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

Civic Engagement, Graduate Education, and the Broader Impacts Criterion of the National Science Foundation

“…They could match existing research projects with identified needs, suggest new areas of research to meet identified needs, and, for interested researchers, facilitate interactions between knowledge producers and users that will inform both the design and communication of use-inspired research to enhance its utility. (p. 216) Model community-university partnerships facilitated by civic engagement centers already execute the list of activities identified by Roberts (2009). These centers and/or the well-developed community-university partnerships they facilitate are already serving as boundary organizations, albeit using a different approach, with community and university as co-researchers and co-creators of knowledge, in contrast to the paradigm of knowledge producers (universities) and users (community).…”

“…Investigators such as Holebrook & Frodeman (2007), Nadkarni & Stasch (2013), Roberts (2009), and others have sounded clarion calls for more robust ways to meet the BI criterion. While not usually naming the SLCE community specifically, some of these calls suggest potential "practice-based" improvements that are well-matched with the philosophies and best practices of the SLCE community.…”

“…Alternatively, Roberts (2009) proposes to use "boundary organizations" to meet the BI criterion, especially around dissemination efforts. She states, Unlike most university outreach offices and technology transfer offices, which communicate research results outward to unidentified users, a boundary organization for broad dissemination activities would promote the twoway flow of knowledge between the university and potential users -who may range from local businesses, nonprofit organizations, or governments to international groups.…”

“…First, only a fraction of investigators articulate the connection between their research and societal benefits. Roberts (2009) Roberts (2009) indicated that discussing potential benefits to society may not lead to actual societal benefits due to many factors, including expertise of researchers, dissemination issues, reward systems, and the merit review process. one hypothetical example would be a researcher conducting outreach activities for K-12 students; such activities may meet the BI criterion of NSF, but may not enrich the science education of K-12 students if they are poorly designed or executed.…”

Quantifying and Assessing Trends on the National Science Foundation's Broader Impact Criterion

“…Hallienn 15 also found there was a lack of feedback through NSF regarding the Broader Impact activities, suggesting through her findings that faculty required guidance, presumably from the agency, to help facilitate their Broader Impact strategies. Other concerns about the Broader Impacts criterion arose from Roberts 16 study highlighting that proposals overstate the potential societal benefits. The study points to the absence of a dissemination plan, suggesting that the research findings may only benefit the scientific community and by not going beyond this community the project may potentially fail to benefit society.…”