IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2012i1p72-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Julia R. Kamenetzky

Abstract

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. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia R. Kamenetzky, 2012. "Opportunities for impact: Statistical analysis of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 72-84, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2012:i:1:p:72-84
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs059
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2012:i:1:p:72-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.