David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 23 (3):183-198 (2009)
We provide a critical assessment of the National Science Foundation's “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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Andrew Pickering (ed.) (1992). Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago Press.
Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar (1982). Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 13 (1):166-170.
Barry Bozeman & Daniel Sarewitz (2011). Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation. Minerva 49 (1):1-23.
Michael Polanyi (1962). The Republic of Science. Minerva 1 (1):54-73.
Alvin M. Weinberg (1972). Science and Trans-Science. Minerva 10 (2):209-222.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert Frodeman & Adam Briggle (2012). The Dedisciplining of Peer Review. Minerva 50 (1):3-19.
Similar books and articles
Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman (2011). Broad Impacts and Narrow Perspectives: Passing the Buck on Science and Social Impacts. Social Epistemology 23 (3):183-198.
Pekka Väyrynen (2006). Resisting the Buck-Passing Account of Value. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 1. Oxford University Press 295-324.
Guy Fletcher (2012). Resisting Buck-Passing Accounts of Prudential Value. Philosophical Studies 157 (1):77-91.
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.
S. Matthew Liao (2010). The Buck-Passing Account of Value: Lessons From Crisp. Philosophical Studies 151 (3):421 - 432.
Matthew Kearnes & Matthias Wienroth (2011). Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts. [REVIEW] Minerva 49 (2):153-174.
Bruce J. MacFadden (2011). Training the Next Generation of Scientists About Broader Impacts. Social Epistemology 23 (3):239-248.
Johan Brännmark (2008). Excellence and Means: On the Limits of Buck-Passing. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 42 (3):301-315.
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.
Jussi Suikkanen (2005). Reasons and Value – in Defence of the Buck-Passing Account. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (5):513 - 535.
Karla Utting (2009). Assessing the Impact of Fair Trade Coffee: Towards an Integrative Framework. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 86 (1):127 - 149.
Warren W. Burggren (2011). Implementation of the National Science Foundation's “Broader Impacts”: Efficiency Considerations and Alternative Approaches. Social Epistemology 23 (3):221-237.
Francesco Orsi (2013). What's Wrong with Moorean Buck-Passing? Philosophical Studies 164 (3):727-746.
Francesco Orsi (2006). Naturalism and the Buck-Passing Account of Value. Philosophical Writings 32 (2):58-77.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads5 ( #529,094 of 1,934,701 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,264 of 1,934,701 )
How can I increase my downloads?