Implementation of the national science foundation's "broader impacts": Efficiency considerations and alternative approaches

Social Epistemology

Volumn 23, Issue 3-4, 2009, Pages 221-237

  Burggren, Warren W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic Specialization; Broader Impacts; Criterion Two; Discovery Grants; National Science Foundation

Indexed keywords

EID: 74349129355     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720903364092     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bennion, B. 1994. Why the science journal crises? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 20 (February/March): 25-6.
2. Bush, V. 1945. Science: The endless frontier. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office [accessed 18 September 2009]. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htm; INTERNET.
3. Frodeman, R., and J. B. Holbrook. 2007. Science's social effects. Issues in Science and Technology (Spring) [accessed 18 September 2009]. Available from http://www.ndsciencehumanitiespolicy.org/docs/IST_SciencesSocialEffects. pdf; INTERNET.
4. Hayes, D. P. 1992. The growing inaccessibility of science. Nature 356: 739-40.
5. 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.
6. Kafafi, Z. H. 2008. Dear Colleague letter-broader impacts [accessed 18 September 2009]. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08062/nsf08062.jsp; INTERNET.
7. Leahey, E. 2006. Gender differences in productivity. Gender & Society 20 (6): 754-80.
8. Lukasiewicz, J. 1994. The ignorance explosion: Understanding industrial civilization. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press
9. National Science Foundation. 1996. Task force on merit review's discussion report. NSB/MR 96-15.
10. National Science Foundation. 2006a. Investing in America's future: Strategic plan, 2006-2011. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
11. National Science Foundation. 2006b. Report of the advisory committee for GPRA performance assessment. NSF 04-216.
12. National Science Foundation. 2008. Budget for fiscal year.
13. Peter, L. J., and R. Hull. 1969. The Peter Principle: Why things always go wrong. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc.
14. Reyns, N. B., S. Langenheder, and J. T. Lennon. 2007. Specialization versus diversification: A trade off for young scientists? Transactions American Geophysical Union 88 (35): 343.
15. Rowland, H. A. 1983. A plea for pure science. Science 2 (29): 242-50.
16. Ziman, J. M. 2000. Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.