Achieving broader impacts in the national science foundation, division of environmental biology

BioScience

Volumn 65, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 397-407

  Watts, Sean M ^a   George, Melissa D ^b   Levey, Douglas J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Lafayette School Corporation   (United States)

^c NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

broadening participation; broader impacts; National Science Foundation; science policy; underrepresented groups

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926611188     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: 15253244     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biv006     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Alpert CL. 2009. Broadening and deepening the impact: A theoretical framework for partnerships between science museums and stem research centres. Social Epistemology 23: 267-281.
2. America COMPETES Act (HR 2272-110th Congress). 2007. America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act of 2007. Public Law 111-358.
3. America COMPETES Act (HR 5116-111th Congress). 2011. America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Reauthorization Act of 2010. Public Law 111-358.
4. Burggren WW. 2009. Implementation of the National Science Foundation's "Broader Impacts": Efficiency considerations and alternative approaches. Social Epistemology 23: 221-237.
5. Burrelli J, Rapoport A, Lehming R. 2008. Baccalaureate origins of S and E doctorate recipients. InfoBrief Science Resources Statistics.
6. Chodos A, ed. 2007. NSF's "Broader Impacts" criterion gets mixed reviews. American Physical Society 16(6). (17 January 2015; www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200706/nsf.cfm)
7. [CoST] US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology. 2010. Hearing Charter: Strengthening Undergraduate and Graduate STEM Education, 4 February 2010. US House of Representatives. (30 June 2013; http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy26481.000/hsy26481-0f.htm)
8. Falk JH, Dierking LD. 2010. The 95 percent solution. American Scientist 98: 486-493.
9. Fiske P. 2013. Ticket to everywhere. Nature 494: 393.
10. Frodeman R, Holbrook JB, Bourexis PS, Cook SB, Diederick L, Tankersley RA. 2013. Broader Impacts 2.0: Seeing-and seizing-the opportunity. BioScience 63: 153-154.
11. George YS, Neale DS, Van Horne V, Malcom SM. 2001. In Pursuit of a Diverse Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce: Recommended Research Priorities to Enhance Participation by Underrepresented Minorities. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (30 June 2013; http://ehrweb.aaas. org/mge/Reports/Report1/AGEP)
12. [GPRA] Government Performance and Results Act (S 20-103rd Congress). 1993. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Law 103-62. (1 February 2014; www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103s20enr/pdf/BILLS-103s20enr.pdf)
13. Hill C, Corbett C, St. Rose A. 2010. Why so few? American Association of University Women.
14. Holbrook JB. 2005. Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the U.S. National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27: 437-451.
15. Intemann K. 2009. Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23: 249-266.
16. Kamenetzky JR. 2012. Opportunities for impact: Statistical analysis of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion. Science and Public Policy 40: 72-84.
17. Lucibella M. 2011. NSF task force fields comments on broader impacts criterion. American Physical Society 20(8). (5 November 2012; www.aps. org/publications/apsnews/201108/nsftaskforce.cfm)
18. MacFadden BJ. 2009. Training the next generation of scientists about broader impacts. Social Epistemology 23: 239-248.
19. Mardis MA, Hoffman ES, McMartin FP. 2012. 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 63: 1758-1772
20. Markin KM. 2013. Don't Underestimate NSF's New Grant-Submission Rules. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (17 February 2013; http://chronicle.com/article/Dont-Underestimate-NSFs-New/136521)
21. Nadkarni NM. 2004. Not preaching to the choir: Communicating the importance of forest conservation to non-traditional audiences. Conservation Biology 18: 602-606.
22. Nadkarni NM, Stasch AE. 2013. How broad are our broader impacts? An analysis of the National Science Foundation's Ecosystem Studies Program and the Broader Impacts requirement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 13-19.
23. [NAPA] National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. A Study of the National Science Foundation's Criteria for Project Selection. National Academy of Public Administration.
24. [NAS] National Academies of Science. 2011. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation. National Academies Press.
25. Neal A, Smith T, McCormick J. 2008. Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century. University of Michigan Press.
26. [NSB] National Science Board. 2011., National Science Foundation's Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions., Report no. NSB/MR-11-22. Washington DC: NSF.
27. [NSF] National Science Foundation. 2002a. Merit Review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative Activities. NSF. (5 November 2012; www.nsf. gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf)
28. -. 2002b. Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. NSF. (5 November 2012; www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/iin127/imptnot.pdf)
29. -. 2008. Broadening Participation at the National Science Foundation: A Framework for Action. NSF
30. -. 2011. Empowering the Nation through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years FY 2011-2016. NSF
31. -. 2012. Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. NSF. Report no. 13-001
32. -. 2013a. FY 2014 Budget Request to Congress. NSF
33. -. 2013b. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics: Federal Funds for Research and Development. Fiscal Years 2011-13. NSF. (10 January 2014; www.nsf.gov/statistics/surveys.cfm)
34. [PCAST] President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2012. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Executive Office of the President.
35. Roberts MR. 2009. Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23: 199-219.
36. Rothenberg M. 2010. Making judgments about grant proposals: A brief history of the Merit Review Criteria at the National Science Foundation. Technology Innovations 12: 189-195.
37. Sakai AK, Lane MJ. 1996. National Science Foundation funding patterns of women and minorities in biology. BioScience 46: 621-625.
38. Schienke EW, Tuana N, Brown DA, Davis KJ, Keller K, Shortle JS, Stickler M, Baum SD. 2009. The role of the National Science Foundation Broader Impacts Criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy. Social Epistemology 23: 317-336.
39. Taylor DE. 2014. The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs, Foundations and Government Agencies. Green 2.0. (1 August 2014; http://diversegreen.org/report)
40. Teitelbaum MS. 2001. How We (Unintentionally) Make Scientific Careers Unattractive. Pages 71-80 in Chubin DE, Pearson W Jr, eds. Scientists and Engineers for the New Millennium: Renewing the Human Resource. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology.
41. [USDOD] US Department of Defense. 2013. Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2014: RDT&E Programs (R-1). USDOD.
42. Watts SM, George MD, Levey DJ. 2013. Broader impacts from an inside perspective. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 233-234.
43. Wheat RE, Wang Y, Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J. 2013. Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28: 71-72.
44. White JL, Altschuld JW, Lee Y-F. 2006. Cultural dimensions in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Implications for minority retention research. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies. 6: 41-59.
45. Widener A. 2012. NSF clarifies its broader impacts grant requirement. Chemical and Engineering News 90: 38-41.