Toward broader impacts: Making sense of NSF's merit review criteria in the context of the National Science Digital Library

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 63, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1758-1772

  Mardis, Marcia A ^a   Hoffman, Ellen S ^b   McMartin, Flora P ^c  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

^c Broad Based Knowledge LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

grants; policy; technology impact

Indexed keywords

BROADER IMPACTS; CONTENT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC BENEFITS; EXTERNAL FUNDING; GRANTS; LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE; MERIT REVIEW; NATIONAL SCIENCE DIGITAL LIBRARIES; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONS; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES; TECHNOLOGY IMPACT;

DIGITAL LIBRARIES; PUBLIC POLICY;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84865253951     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22693     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010. (2010). H.R. 5116, 111th Cong.
2. Adem, A., Ben Arous, G., Goussoub, N., Lind, D., &, Ulmer, D., (2009, May 20). Report of the NSF Advisory Workshop on Research Networks. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/mps/dms/documents/ResearchNetworksWorkshopReport.pdf
3. Anderson, W.A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C.L., Elgin, S.C.R., Epstein, I.R., Handelsman, J., Warner, I.M., (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science, 331 (6014), 152-153. doi: 10.1126/science.1198280
4. Bikson, T.A., Kalra, N., Galway, L., &, Agnew, G., (2010, October). Steps toward a formative evaluation of NSDL: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.gohnow.com/goh/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/PM-3516-NSF-ExecSumm-10221. pdf
5. Bikson, T.A., Kalra, N., Galway, L., &, Agnew, G., (2011). Steps toward a formative evaluation of NSDL. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/ content/dam/rand/pubs/technical-reports/2011/RAND-TR998.pdf
6. Bozeman, B., &, Boardman, C., (2009). Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts. Social Epistemology, 23 (3-4), 183-198. doi: 10.1080/02691720903364019
7. Bozeman, B., &, Gaughan, M., (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry. Research Policy 36, 694-707. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.007 (Pubitemid 46810007)
8. Buckland, M., (2012). What kind of science can information science be? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (1), 1-7. doi: 10.1002/asi.21656
9. Burggren, W.W., (2009). Implementation of the National Science Foundation's "broader impacts": Efficiency considerations and alternative approaches. Social Epistemology, 23 (3-4), 221-237. doi: 10.1080/02691720903364092
10. Chan, K.-B., &, Davey, G., (2010). When worlds collide: Scientists doing science in the social world. Asian Journal of Social Science, 38 (4), 611-635. doi: 10.1163/156853110x517809
11. Fox, E.A., (1999). The Digital Libraries Initiative: Update and discussion. ASIS Bulletin, 26 (1). Retrieved from http://asis.org/Bulletin/Oct- 99/fox.html
12. Frodeman, R., &, Parker, J., (2009). Intellectual merit and broader impact: The National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion and the question of peer review. Social Epistemology, 23 (3-4), 337-345. doi: 10.1080/02691720903438144
13. Goldfarb, B., (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37 (1), 41-58. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.07.011
14. Hjørland, B., (2000). Library and information science: Practice, theory, and philosophical basis. Information Processing & Management, 36 (3), 501-531. (Pubitemid 30566128)
15. Hjørland, B., (2005). Library and information science and the philosophy of science. Journal of Documentation, 61 (1), 5-10.
16. 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), 437-451. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.08.001 (Pubitemid 41722817)
17. Holbrook, J.B., (2009). Editor's introduction. Social Epistemology, 23(3-4), 177-181. doi: 10.1080/02691720903438169
18. Holbrook, J.B., (2010). The use of societal impacts considerations in grant proposal peer review: A comparison of five models. Technology & Innovation, 12, 213-224. doi: 10.3727/194982410x12895770314078
19. Intemann, K., (2009). Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology, 23 (3-4), 249-266. doi: 10.1080/ 02691720903364134
20. Krippendorff, K., (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Macilwain, C., (2011). University cuts show science is far from saved. Nature, 469, 133. doi: 10.1038/469133a
22. Manduca, C.A., &, Mogk, D.W., (1999, September 28). Portal to the future: A Digital Library for Earth System Education Workshop report, August 8-11, 1999. Retrieved from http://gdl.ou.edu/report/reportfin.html
23. Mervis, J., (2001). NSF scores low on using own criteria. Science, 291 (5513), 2533-2535. doi: 10.1126/science.291.5513.2533b
24. Meyer, M., (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanism. R & D Management, 33 (2), 107-115. doi: 10.1111/1467-9310.00286 (Pubitemid 36539886)
