Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts

Research Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 239-246

  Britt Holbrook, J ^a   Frodeman, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053607452     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876788     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. APSN 2007. NSF's Broader Impacts Criterion gets mixed reviews. American Physical Society News, 16(6), June.
2. Bozeman, Barry and Craig Boardman 2009. Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: passing the buck on science and social impacts. Social Epistemology. 23(3-4), 183-198.
3. CORDIS 1 2008. http://csid-capr.unt.edu/fedora/repository/capr:339/-/FP7--European%20Commission%20Instructions%20for%20Evaluators, last accessed 30 June 2011.
4. CORDIS 2 2009. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.FP7DetailsCallPage&call_id=271#infopack, last accessed 30 June 2011.
5. CORDIS 3 2010. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/wp/cooperation/nmp/d-wp-201101_en.pdf, last accessed 30 June 2011.
6. CORDIS 4 2010. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/wp/people/m-wp-201101_en.pdf, last accessed 30 June 2011.
7. Coryn, Chris L S, John A Hattie, Michael Scriven and David J Hartmann 2007. Models and mechanisms for evaluating government-funded research: an international comparison. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 437-457.
8. Cross, Alan 2010. Peer review in the EC Framework programme: and assessing impact. Presentation delivered at CAPR Workshop, Washington, DC, 23 April 2010. http://csid-capr.unt.edu/fedora/repository/capr:350, last accessed 30 June 2011.
9. Frodeman, Robert and J Britt Holbrook 2007. Science's social effects. Issues in Science and Technology. 23, 28-30. http://www.issues.org/23.3/p_frodeman.html, last accessed 30 June 2011.
10. Frodeman, Robert and J Britt Holbrook 2011. NSF and public accountability. Science Progress, June. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2011/06/nsf-and-public-accountability, last accessed 30 June 2011.
11. Holbrook J Britt 2005. Assessing the science-society relation: the case of the U.S. National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technology in Society, 27(4), 437-451.
12. Holbrook J Britt 2009. Social Epistemology: a Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, special issue: US National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion, 23(3-4).
13. Holbrook J Britt 2010. Accountable science: the COMPETES Act needs to demonstrate an accountability attitude. Science Progress, September. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/09/accountable-science/, last accessed 30 June 2011.
14. Holbrook J Britt and Robert Frodeman 2007. Answering NSF's question: what are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? AAAS Professional Ethics Report, 20(3), summer. http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/newper50.shtml#NSF, last accessed 30 June 2011.
15. Jasanoff, Sheila 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Lamont, Michelle 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Lightbourne, Jim 2010. NSF merit review criteria and process. Presentation delivered at CAPR Workshop, Washington, DC, 22 April 2010. http://csid-capr.unt.edu/fedora/repository/capr:354, last accessed 30 June, 2011.
18. NAPA, National Academy of Public Administration 2001. A Study of the National Science Foundation's Criteria for Project Selection: A Report by the National Academy of Public Administration for the National Science Foundation. http://csidcapr.unt.edu/fedora/repository/capr:1098, last accessed 30 June 2011.
19. Nature 2010. Science funding: science for the masses. Nature, 465, 416-418. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/full/465416a.html, last accessed 30 June 2011.
20. NSF 1 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_3.jsp#IIIA1, last accessed 30 June 2011.
21. NSF 2 https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/NSFHelp/Printdocs/FastLane_Help/pd_proposal_review/pd_proposal_review.pdf, last accessed 30 June 2011.
22. Rip, Arie 2000. Higher forms of nonsense. European Review, 8(4), 467-486.
23. Times Higher Education 2009. Petition decries 'impact' agenda in research. Times Higher Education, 11 June. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=406931§ioncode=26, last accessed 30 June 2011.
24. Ziman, John 1983. The collectivization of science. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B219, 1-19.