"mutual responsiveness" is a correct and usable part of a sentence in written English.
It refers to the willingness and ability of two or more parties to respond to each other in a positive and cooperative manner. Example: "The success of any relationship depends on mutual responsiveness, where each person actively listens and communicates with the other."
We cautiously remark that these suggestions are not intended for downplaying the importance of 'ideal-type' mutual responsiveness for responsible innovations, for undermining more refined conceptualisations of mutual responsiveness, or for giving reasons to neglect stakeholder involvement.
Blok et al. (2015) studied several Dutch food companies and their non-commercial stakeholders, in order to find out to what extent companies with a disposition to innovate more responsibly are moving towards the idea of mutual responsiveness.
Gradually the therapists attempts to extend the chains of mutual responsiveness, introduces variations and games, and uses soothing responses to facilitate the regulation of the client's affective reactions, which may occur on reunion or at leave-taking, but which may also occur when the joint activities generate affective arousal.
They conclude, that the companies fall short of the ideal of mutual responsiveness as a transparent and interactive relation leading to sharing responsibility.
The basic theme of that poetic world is mutual responsiveness.
The saxophonist, Michael Lewis, the bassist, Adam Linz, and the drummer, JT Bates, have that preternatural mutual responsiveness that comes from an instinctive sympathy, but is developed over time through work, and their exhilarating performance last night revealed both the depth of their individual artistry and the symbiotic wonder of their interplay.
Vertebrate NRs, cofactors and ligands are highly related, such that in most examined cases, mutual ligand responsiveness has been observed [17], [18].
Jones et al. [ 2] suggest that partnerships work when the following factors are present: relations of mutual trust and respect; responsiveness of northern partners to southern partner demands; partnership structures do not add to cumbersome donor requirements; the local context is understood; the development of projects build on existing capacities.
Interactional synchrony assesses the harmony, interconnectedness, responsiveness, reciprocity, engagement, mutual focus and shared affect of the dyad.
As noted by Nielsen (2016), arguments for responsiveness often and misleadingly assume a mutual interest among the actors in the long-term robustness and desirability of the project.
The mutual interplay between excitatory feedback and mutual inhibition leads to increased responsiveness to target object detection and a decrease in background response [23].