25. National Research Council (NRC). (1998). Developing a digital national library for undergraduate science, mathematics, and technology education: Report of a workshop. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record-id=5952
26. National Science Board (NSB). (2001, October 11). Federal research resources: A process for setting priorities. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/ nsb/documents/2002/nsb01156/pdfs/nsf01.156.pdf
27. National Science Board (NSB). (2011, June 14). NSB-11-42: NSB/NSF seeks input on proposed merit review criteria revision and principles. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/06-mrtf.jsp
28. National Science Foundation (NSF). (1998a). Information technology: Its impact on undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf9882/nsf9882.txt
29. National Science Foundation (NSF). (1998b, October 29). Report of the SMETE Library Workshop. D-Lib Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/ smete/public/report.html
30. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2000). National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library (NSDL) program solicitation NSF 00-44. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0044/ nsf0044.htm
31. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2004a). Merit review Broader Impacts criterion: Representative activities. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/ 2004/nsf042/bicexamples.pdf
32. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2004b, July 30). Report of the Advisory committee for GPRA performance assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04216/nsf04216.pdf
33. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006, July 25). Report of the Advisory Committee for GPRA performance assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06206/nsf06206.pdf
34. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2007, July). Merit review Broader Impacts criterion: Representative activities. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf
35. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2011a, January 13). Chapter III-NSF proposal processing and review. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/ policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg-3.jsp
36. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2011b, July 6). National STEM Education Distributed Learning (NSDL) program solicitation (NSF 10-545). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10545/nsf10545.htm
37. Neuendorf, K. A., (2007). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Nolin, J., (2007). What's in a turn. Information Research, 12 (4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis11.html
39. Nolin, J., & &, Aumlström, F., (2010). Turning weakness into strength: Strategies for future LIS. Journal of Documentation, 66 (1), 7-27. doi: 10.1108/00220411011016344
40. Prodan, I., &, Slavec, A., (2009). The influence of ten different motivational factors on academic entrepreneurial intentions. In, D.F. Kocaoglu, T.R. Anderson, T.U. Daim, A. Jetter, &, C.M. Weber, (Eds.), Proceedings of Picmet 09, Technology Management in the Age of Fundamental Change (Vols. 1-5, pp. 1866-1871). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
41. Resnikoff, H.L., (1980). Information science and technology at the National Science Foundation. Information Processing & Management, 16 (4-5), 243-250. doi: 10.1016/0306-4573(80)90013-8
42. Roberts, M.R., (2009). Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology, 23 (3-4), 199-219. doi: 10.1080/02691720903364035
43. Robinson, L., (2009). Information science: Communication chain and domain analysis. Journal of Documentation, 65 (4), 578-591. doi: 10.1108/ 00220410910970267
44. Slamecka, V., (1980). National agendas of research in information science: An overview. Information Processing & Management, 16 (4-5), 251-257. doi: 10.1016/0306-4573(80)90014-x
45. Suresh, S., (2011, March 11). Testimony before the Subcommittee on Science and Space Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, on the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/ 112/ss-fy12ccstbudget-110317.jsp
46. Tretkoff, E., (2007). NSF's "broader impacts" criterion gets mixed reviews. APS News, 16 (6). Retrieved from http://www.aps.org/publications/ apsnews/200706/nsf.cfm
47. Valstar, M., (2011, June 26). The problem with monetarising academic science. Retrieved from http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/∼mvalstar/page1/page2/files/ 780753dec078c6572dbee878c2c275be-3.html
48. van der Burg, S., (2009). Taking the "soft impacts" of technology into account: Broadening the discourse in research practice. Social Epistemology, 23 (3-4), 301-316. doi: 10.1080/02691720903364191
49. White, M.D., &, Marsh, E.E., (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55 (1), 22-45. doi: 10.1353/lib.2006.0053 (Pubitemid 44874698)
50. Wilson, T.D., (1980). On information science and the social sciences. Social Science Information Studies, 1 (1), 5-12. doi: 10.1016/0143-6236(80) 90003-4
51. Zhao, D., (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84 (2), 293-306. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0191-y