Social Epistemology 23 (3):183-198 (2011)
|Abstract||We provide a critical assessment of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) “broader impacts criterion” for peer review, which has met with resistance from the scientific community and been characterized as unlikely to have much positive effect due to poor implementation and adherence to the linear model heuristic for innovation. In our view, the weakness of NSF's approach owes less to these issues than to the misguided assumption that the peer review process can be used to leverage more societal value from research. This idea, although undoubtedly well-meaning, is fundamentally flawed. Retooling or refining the Broader Impacts Criterion does not alter the fact that conventional peer review, based on specialized scientific and technical expertise, is not up to the task of ensuring adequate judgements about social impact. We consider some possible alternative approaches to providing greater social impact in science and include in our assessment past and current efforts at NSF and throughout the federal research establishment that address, in some cases having addressed for decades, the intentions and goals of the Broader Impacts Criterion, albeit using alternate mechanisms. We conclude that institution-building and explicit and targeted policy-making are more useful and democratically legitimate approaches to ensuring broad social impacts|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bruce J. MacFadden (2011). Training the Next Generation of Scientists About Broader Impacts. Social Epistemology 23 (3):239-248.
Robert Frodeman & Adam Briggle (2012). The Dedisciplining of Peer Review. Minerva 50 (1):3-19.
Kristen Intemann (2011). Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23 (3):249-266.
Carol Lynn Alpert (2011). Broadening and Deepening the Impact: A Theoretical Framework for Partnerships Between Science Museums and STEM Research Centres. Social Epistemology 23 (3):267-281.
Robert Frodeman & Jonathan Parker (2009). Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact: The National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion and the Question of Peer Review. Social Epistemology 23 (3):337-345.
Robert Frodeman & Jonathan Parker (2011). Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact: The National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion and the Question of Peer Review. Social Epistemology 23 (3):337-345.
Seth D. Baum, Michelle Stickler, James S. Shortle, Klaus Keller, Kenneth J. Davis, Donald A. Brown, Erich W. Schienke & Nancy Tuana (2011). The Role of the National Science Foundation Broader Impacts Criterion in Enhancing Research Ethics Pedagogy. Social Epistemology 23 (3):317-336.
Warren W. Burggren (2011). Implementation of the National Science Foundation's “Broader Impacts”: Efficiency Considerations and Alternative Approaches. Social Epistemology 23 (3):221-237.
Melanie R. Roberts (2011). Realizing Societal Benefit From Academic Research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23 (3):199-219.
Barry Bozeman & Craig Boardman (2009). Broad Impacts and Narrow Perspectives: Passing the Buck on Science and Social Impacts. Social Epistemology 23 (3):183-198.
Added to index2010-07-27
Total downloads5 ( #160,518 of 549,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?