Assessing the Science -- Society Relation: The Case of the U.S. National Science Foundation's Second Merit Review Criterion

Technology in Society 27 (4):437--451 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact: The National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion and the Question of Peer Review.Robert Frodeman & Jonathan Parker - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):337-345.
Congress and NSF's ”Broader Impacts' Merit Review Criterion.J. Britt Holbrook - 2010 - In Usable Science: A Handbook for Science Policy Decision Makers. Science Policy Assessment and Research on Climate Change (Sparc). pp. 16.
Realizing Societal Benefit from Academic Research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion.Melanie R. Roberts - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):199-219.
Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion.Kristen Intemann - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):249-266.
Implementation of the National Science Foundation's “Broader Impacts”: Efficiency Considerations and Alternative Approaches.Warren W. Burggren - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):221-237.
The Role of the National Science Foundation Broader Impacts Criterion in Enhancing Research Ethics Pedagogy.Seth D. Baum, Michelle Stickler, James S. Shortle, Klaus Keller, Kenneth J. Davis, Donald A. Brown, Erich W. Schienke & Nancy Tuana - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):317-336.
Submission instructions, acknowledgment, and disclaimer.Submission Instructions - unknown
The discursive and operational foundations of the national nanotechnology initiative in the history of the national science foundation.Jason Gallo - 2009 - Perspectives on Science 17 (2):pp. 174-211.
The Dedisciplining of Peer Review.Robert Frodeman & Adam Briggle - 2012 - Minerva 50 (1):3-19.
Merit: The History of a Founding Ideal From the American Revolution to the Twenty-First Century.Joseph F. Kett - 2012 - Cornell University Press.
Equity and Excellence in Research Funding.Diana Hicks & J. Sylvan Katz - 2011 - Minerva 49 (2):137-151.
Reconstructed Science as Philosophical Evidence.Nancy L. Maull - 1976 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:119-129.
National Science Foundation Patronage of Social Science, 1970s and 1980s: Congressional Scrutiny, Advocacy Network, and the Prestige of Economics. [REVIEW]Tiago Mata & Tom Scheiding - 2012 - Minerva 50 (4):423-449.
Scientific realism and the stratagema de divide et impera.Timothy D. Lyons - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (3):537-560.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-08-21

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

James Holbrook
Georgia Institute of Technology

Citations of this work

The Moral Terrain of Science.Heather Douglas - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (S5):1-19.
New Directions in Interdisciplinarity: Broad, Deep, and Critical.Carl Mitcham & Robert Frodeman - 2007 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 27 (6):506-514.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references