Opportunities for impact: Statistical analysis of the national science foundation's broader impacts criterion

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 72-84

  Kamenetzky, Julia R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Broader impacts; National science foundation; Science and society; Science policy; Societal benefits of science

Indexed keywords

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK; PARTNERSHIP APPROACH; POLICY APPROACH; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

EID: 84883040897     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs059     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Alpert, C. (2009) 'Broadening and deepening the impact: A theoretical framework for partnerships between science museums and STEM research centres', Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 23: 267-81.
2. Bush, V. (1945) 'Science: The Endless Frontier', A report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
3. Ecklund, E. H., James, S. A. and Lincoln, A. E. (2012) 'How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach', PLoS ONE, 7/5: e36240.
4. Frodeman, R. and Holbrook, J. (2011) 'NSF's struggle to articular relevance', Science, 333: 157-8.
5. Hill, C., Corbett, C. and Rose, A. S. (2010) 'Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics'. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
6. Holbrook, J. (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.
7. Holbrook, J. (2012) 'Re-assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's broader impacts merit review criterion (1997-2011)', peerevaluation.org, accessed 7 April 2012.
8. Holbrook, J. and Frodeman, R. (2011) 'Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts', Research Evaluation, 20: 239-46.
9. Intemann, K. (2009) 'Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion', Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 23: 249-66.
10. Lok, C. (2010) 'Science for the masses', Nature News, 465: 416-8.
11. MacFadden, B. (2009) 'Training the next generation of scientists about broader impacts', Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 23: 239-48.
12. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E. and Agiomavritis, S. (2011) 'The ivory ceiling of service work', Academe, 97: 22-6.
13. NAPA. (2001) A study of the National Science Foundation's criteria for project selection. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
14. National Science Board. (2011) National Science Foundation's merit review criteria: Review and revisions, NSB/MR-11-22. Arlington, VA: National Science Board.
15. NSF. (2004) Report of the Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment.
16. NSF. (2007) Merit review broader impacts criterion: Representative activities. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
17. NSF. (2010) Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's Merit Review Process FY 2009, NSB-10-27. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
18. NSF. (2011a) Empowering the nation through discovery and innovation: NSF strategic plan for fiscal years (FY) 2011- 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
19. NSF. (2011b) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011. Arlington, VA: Division of Science Resource Statistics, National Science Foundation.
20. Roberts, M. (2009) 'Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion', Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 23: 199-219.
21. Sarewitz, D. (2011) 'The dubious benefits of broader impact', Nature, 475: 141.