding the creation of dronebased media products. Students should make as many decisions about aesthetics and content as possible, limited mainly by laws and regulations. Teachers should make as few decisions about creative direction as possible.
– Cultivate the strategic ability to anticipate any implications of their high-risk technology prototypes for media innovation in the future. In functional terms, what sector of an industry would Iikely adopt this new technology and its practices?
– A level of reflexivity sensitive enough to address the big question of what is at stake for society in general in relation to technology development is needed. Students should be imaginative enough to consider the good and bad consequences of new technologies before they are made and promoted in society.
These learning principles should ideally characterize any exploration of high-risk technology in higher education institutions.
References
Antonsen, S. (2009) Safety Culture: Theory, Method and Improvement. London: Ashgate.
Barab, S. and Squire, K. (2004) Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, [online] 13 (1), pp. 1-14. doi: http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1.
Brown, A. L. (1992) Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodologicai Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings: Journal of the Learning Sciences, [online] 2 (2), pp. 141-178. doi: http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2.
Collins, A., Joseph, D. and Bielaczyc, K. (2004) Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, [online] 13 (1), pp. 15-42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2.
Darsø, L. (2011) Innovationspædagagogik – kunsten at fremelske innovationskompetence. Copenhagen: Samfundsliteratur.
HEIRRI Higher Education Institutions and Responsible Research and Innovation. (2017) Front Page, [online]. Available at: http://heirri.eu [Accessed 13 Sept. 2017].
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004) Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), pp. 235-266.
Hollnagel, E. (2014) Is safety a subject for science? Safety Science, 67, pp. 21-24.
Kettunen, J. (2011) Innovation Pedagogy for Universities of Applied Sciences. Creative Education, 2 (1), pp. 56-62.
RRl Tools (2017) Welcome to the RRl Toolkit. Front Page, [online]. Available at: www.rri-tools.eu [Accessed 13 Sept. 2017].
Säljö, R. (2010) Digital Tools and Challenges to Institutional Traditions of Learning: Technologies, Social Memory and the Performative Nature of Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, [online] 26 (1), pp. 53-64. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x.
von Schomberg, R. (2012) Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation. In M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft (eds.). Technikfolgen abschatzenlLehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinarer Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Stemberg, R. J. and Lubart, T. I. ( 1999) The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In R. J. Stemberg (ed.). Handbook of Creativity. pp. 3-16. London: Cambridge University Press.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P. (2013) Developing aFramework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy, 42 (9), pp. 1568-1580.
Strand, R. (2015) Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation. European Commission, [pdf]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/rri_ indicators _final_ version. pdf [Accessed 13 Sept. 2017].
Weilenmann, A., Såljo, R. and Engstrom, A. (2013) Mobile Video Literacy: Negotiating the Use of a New Visual Technology. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, [online] 18 (3), pp. 737-752. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0703-x.
Wold, T. (2016) Procedures coming every day: Safety Management Systems and safety communication in high-risk industries. PhD. Norwegian University of Technology.