NSF broader impacts criterion
The examination of the nature of the peer review process, in particular NSF's implementation of the Broader Impacts Criterion (BIC) into the peer review of grant proposals beginning in 1997, is a major point of focus within CSID's research portfolio. CSID has the web's most extensive collection of resources examining the broader impacts criterion, as well as for helping researchers to address the broader impacts of their grant proposals.
See:
Articles on the Broader Impacts Criterion
Questions Surrounding the Broader Impacts Criterion
Advice on Addressing the Broader Impacts Criterion
Workshops on the Broader Impacts Criterion
What Scientists and Engineers are Saying about the Broader Impacts Criterion
Background
In 1997, the National Science Foundation (NSF) updated their merit review criteria, which are used to judge research proposals for the allocation of funds. Since the adoption of the new criteria, although the intellectual merit criterion has enjoyed general understanding, acceptance, and employment by the scientific community, reaction to the broader impacts criterion has been mixed. Initially, many proposers and reviewers simply ignored the broader impacts criterion altogether or assigned it little weight in their proposals or reviews: some suggested it was unclear, irrelevant, or even in conflict with the intellectual merit criterion.
Reaction from Congress was swift – in 1998 and again in 1999, Congress directed NSF to engage the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to examine and report on the “effectiveness” of the new criteria. Based in part on the findings and recommendations of the NAPA Report*, published in 2001, NSF has consistently moved to increase proposer and reviewer attention to the broader impacts criterion.** There remains considerable controversy about the larger meaning of this criterion and how it actually affects funding decisions. Somewhat more certain, however, is that researchers who can give an account of the larger societal benefits of their work stand a better chance of receiving funds than those unable or unwilling to do so. The two criteria with explanations are listed below:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
Click here to view NSF’s “ Important Notice: Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion”
Click here to view NSF’s suggestions for “Representative Activities” for satisfying the broader impacts criterion.