Traditional industry regions like Värmland, Sweden are under increasing pressure to digitalise, a transition that raises broader social and governance challenges for regional actors. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been promoted at the EU level as a framework to guide such transformations, however there is limited understanding of how RRI principles are implemented in practice. The case of digitalisation transformation process of Värmland provided an opportunity to further explore how RRI is implemented in practice within a multi-level governance system. This article explores how RRI was operationalised through the DigiTeRRI project (2020–2022) in Värmland, and how it aided in shaping the regional digitalisation transformation policy and collaborative practices. Using a qualitative methodology combining participant observation, interviews, and surveys, the study examines how regional actors engaged in co-creating a roadmap for responsible digitalisation. A key finding is that by involving regional actors early in the process and fostering a sense of ownership contributed to the implementation of RRI measures. Furthermore, the DigiTeRRI experience has influenced Region Värmland’s broader regional development strategies, including its Research and Innovation Strategy for Sustainable Smart Specialisation 2022–2028. This study contributes to both RRI scholarship and regional policy practice by offering insights into the situated application of RRI in territorial digital transformation processes.

This Deliverable Report presents the results of a questionnaire survey among the participants of the DigiTeRRI project. The survey was conducted within Task 5.2 to evaluate the perceived immediate impact of the project, i.e., to identify the changes in the target population with respect to responsible digitalisation in the participating territories. This final version V2.0 is based on data collected from participants of the 36 digitalisation actions and a number of workshops that were conducted in the territories to develop regional visions, roadmaps and concrete support actions for responsible digitalisation.As a small-scale post-project impact evaluation based on an online survey, this quantitative evaluation covers all implemented actions and other activities in DigiTeRRI. Target groups of the survey are the action participants, the regional stakeholders and the action managers in all three regions, Grand Est, Styria and Värmland. It collects and analyses the perceived changes during their DigiTeRRI involvement. The analytic approach is to provide descriptive statistics on outcomes in various subgroups of the target population to support the overall reporting and policy recommendations.The main results of the survey can be grouped in five different parts.

• Digitalisation challenges. While open access to information in digitalised form is regarded already easily to obtain, it becomes increasingly challenging to access high-quality digitalisation education services. Still bothering perceptions are observed related with data security and privacy, where both technical and legal barriers are still prevalent. Most concerning are aspects that are related with digital competence and the gender bias in digital technologies and services.
• Experience with DigiTeRRI. Most respondents rated the DigiTeRRI support for responsible digitalisation very positively in general. It helped mainly with respect to increase awareness for open access, digitalisation in education and life-long learning, but also inclusiveness and gender balance. Less impact was seen in the more technical areas like data security and privacy issues, especially from industry representatives.
• Changes in digitalisation strategies and practices. The most radical change was reported in strategy changes in digital communication, digital teaching and training, and although the Covid-19 pandemic was seen as the main driver, this strategy shift was also attributed to some extent to the participation in DigiTeRRI. On the other hand, surprisingly, a considerable number of organisations across all institutional sectors still lacks an explicit digitalisation strategy. DigiTeRRI is acknowledged a significant contribution to actual change in digital practices within the last two years, albeit it is conceded that communicating RRI to the public – in connection to digitalisation – remains a challenge.
• Changes in digitalisation maturity. On a wide range of management dimensions (strategy, leadership, products, operations etc.) the digital maturity of organisations has been rated. The respondents clearly report an increase on a well-known digital maturity scale. It was possible to reduce significantly the share of digital unawareness in organisations and to step up the digitalisation ladder. Only the highest level of digitalisation, “transformed” seems to be out of reach within a short period like the DigiTeRRI participation provides.
• Experiences with the DigiTeRRI stakeholder process. Regional roadmapping processes to foster RRI-guided digitalisation are highly appreciated and strongly supported by the participants. Especially schools, civil society organisations, the regional governments and industry as well as media are not seen to be sufficiently involved in such activities today. Interestingly, at the same time financial compensation for participants is not considered a high priority for these societal groups.This survey has also identified 12 interview partners among the participants in the DigiTeRRI stakeholder process1. The interviews are addressed in a complementary qualitative analysis in Task 5.3. Integrating the quantitative analysis with the qualitative inquiry, the joint results provide an important input to a critical self-evaluation of DigiTeRRI. Thus, it is possible to inform regional strategies for responsible digitalisation.

