D5.2 - RPO&RFO Audit Reports

The auditing process is a sequenced, coordinated activity aimed at obtaining a specific result. The audit plan was designed to establish the baseline in each Research Performing Organisation (RPO) and Research Funding Organisation (RFO) to be able to evaluate and change the structural and cultural assets to include RRI (as defined in "D5.1: Self-Tailored RPO&RFO Audit Plans - Parts A&B" of the GRRIP project). This report contains the analysis of the evidence related to the five case study organisations. The audit was designed to collect data at the organisational level from the site leads (i.e., a top-down approach), and a survey was conducted with researchers and stakeholders, as a bottom-up approach. The top-down approach aimed at collecting objective data and documents from the five case study organisations. The bottom-up approach aimed at collecting data: 1) from the staff of the five RP(F)Os, and 2) from the Quadruple Helix stakeholders in conjunction with the activities carried out in "WP4 - Q GRRIP D&C Board". Interviews were conducted with the leaders of the GRRIP working groups established within the five RP(F)Os to complement information collected from the top-down and bottom-up survey to facilitate interconnection with the other Work Packages (WPs). The audit results presented within this report aim to inform the development of the action plans for institutionalising RRI. The findings, however, cannot be considered an exact reflection of the existing organisational processes and procedures about RRI dimensions as they are constrained by low response rates of the sent-out surveys and the use of convenience sampling method. In our analysis, we were interested in the correlation between the answers coming from the bottom-up analysis returning us a picture of the situation, even if it does not have statistical significance due to the number of answers received from the case study sites. We decided to use the Pearson's coefficient, as Pearson correlation coefficient is most appropriate for measurements taken from an interval scale according to Choi et al. [1]; in this respect, see also the response from Abdulvahed Khaledi Darvishan in the ResearchGate post (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which-correlation-coefficient-is-better-to-use-Spearman-or-Pearson). The analysis of information and data collected is shown in Appendix A and Appendix B of this deliverable. Complete data and information are available only for the Consortium, the project officer and the GRRIP project's evaluators (on request). Section 2 provides a summary of the methodology used to collect data necessary to carry out the audit analysis. Section 3 describes the method to establish the baseline maturity level and definition of the indicators. Section 4 describes the maturity level for the five M&M RP(F)Os. Section 5 concludes the deliverable.