Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the national science foundation's broader impacts criterion

Social Epistemology

Volumn 23, Issue 3-4, 2009, Pages 199-219

  Roberts, Melanie R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Broader Impacts; Linear Model of Science; Public Dissemination; Scientific Partnerships; Societal Benefit of Science; Use inspired Research

Indexed keywords

EID: 74249111848     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720903364035     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bartel, A. S., M. Krasny, and E. Z. Harrison. 2003. Beyond the binary: Approaches to integrating university outreach with research and teaching. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 8 (2): 89.
2. Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy 32 (2): 119-36.
3. Branscomb, L., G. Holton, and G. Sonnert. 2002. Science for society. In AAAS science policy yearbook, edited by A. H. Teich, S. D. Nelson and S. J. Lita, pp. 397-433. Washington, DC: AAAS.
4. Brint, S. 2005. Creating the future: New directions' in American research universities. Minerva 43 (1): 23-50.
5. Bush, V. 1945. Science: The endless frontier: A report to the President. Office of Scientific Research and Development. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Available from http://nsf.gov/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm; INTERNET.
6. Cash, D. W. 2001. In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information: Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science Technology & Human Values 26 (4): 431-53.
7. Cash, D., F. Alcock, B. Clark, N. Dickson, J. Jäger, and R. Mitchell. 2002. The institutional challenges of producing salient, credible, and legitimate regional integrated assessments. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Regional Integrated Assessment of Climate Impacts, Harvard, USA, 16-20 September.
8. Cash, D., and J. Buzier. 2005. Knowledge-action systems for seasonal to inter-annual climate forecasting: Summary of a workshop. A report to the roundtable on science and technology for sustainability. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
9. Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R. B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (14): 8086-91.
10. Cash, D. W., and S. C. Moser. 2000. Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10 (2): 109-20.
11. Clark, W. 2007. Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (6): 1737-8.
12. Dilling, L. 2007. Towards science in support of decision making: Characterizing the supply of carbon cycle science. Environmental Science and Policy 10: 48-61.
13. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29 (2): 109-23.
14. Frodeman, R., and J. B. Holbrook. 2007. Science's social effects. Issues in Science and Technology (Spring): 28-30.
15. Funtowicz, S. O. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25 (7): 739-55.
16. Gibbons, M. 1999. Science's new social contract with society. Nature 402 (6761 Suppl.): C81-4.
17. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge, the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publishing, Ltd.
18. Gieryn, T. F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781-95.
19. Goldston, D. 2009. Budget instructions. Nature 460 (25). m http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090902/full/461025a.html; INTERNET.
20. Green, R. J., and W. Lepkowski. 2006. A forgotten model for purposeful science. Issues in Science and Technology 22 (2): 69.
21. Guston, D. H. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, and Human Values 26 (4): 399-408.
22. Guston, D. H. 2004. Forget politicizing science. Let's democratize science. Issues in Science and Technology 21 (1): 1-4.
23. Guston, D. H., and K. Keniston. 1994. The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Hill, C. T. 2007. The post-scientific society. Issues in Science and Technology 24 (1): 78-84.
25. Holbrook, J. B. 2005. Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27 (4): 437-51.
26. Huberman, M. 1990. Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal 27: 363-91.
27. Kevles, D. J. 1977. The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942-1945: A political interpretation of science-the endless frontier. Isis 68 (1): 5-26.
28. Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Kleinman, D. L. 1995. Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
30. Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Lamari. 2001. Climbing the ladder of research utilization: Evidence from social science research. Science Communication 22: 396-422.
31. Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Ouimet. 2007. Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer 32 (6): 561-92.
32. Marburger, III, J. H., and M. E. Daniels, Jr. 2003. FY 2005 interagency research and development priorities, June 5, memorandum.
33. Marinova, D., and J. Phillimore. 2003. Models of innovation. In The international handbook on innovation, edited by L. V. Shavinina, pp. 44-53. Oxford: Elsevier.
34. Mazuzan, G. 1994. The National Science Foundation: A brief history. Publication NSF 8816. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
35. McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10 (1): 17-38.
36. National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. A study of the National Science Foundation's criteria for project selection.
37. National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38. National Science Board. 1967. Seventeenth annual report of the National Science Foundation. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1967/annualreports/ar_1967_appendix_f.pdf; INTERNET.
39. National Science Board and National Science Foundation Staff. 1997. Task force on merit review. March. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsbmr975/nsbmr975.htm; INTERNET.
40. National Science Foundation. 1988. Proposal review at NSF: Perceptions of principal investigators. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.
41. Orzag, P. R., and J. P. Holdren. 2009. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, 4 August.
42. Pielke, R., and R. Byerly. 1998. Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today 51 (2): 42-6.
43. Sarewitz, D. R. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, technology, and the politics of progress. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
44. Sarewitz, D., and R. A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy 10 (1): 5-16.
45. Smith, B. L. R. 1990. American science policy since World War II. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
46. Stokes, D. E. 1997. Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.