Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts

Barry Bozeman, Craig Boardman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We provide a critical assessment of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) "broader impacts criterion" for peer review, which has met with resistance from the scientific community and been characterized as unlikely to have much positive effect due to poor implementation and adherence to the linear model heuristic for innovation. In our view, the weakness of NSF's approach owes less to these issues than to the misguided assumption that the peer review process can be used to leverage more societal value from research. This idea, although undoubtedly well-meaning, is fundamentally flawed. Retooling or refining the Broader Impacts Criterion does not alter the fact that conventional peer review, based on specialized scientific and technical expertise, is not up to the task of ensuring adequate judgements about social impact. We consider some possible alternative approaches to providing greater social impact in science and include in our assessment past and current efforts at NSF and throughout the federal research establishment that address, in some cases having addressed for decades, the intentions and goals of the Broader Impacts Criterion, albeit using alternate mechanisms. We conclude that institution-building and explicit and targeted policy-making are more useful and democratically legitimate approaches to ensuring broad social impacts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)183-198
Number of pages16
JournalSocial Epistemology
Volume23
Issue number3-4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

peer review
social effects
science
scientific community
linear model
heuristics
expertise
innovation
Broader Impacts
Peer Review
Values
National Science Foundation

Keywords

  • Broader Impacts
  • National Science Foundation
  • Peer Review
  • Science Policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Philosophy

Cite this

Broad impacts and narrow perspectives : Passing the buck on science and social impacts. / Bozeman, Barry; Boardman, Craig.

In: Social Epistemology, Vol. 23, No. 3-4, 07.2009, p. 183-198.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{abe6bfa76a414f62ba44f8d991186b25,
title = "Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts",
abstract = "We provide a critical assessment of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) {"}broader impacts criterion{"} for peer review, which has met with resistance from the scientific community and been characterized as unlikely to have much positive effect due to poor implementation and adherence to the linear model heuristic for innovation. In our view, the weakness of NSF's approach owes less to these issues than to the misguided assumption that the peer review process can be used to leverage more societal value from research. This idea, although undoubtedly well-meaning, is fundamentally flawed. Retooling or refining the Broader Impacts Criterion does not alter the fact that conventional peer review, based on specialized scientific and technical expertise, is not up to the task of ensuring adequate judgements about social impact. We consider some possible alternative approaches to providing greater social impact in science and include in our assessment past and current efforts at NSF and throughout the federal research establishment that address, in some cases having addressed for decades, the intentions and goals of the Broader Impacts Criterion, albeit using alternate mechanisms. We conclude that institution-building and explicit and targeted policy-making are more useful and democratically legitimate approaches to ensuring broad social impacts.",
keywords = "Broader Impacts, National Science Foundation, Peer Review, Science Policy",
author = "Barry Bozeman and Craig Boardman",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1080/02691720903364019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "183--198",
journal = "Social Epistemology",
issn = "0269-1728",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Broad impacts and narrow perspectives

T2 - Passing the buck on science and social impacts

AU - Bozeman, Barry

AU - Boardman, Craig

PY - 2009/7

Y1 - 2009/7

N2 - We provide a critical assessment of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) "broader impacts criterion" for peer review, which has met with resistance from the scientific community and been characterized as unlikely to have much positive effect due to poor implementation and adherence to the linear model heuristic for innovation. In our view, the weakness of NSF's approach owes less to these issues than to the misguided assumption that the peer review process can be used to leverage more societal value from research. This idea, although undoubtedly well-meaning, is fundamentally flawed. Retooling or refining the Broader Impacts Criterion does not alter the fact that conventional peer review, based on specialized scientific and technical expertise, is not up to the task of ensuring adequate judgements about social impact. We consider some possible alternative approaches to providing greater social impact in science and include in our assessment past and current efforts at NSF and throughout the federal research establishment that address, in some cases having addressed for decades, the intentions and goals of the Broader Impacts Criterion, albeit using alternate mechanisms. We conclude that institution-building and explicit and targeted policy-making are more useful and democratically legitimate approaches to ensuring broad social impacts.

AB - We provide a critical assessment of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) "broader impacts criterion" for peer review, which has met with resistance from the scientific community and been characterized as unlikely to have much positive effect due to poor implementation and adherence to the linear model heuristic for innovation. In our view, the weakness of NSF's approach owes less to these issues than to the misguided assumption that the peer review process can be used to leverage more societal value from research. This idea, although undoubtedly well-meaning, is fundamentally flawed. Retooling or refining the Broader Impacts Criterion does not alter the fact that conventional peer review, based on specialized scientific and technical expertise, is not up to the task of ensuring adequate judgements about social impact. We consider some possible alternative approaches to providing greater social impact in science and include in our assessment past and current efforts at NSF and throughout the federal research establishment that address, in some cases having addressed for decades, the intentions and goals of the Broader Impacts Criterion, albeit using alternate mechanisms. We conclude that institution-building and explicit and targeted policy-making are more useful and democratically legitimate approaches to ensuring broad social impacts.

KW - Broader Impacts

KW - National Science Foundation

KW - Peer Review

KW - Science Policy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=74249122915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=74249122915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02691720903364019

DO - 10.1080/02691720903364019

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:74249122915

VL - 23

SP - 183

EP - 198

JO - Social Epistemology

JF - Social Epistemology

SN - 0269-1728

IS - 3-4

ER -