Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the national science foundation's broader impacts criterion

Social Epistemology

Volumn 23, Issue 3-4, 2009, Pages 249-266

  Intemann, Kristen ^a  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Broader Impacts Criterion; Diversity; Under represented Groups

Indexed keywords

EID: 74249112042     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720903364134     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anderson, E. 2004. Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia 19 (1): 1-24.
2. Anderson, E. 2006. The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3 (1): 8-22.
3. Bernick, K. 1998. Hidden dimensions: The cultural significance of wetland archaeology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
4. Burrelli, J. S. 2006. Academic institutions of minority faculty with S & E doctorates. National Science Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, Science Resource Statistics. Washington, DC: NSF.
5. Davis, D. W., and B. D. Silver. 2003. Stereotype threat and race of interviewer effects in a survey on political knowledge. American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 33-45.
6. Dobres, M. A. 1995. Gender and prehistoric archaeology. World Archaeology 27 (1): 25-49.
7. Douglas, H. 2000. Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 559-579.
8. Douglas, H. 2003. The moral responsibilities of scientists: Tensions between autonomy and responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly 40 (1): 59-68.
9. Fausto-Sterling, A. 1985. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
10. Fox Keller, E. 1996. Language and ideology in evolutionary theory: Reading cultural norms into natural law. In Feminism & science, edited by E. Fox Keller and H. Longino, pp. 154-72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Gero, J. M. 1991. Genderlithics: Women's roles in stone tool production. In Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory, edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 163-93. Cambridge: Blackwell.
12. Gifford-Gonzales, D. 1993. Gaps in zooarchaeological analyses of butchery: Is gender and issue? In Bones to behavior, edited by J. Hudson, pp. 181-99. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
13. Gould, S.J. 1996. The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
14. Harding, S. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15. Hempel, C. G. 1965. Science and human values. In Aspects of scientific explanation, edited by C. G. Hempel, pp. 81-97. New York: Pergamon.
16. Hempel, C. G. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Hrdy, S. B. 1986. Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Feminist approaches to science, edited by R. Blier, pp. 119-46. New York: Pergamon.
18. Johannes, C. B., S. L. Crawford, and J. B. McKinlay. 1997. Interviewer effects in a cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology 146 (5): 429-38.
19. Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Lacey, H. 1999. Is science value-free? London: Routledge.
21. Longino, H. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. Longino, H. 1996. Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, edited by L. H. Nelson and J. Nelson, pp. 39-58. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
23. Longino, H. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24. Martin, E. 1996. The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. In Feminism and science, edited by E. Fox Keller and H. Longino, pp. 103-20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Miller, R. 1987. Fact and method: Explanation, confirmation, and reality in the natural and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Mischel, W. 1958. Preference for delayed reinforcement: An experimental study of a cultural observation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 56 (1): 57-61.
27. National Science Foundation. 1999. Important notice: Merit review criteria. Notice 125, September 20.
28. National Science Foundation. 2003. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2002. Washington, DC: NSF.
29. National Science Foundation. 2006. Strategic plan FY 2006-2011. NSF 06-48.
30. National Science Foundation. 2007. Merit review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative activities. Washington, DC: NSF.
31. Nelson, L.H. 1990. Who knows? From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
32. Reichenbach, H. 1938. Experience and prediction. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
33. Rolin, K. 2002. Gender and trust in science. Hypatia 17 (4): 95-118.
34. Schiebinger, L. 1996. Why mammals are called mammals: Gender politics in eighteenth century natural history. In Feminism & science, edited by E. Fox Keller and H. Longino, pp. 137-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Schnieder, S. H., K. Kuntz-Duriseti, and C. Azar. 2000. Costing non-linearities, surprises and irreversible events. Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy 10 (1): 81-106.
36. Selgelid, M. J. 2007. An argument against arguments for enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1): 543-65.
37. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1997. Hydrogeology and framing questions having policy consequences. Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S149-S160.
38. Soffer, O. 2004. Recovering perishable technologies through use wear on tools: Preliminary evidence for upper paleolithic weaving and net making. Current Anthropology 45 (3): 407-18.
39. Solomon, M. 2001. Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Solomon, M. 2006. Norms of epistemic diversity. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3 (1): 23-36.
41. Steinpreis, R. E., K. A. Anders, and D. Ritzke. 1999. The impact of gender on the review of curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles 41 (7/8): 509-28.
42. Wennerås, C., and A. Wold. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387: 341-3.
43. Wiley, A. 2001. Doing social science as a feminist: The engendering of archaeology. In Feminism in twentieth century science, technology, and medicine, edited by A. Creager, E. Lunbeck, and L. Schiebinger, pp. 23-45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Wray, B. 2007. Evaluating scientists: Examining the effects of sexism and nepotism. In Value-free science: Ideals and illusions, edited by H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, and A. Wylie, pp. 87-106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Wylie, A., and L. H. Nelson. 2007. Coming to terms with the values of science: Insights from feminist science studies scholarship. In Value-free science: Ideals and illusions, edited by H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, and A. Wylie, pp. 58-86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.