Opportunities for impact: Statistical analysis of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion

被引:18
作者
Kamenetzky, Julia R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Colorado, Dept Astrophys & Planetary Sci, Boulder, CO 80309 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Broader impacts; National Science Foundation; science policy; societal benefits of science; science and society;
D O I
10.1093/scipol/scs059
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Though the US National Science Foundation introduced a broader impacts criterion to their merit review process in 1997, policy evaluations remain still scarce. Reactions from different scientific fields varied. This paper aims to quantitatively compare the proposed broader impacts of 360 funded abstracts from biology, engineering, and mathematical/physical sciences. Specifically, it considers whether or not certain fields are more likely to propose certain types of broader impacts activities, whether women principal investigators are more likely to propose broader impacts, and the effect of grant size. This study demonstrates that cultural differences exist between scientific fields and also supports existing policy recommendations that encourage the creation of organizations and partnerships at university level to allow scientists to more easily participate in activities with broader impacts. Emphasizing broader impacts activities may also attract a more diverse scientific workforce, as many individuals do not pursue science because of a perceived lack of impact.
引用
收藏
页码:72 / 84
页数:13
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] Alpert C.L., 2009, Social Epistemology, V23, P267
  • [2] [Anonymous], REASSESSING SCI SOC
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2011, Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering
  • [4] Bush Vannevar., 1945, SCI THE ENDLESS FRON
  • [5] How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach
    Ecklund, Elaine Howard
    James, Sarah A.
    Lincoln, Anne E.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (05):
  • [6] NSF's Struggle to Articulate Relevance
    Frodeman, Robert
    Holbrook, J. Britt
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2011, 333 (6039) : 157 - 158
  • [7] Hill C., 2010, Why So Few ? Why So Few ? Technical report
  • [8] Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion
    Holbrook, J. Britt
    [J]. TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY, 2005, 27 (04) : 437 - 451
  • [9] Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts
    Holbrook, J. Britt
    Frodeman, Robert
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2011, 20 (03) : 239 - 246
  • [10] Intemann K., 2009, SOC EPISTEMOL, V23, P249, DOI DOI 10.1080/02691720903364134