Implementation of the National Science Foundation's “Broader Impacts”: Efficiency Considerations and Alternative Approaches
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 23 (3):221-237 (2011)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has, since 1997, attempted to diversify and enrich science research and education in the USA through the Broader Impacts Criterion (BIC), also known as “Criterion Two” or the “Second Criterion”. In doing so, NSF has so successfully integrated BIC into its discovery grant funding programmes that it has become difficult to assess the efficiency (in an economic sense) of BIC activities, as opposed to cataloguing its products (number of trainees, publications, etc.). Moreover, current practice at NSF requires that each and every Principal Investigator receiving a discovery grant address both Science, Technology, Engineering and Math activities and broader impacts, despite the fact that their formal training is most likely to be in only one of these areas. Against this backdrop, I consider NSF spending on broader impacts, conduct a microeconomic analysis of effectiveness of BIC expenditures, and discuss alternative funding models and Principal Investigator profiles and expertise sets that might not only accelerate the goals of expanding NSF's broader impact, but additionally enhance the quality of science funded by this agency
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jason Gallo (2009). The Discursive and Operational Foundations of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the History of the National Science Foundation. Perspectives on Science 17 (2):pp. 174-211.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman (2011). 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 downloads15 ( #227,010 of 1,790,148 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #319,627 of 1,790,148 )
How can I increase my downloads?