DigiTeRRI aims at contributing to the transition of traditional industry regions into digitalised industryterritories in Europe. To this end, the project focuses on three typical case regions, namely Région Grand Estin France, Styria in Southern Austria and Värmland in West Middle Sweden and develops as well asimplements roadmaps for the transition. DigiTeRRI addresses this challenge by adopting an “ResponsibleResearch and Innovation (RRI)” approach, by co-creating territory-specific visions, conducting a roadmappingprocess and implementing actions, while tapping cross-territorial learning potentials.

To support this process from the outset, a sound empirical basis is laid through a systematic mapping of thethree R&I ecosystems, conducted in Workpackage 2, comprising qualitative and quantitative aspects. In itscomprehensive empirical approach, the mapping in DigiTeRRI is an original multiscale approach aboutdigitalisation and RRI. The different study levels are (i) the territory with their stakeholders and means (universities, companies…), (ii) the territorial ecosystems as represented by the stakeholders involved indigitalisation with their strategies, networks and current outcomes, and (iii) the territories in action, focusing oncurrent local initiatives to foster digitalisation. Regarding (iii), the mapping focuses on ongoing digitalisationpractices, involved actors and maturity levels of digitalisation, building on an online survey among stakeholders,which is presented in a separate report (Boly et al. 2020, Deliverable D2.4). Complementary to that, the currentreport focuses on (i) and (ii) with quantitative methods to describe the R&I ecosystems in the territories drawingupon existing databases and web resources to present indicators of the status and activities in digitalisation.

The objective of this report (Deliverable D2.3) is to present the results of the quantitative mapping of theterritorial R&I ecosystems in DigiTeRRI – Grand Est, Styria and Värmland – in terms of:

• their socio-economic background,
• the most relevant institutions, governance structures and strategies towards digitalisation,
• and their R&I performance, including scientific research, R&I collaborations in regional, national andinternational networks and technological profiles.

The report is intended to characterize the status quo of the respective R&I ecosystem with a focus ondigitalisation, analysing sectoral and organizational distributions within the territories as well as intraregional andextra-regional knowledge exchange networks and identifying the key actors in collaborative projects, patenting and scientific publishing.

As a first step, we give a brief description of the socio-economic profile of the territories, referring to theeconomic situation, the industrial structure, employment aspects, educational attainment, and core figuresof the research and innovation performance.

The second step is to characterize the R&I ecosystem from an institutional perspective. Starting from thegovernance structure including government and intermediary actors and their roles and responsibilities, weidentify the most important development strategies for the digital transformation and strategies thatconsciously include or at least are conforming with RRI goals. Furthermore, actors and their activities in theeducational systems in the region are described, and so are the most important research and innovationactors from the public and industry sectors.

The third step is to map the three R&I ecosystems with respect to their R&I performance. According to theconceptual approach (described in Stegmann McCallion and McCallion (2020), Deliverable D2.1), we refer to theaspects of knowledge creation in the region – measured by scientific publications –, knowledge exchangewithin the regions and beyond – measured by collaborative R&I projects –, and innovation-relevant output –measured by patent applications. Hereby, we draw on a mix of descriptive and analytic methods:

• A census of R&I formal artefacts is provided by descriptive analysis. The R&I ecosystems arecharacterized in terms of the publications, R&I projects, patents, actors and technological areas.Moreover, to reveal the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge, we employ a sophisticatedmethod, namely Science Mapping, i.e., the development and application of computational techniques tovisualize, analyse and model a broad range of scientific and technological activities (see, e.g., Chen etal. 2014).
• Social Network Analysis (SNA) is applied to reveal the potential to access external knowledge throughinteractions between R&I actors (Wasserman & Faust 1994). Central to the SNA perspective is thenotion of networks, built on collaborative relationships among R&I actors, and on patterns andimplications of these relationships. In the context of this mapping, linkages between the actors, withinand across regional boundaries are of relevance.
• The Revealed Technological Advantage (RTA) is an indicator of relative technological strength of aregion and can make use, for instance, of patenting data (Soete & Wyatt 1983). Here, we use it toassess the internal knowledge base and capabilities, highlighting specialization patterns of the regions.

To this end, large-scale global, and territory-specific R&I datasets are used, covering different types ofactivities that support the digital transformation in the medium and long run, such as scientific publishing, R&Iprojects, patenting and funding activities. By this, a systematic view on the actor landscape and the topicalstructure of the digitalisation activities in the territories is presented for all three territories, Grand Est, Styria and Värmland. The results on the territories are described in such a way, that they can be read and interpretedindependently from each other, while we use the same structure so that a comparative perspective is kept.Hence, this mapping is the starting point to provide a better understanding of the selected territorial R&Iecosystems and to support cross-territorial learning.

