Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts

Social Epistemology

Volumn 23, Issue 3-4, 2009, Pages 183-198

  Bozeman, Barry ^a   Boardman, Craig ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Broader Impacts; National Science Foundation; Peer Review; Science Policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 74249122915     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720903364019     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Beesley, L. G. A. 2003. Science policy in changing times: Are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition? Research Policy 32 (8): 1519-31.
2. Belanger, D. O. 1998. Enabling American innovation: Engineering and the National Science Foundation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
3. Boardman, C., and B. Ponomariov. Forthcoming. The cooperative mission of defense R&D in the US: Detecting consistency and change in the roles of the federal laboratories. In Re-evaluating defense R&D and innovation dynamics, edited by A. James. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press.
4. Bozeman, B. 1986. Straight arrow science policy and its dangers. IEEE Engineering Management Review 14 (1): 25-30.
5. Bozeman B., and C. Boardman. 2003. Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research center: Institutional innovation in the academic community. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
6. Bozeman, B., and C. Boardman. 2004. The NSF Engineering Research Centers and the university industry research revolution: A brief history featuring an interview with Erich Bloch. The Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (3-4): 365-75.
7. Bozeman, B., and P. Hirsch. 2005. Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem: IRBs, rules, and failures of control. Policy Sciences 38 (4): 269-91.
8. Bozeman, B., and I. Mitroff, eds. 1979. Managed Science Policy symposium. Public Administration Review 39 (2): 109-36.
9. Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy 32 (2): 119-36.
10. Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. Forthcoming. Public value mapping: The marriage of choice and evaluation. Minerva.
11. Bozeman, B., C. Slade, and P. Hirsch. 2009. Undertanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: Toward a better institutional review board. American Journal of Public Health 99 (9): 1549-56.
12. Brown, C., S. Propst, and M. Woolley. 2004. Report: Helping researchers make the case for science. Science Communication 25 (3): 294-303.
13. Bush, V. 1945. Science the endless frontier: A report to the President. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
14. Chemical and Engineering News. 1977. NSF kills RANN in aim to reunite agency. Chemical and Engineering News 55 (36): 6.
15. Chubin, D. E., and E. J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and US science policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
16. Corley, E. A., C. Boardman, and B. Bozeman. 2006. Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy 35 (7): 975-93.
17. De Solla Price, D. 1965. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
18. Foltz, F. A. 2000. The ups and downs of peer review: Making funding choices for science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 20 (6): 427-40.
19. Franks, S. E. R., C. Peach, J. McDonnell, and A. Thorrold. 2005. Broader impact: Guidance for scientists about education and public outreach. EOS Trans AGU 86 (12): 121-9.
20. Frodeman, R., and J. B. Holbrook. 2007. Science's social effects. Issues in Science and Technology (Spring): 28-30.
21. Goldbeck-Wood, S. 1999. Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen? British Medical Journal 318: 44-5.
22. Green, R., and W. Lepkowski. 2006. A forgotten model for purposeful science. Issues in Science and Technology 22 (2): 69-73.
23. 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: 437-51.
24. Kleinman, D.L. 1998. Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the democratization of science. Politics and the Life Sciences 17 (2): 133-45.
25. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
26. Marburger, J. H. 2005. Wanted: Better benchmarks. Science 308 (5725): 1087.
27. McCormick, A. 2000. The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. 2000 edition. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
28. Mervis, J. 2001. NSF scores low on using own criteria. Science 291 (5513): 2533-5.
29. National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. A study of the National Science Foundation's criteria for project selection. Report, February.
30. National Research Council. 1976. Social and behavioral science programs in the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: NAS.
31. National Science Board. 2006. Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's merit review process, fiscal year 2005. March. NSB-06-21.
32. National Science Board. 2007. Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's merit review process, fiscal year 2006. March. NSB-07-22.
33. National Science Board. 2008. Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's merit review process, fiscal year 2007. June. NSB-08-47.
34. National Science Board. 2009. Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's merit review process, fiscal year 2008. May. NSB-09-43.
35. National Science Foundation. 2004. Report of the Advisory Committee for GPRA performance assessment. NSF 04-216.
36. National Science Foundation. 2005. Report of the Advisory Committee for GPRA performance assessment. NSF 05-210.
37. National Science Foundation. 2006a. NSF Strategic Plan for FY 2006-2011: Investing in America's future. NSF 06-48.
38. National Science Foundation. 2006b. Report of the Advisory Committee for GPRA performance assessment. NSF 06-206.
39. Pickering, A. 1992. Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40. Pielke, Jr, R. A., and R. Byerly, Jr. 1998. Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today 51 (2): 42-6.
41. Polanyi, M. 1962. The Republic of Science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1 (54): 54-73.
42. Rip, A. 1994. The Republic of Science in the 1990s. Higher Education 28 (1): 1573.
43. Sarewitz, D. 1996. Frontiers of illusion: Science, technology, and the politics of progress. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
44. Scott, A. 2007. Peer review and the relevance of science. Futures 39 (7): 827-45.
45. Srivastava, C. V., N. D. Towery, and B. Zuckerman. 2007. Challenges and opportunities for research portfolio analysis, management, and evaluation. Research Evaluation 16 (3): 152-6.
46. Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur's quadrant. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
47. Tretkoff, E. 2007. NSF's "broader impacts" criterion gets mixed reviews. American Physical Society News 16 (6) [accessed 30 April 2008]. Available from http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200706/nsf.cfm; INTERNET.
48. Uriarte, M., H. A. Ewing, V. T. Eviner, and K. C. Weathers. 2007. Constructing a broader and more inclusive value system in science. BioScience 57 (1): 71-8.
49. US Comptroller General. 1977. Opportunities for improved management at RANN. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office Printing Office.
50. Weinberg, A. 1963. Criteria for scientific choice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 20 (6): 427-40.
51. Weinberg, A. 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva 12 (2): 209-22.