Broadening and Deepening the Impact: A Theoretical Framework for Partnerships between Science Museums and STEM Research Centres

Abstract

The requirement by the National Science Foundation (NSF) that research proposals include plans for “broader impact” activities to foster connections between Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) research and service to society has been controversial since it was first introduced. A chief complaint is that the requirement diverts time and resources from the focus of research and toward activities for which researchers may not be well prepared. This paper describes the theoretical framework underlying a new strategy to pair NSF‐funded nano research centres with science museums in order to achieve greater success in the broader impact mission, and to transform the perceived burden of the requirement into an opportunity to provide enhanced value to the constituencies of the partnering organizations, as well as to the larger community. This partnership approach is presented as a model that also can be applied to NSF‐funded research centres in other STEM fields, and to non‐NSF‐funded STEM research centres nevertheless looking to pursue broader impacts types of activities. The model also provides an opportunity to stretch the typical spectrum of broader impacts activities to include citizen engagement in science, technology and societal concerns.

Keywords:

• Partnerships
• Science Museums
• Research Centres
• Education
• Nanotechnology
• Broader Impacts

Notes

[1] See the NSF grant proposal guide and NSF merit review Broader Impacts Criterion documents cited above as well as the NSF “Dear Colleagues” letters, such as NSF 07046 and NSF 08062. Available from www.nsf.gov; INTERNET.

[2] The author was invited to be part of a site visit panel for the review of a large NSF Science and Technology Center in 2008; this was probably due to the fact that I had recently given a talk on effective partnerships for education outreach at an NSF meeting of research directors and programme officers; I know of only one other similar example.

[3] As recounted in the source cited, it is not unusual for science museums to receive calls for letters of support for a STEM research proposal, due within a day or two, and promising some kind of lecture or outreach event, with no budget allocated and little opportunity for discussion as to what might be the most effective format or venue (Crone 2006).

[4] See The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, developed by the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee of the Committee on Technology of the National Science and Technology Council (2004), and The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 2005).

[5] Email communication from J. B. Holbrook, 18 September 2009: “… ELSI was a kind of accident (Watson declared that they planned to devote 3–5% of the Human Genome Project budget to the project’s ethical, legal, and societal aspects at a press conference when he was pressed by reporters). So, unlike NNI, ELSI wasn’t pre‐planned.” For an account of this incident, see Marshall (1996). For a discussion of distinctions between the Ethics, Legal, and Social Implications programme and plans for the NNI, see Fisher (2005).

[6] The Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is a good place to start investigating these controversies. Available from www.nanotechproject.org; INTERNET.

[7] See www.nano.gov (INTERNET) for a lay‐out of all the current centres and networks.