Realizing Societal Benefit from Academic Research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion

Abstract

The National Science Foundation (NSF) evaluates grant proposals based on two criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. NSF gives applicants wide latitude to choose among a number of broader impacts, which include both benefits for the scientific community and benefits for society. This paper considers whether including potential societal benefits in the Broader Impacts Criterion leads to enhanced benefits for society. One prerequisite for realizing societal benefit is to transfer research results to potential users in a meaningful format. To determine whether researchers who discuss broader impacts for society are more likely to engage in broad dissemination activities beyond the scientific publication, I analysed proposed broader impacts statements from recent award abstracts. Although 43% of researchers discussed potential benefits for society, those researchers were no more likely to propose dissemination of results to potential users than researchers who only discussed broader impacts for science. These findings suggest that considering potential societal benefit as a broader impact may not lead to more actual societal benefits and that many potentially useful results may not be disseminated beyond the scientific community. I conclude with policy recommendations that could increase the likelihood of realizing potential societal benefits from academic research.

Keywords:

• Broader Impacts
• Societal Benefit of Science
• Public Dissemination
• Scientific Partnerships
• Use‐inspired Research
• Linear Model of Science

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Roger Pielke, Jr, and Edward Hackett for insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, and to NSF historian Mark Rothberg for discussing the history of NSF’s merit review criteria.

Notes

[1] Available from http://mynew.asu.edu/use-inspired-research; INTERNET.

[2] The National Science Board is NSF’s independent oversight board. The President nominates and the Senate and confirms Board members to six‐year terms.

[3] Private communication with Mark Rothberg, NSF historian.

[4] Available from www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf; INTERNET.

[5] Available from www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf; INTERNET.

[6] Available from http://www.dimensionresearch.com/resources/calculators/ztest.html; INTERNET.

[7] According to Dr Kathy Olsen, Deputy Director of NSF, 325 proposals were returned without review (out of 28,676 proposals) in 2005. Advisory Committee for Geosciences, 4–6 October 2006.

[8] Section 7010: Reporting of Research Results. Public Law 110‐69, signed 9 August 2007.

[9] The Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity has a collection of links to both top‐down and bottom‐up approaches to BIC. Available from http://www.csid.unt.edu/topics/bestpractices.html; INTERNET.

[10] April 2008. Full text available from http://www.nsf.gov/attachments/111504/public/USAID-NSF-MOU-signed-version.doc; INTERNET.