This chapter explores how Europeanisation processes can be understood in a time when the pendulum is moving towards more intergovernmental features of the collaboration? Member states have transformed as a result of EU membership; thus, the member states have been Europeanised but if the pendulum is moving towards more intergovernmental features does that mean that the European integration process has reached its end? To answer these questions the chapter explores the Europeanisation processes through top-down and bottom-up perspectives, the strategies member states may use when it comes to influencing the European integration process (pace-setting, fence-sitting, and foot-dragging), and explores if differentiated integration may be a solution for those member states that would like to further deepen European integration.

The report outlines the frame of the data required for the mapping. The common procedure and guidelines to be followed to implement a comprehensive mapping exercise of R&I ecosystems and RRI inclusion in regional development policies.

Work package 2 settles the conceptual definitions and delineations, collects empirical R&I ecosystem data andprovides an in-depth mapping of the involved traditional industry territories in their transition towards digitalisedindustry regions. The first task (T2.1) in this work package conceptualizes the empirical work to define the R&Iecosystem indicators that are relevant for the digitalisation process and the multi-faceted relation with the RRIdimensions.

The overall objective of the DigiTeRRI project is to develop a framework with specified actions the participatingterritories need to address in order to transition from traditional industry regions into digitalised industrial regionswith self-sustaining and responsible R&I ecosystems. It does so by exploring three aspects or dimensions, firstlythe RRI approach and how the RRI approach will support digitalisation transition process by implementingadequate RRI strategies into the regional policies. Secondly, by establishing self-sustaining R&I ecosystem, andthirdly, the degree of maturity of digitalisation in which each the territories currently find itself in.

The mapping and data process are outlined and introduces the indicators used within the dimensions of RRI, self-sustaining ecosystems, and digitalisation. The methodological approaches used within the mapping process areboth quantitative and qualitative in order to triangulate the findings and provide a deeper and holistic understandingof the changes taking place in the territories. The rationale for this is so that findings can be compared betweenthe territories as well as learn from each other of what practices may work.

The conceptual framework sets the theoretical and conceptual understanding of the dimensions used.Digitalisation, R&I Sustainable Ecosystems, and RRI is discussed and explored. Digitalisation policy andprocesses in a multi-level governance perspective introduced as actors participating are positioned at differentlevels in society and there is a spread of stakeholders from public administration, policy makers and politicians,business and industry as well as from civil society. How one can measure the degree of digitalisation in companiesis also discussed. As the current economic system is based upon economic growth R&I ecosystem indicators areintroduced and how one can understand these complex organisms as self-sustaining. Because one of the aims ofthe project is to introduce a deeper degree of RRI in the digitalisation part of regional policies within the participatingterritories RRI is further reviewed. How can the RRI dimensions of public engagement, science education, openaccess, ethics, and governance be both viewed and illustrated within the digitalisation part of regional policy isintroduced.

The conceptual framework also provides a brief outline of how the DigiTeRRI project will continue after themapping process through its visioning, and through the development and implementation of a road map in eachof the territories

In this chapter, we introduce the concept of awkwardness inregional integration, showing how it can apply both to states and to therelationship between states and their respective regional organisationsand processes. We apply the terminology and variables developed byPhilomena Murray, Baogong He, and Alex Warleigh-Lack in their 2014article to the cases of our five Nordic states and sketch the relationshipbetween the five states studied in this volume and European integration.We close the chapter by presenting the structure of the volume andintroducing its following chapters.

This book provides the first lengthy study of awkward states/partners in regional integration. Is awkwardness a characteristic of states in many global regions, or is it reducible to the particular case of the United Kingdom in European integration? The authors assess how far the concept of ‘awkwardness’ can travel, and apply it to the cases of the Nordic States’ involvement in and with the European Union - Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Norway. The renewed interest in the Nordic region is in part thanks to recent events in the on-going crisis of European integration, and particular its member states’ response to the refugee question, which appears to be undermining years of intra-regional solidarity even between the Nordic countries. The security dimension of the region further broadens the book’s readership beyond Nordic Politics specialists to IR scholars, as the Nordic countries share borders with Russia and are key players in the Baltic Sea Strategy seeking to involve Russia in looser forms of regional cooperation.

This chapter explores Sweden’s engagement in the Europeanintegration process, both before and after joining the EU in 1995. Itexplores Sweden’s relationship with the integration process throughthree dimensions: economic, identity and political/security. The chapterfinds that depending on the dimension explored, the awkwardness labelsits somewhat uncomfortably however it also becomes clear that Swedencan indeed be an awkward partner in the European integration process,although the label fits better with some policy